What's Up? - 27 Feb 2016

What's Coming Up?

I have many thoughts as I read through the information packet to prepare for the upcoming Council meetings. I share these thoughts hear so that the people I'm representing know where I'm at going into these meetings. I hope that this provides you with an opportunity to provide me with meaningful feedback to help me know your desires. Please email me or comment below or on the Facebook or Twitter.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 01, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation and discussion with Claudia O'Grady and Jonathon Hanks of Utah Housing Corporation. (16-030) I am looking forward to this presentation and discussion. Concerns have been raised about impact the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has had on the distribution of low income housing in our city and county, specifically that the LIHTC program may be contributing to the concentration of low income housing in areas of our city.
   
   In the Joint Council Meeting with the Orem City Council, we explored why none of the development in their core is using this financing whereas so much of our core development is using LIHTC. One thing that struck me was a map showing that outside of a small sliver in Orem, all of the LIHTC eligible areas in the county are in Provo.
2. A presentation and report from the Administration regarding the 25 fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118) I've been supportive of much of the aims of the Council Budget Committee, and appreciate the efforts they have given in assisting the Council. I don't think that Consolidated Fee Schedule (i.e. User Fees) review has had the intended outcome. I worry that a lot of time and effort has been expended with little impact. I think that the focus on User Fees should have been on the broader Cost of Services vs. Service Benefits. It's the cost/benefit analysis that can help us drive value.
3. A discussion on the mission statement created for the Ad Hoc Housing Committee. (16-018) Two weeks ago this committee was formed. The staff had recommended the following mission statement:
   "The purpose of the ad-hoc Provo Municipal Council Housing Committee is:
   1. To discuss and study the issues relative to housing in Provo City.
   2. To make a recommendation on the problem(s) that needs addressing.
   3. To recommend outcome policy statements that the Council could consider that articulate the outcomes the city hopes to produce relative to housing, which may eventually result in the preparation of policy amendments to the general plan, ordinances, and budgets."
   The new Committee members wanted to discuss and come back with their own proposed mission statement. They are now proposing this:
   1. "Understanding what characteristics meet the tenets of a balanced and healthy neighborhood that promote owner occupancy and long-term residency; and
   2. How best to proactively address housing issues county-wide by engaging surrounding cities, the school board, housing advocates, and other experts."
   I think the first mission statement is fairly broad and general. It reflects the work that has already been started and the plan that was developed by Staff when this priority was first raised by the former Council last year. The newly proposed mission statement is much more specific and focused. Notice how the concerns I discussed in Item 1 above fits into the second part. You can also see how "balanced and healthy neighborhoods" could be one of "the issues relative to housing in Provo City" and promoting "owner occupancy and long-term residency" could be one of the recommended "outcome policy statements". But a lot of other things could also fit into the first mission statement. In my view, the first mission statement says, "we are going to study the topic generally and decide what needs to be addressed," whereas the second mission statement says, "these are the issues we will address." I think there are Pros and Cons to each. The scope of the first may be too broad, and the scope of the second may be too narrow. I know there are housing issues that I am concerned about that aren't addressed in the second statement, such as: *What is the current market demand for various housing types? *How well are we providing these housing types? *What is the long range impact of providing these housing types?
4. A follow-up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015) I think the Council is satisfied with the 9 priorities that we have already adopted. I assume this discussion will mostly revolve around deciding how to begin addressing the priorities.
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process. (16-023) Councilman Stewart requested this item and has provided a document for the discussion. This item was continued with out discussion from the last work session because we were behind schedule, but the document was handed out in paper form then. I assume that it was an oversight that the document was not included with our packets either this time or last. The document is an Administrative Directive regarding the Development Review Process. I don't know what the direction of the discussion will be, but I am grateful that the document was brought to my attention because it will help me in my continued efforts on the Development Approval Process  (DAP) Review Committee.
6. A discussion regarding an ordinance change proposal to remove timing restrictions from General Plan amendment requests. (16-027) We worked on this on the DAP Review Committee. When reviewing the ordinance to address the timing restrictions, a couple of other potential modifications were identified, including neighborhood meeting requirements. I believe we have a good proposal for these related tweaks. I also believe we have crafted a solid proposal to remove the timing restrictions, if that is the Council's will.
   
   I am still torn on this item. I believe the timing restrictions are only a problem because we are not properly using our General Plan. But instead of fixing how we use our General Plan, we are removing the timing restrictions. It was suggested that we could remove the timing restrictions now, and then consider bringing them back when we have revised the General Plan. I'm not convinced that this is the best plan.
7. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred from the Planning Commission to Work Meeting Agenda. (16-020) We addressed this in the Council Rules Committee and are recommending a small tweak to the internal policy that doesn't change the practice, but adds clarity for proper expectations.
8. A discussion on the status of infrastructure on the west side of Provo as it relates to future development. (16-031) Providing adequate infrastructure is one reason why it is so important to have a clear and thoughtful vision for the future of our City. We need to decide how we want our west side to develop so that we can have a plan in place to appropriately serve and provide. I am interested in what I will learn from this presentation and discussion.
9. A discussion on the proposed 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033) 
1.  2016-17 CDBG Funding Recommendations
2.  2016-17 HOME Funding Recommendations
CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. The CDBG Social Services Committee has two recommendations: one that uses 15% of the grant and one that uses 12.5% of the grant. With the bulk of the remainder, it looks like it comes down to a choice between funding Foothill Park or the 200 East Bikeway. The recommendation is for the Bikeway. I recommend reviewing the proposals if you would like to provide feedback.
10.  A discussion on the consideration of the transfer of property in downtown Provo to further the goals of the Redevelopment Agency. (16-034) This is a huge positive step for Downtown Provo. Some of the particulars have been previously announced or hinted at, but the agreements are now ready to sign that will bring a new court house (4th district), a new hotel (Hyatt House), and a new public college campus (MATC) to our Downtown! I feel that each of these developments will be a welcome addition that fits in well with our vision.
11.  Closed Meeting

COUNCIL Meeting 

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 01, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A proclamation on Radon Awareness - Utah County Health Be aware. Be very aware.
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month Award for the Month of February 2016 - Aaron Davenport, Water Reclamation  I love this feature. We have some amazing city employees.
3. Public Comment
4. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $40,000 in the Mountain Vista Fund for various expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-026) From the information packet: "The primary purpose of this request is to fund initiatives including a partnership with the Utah Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, BYU TV, and the Utah State Office of Travel and Tourism to pursue an advertising campaign targeted to the nationwide BYU TV view audience to return and visit Provo and Utah Valley. The desired outcome is tourist spending in our area and the potential relocation for employment. An additional purpose is to use the money and work with a wetland consultant who is attempting to reduce the amount of existing wetlands at the Mountain Vista Business Center. For every acre removed from wetland jurisdictional determination gives them the ability to make more land available to be sold and developed for capital investment and job creation purposes."
   
   We discussed this in our last Work Meeting. My only remaining question is, is it in our best interest to reduce the amount of land designated as wetlands. I assume the answer will be that the land was designated generally and that some non-wetland area was included and that a more detail study is necessary to reclaim some of the usable, non-wetlands. BUT I want to make sure we unwisely developing on sensitive land.
5. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to Sanitation Fees charged at the Compost Yard. (16-029) Take a look at the information packet for reason behind this proposal. I think there may be a mistake in the description because the program would only be for residents, though others could purchase the product. Also a "load" makes sense for a drop off unit, but I don't think it makes sense to sell it by the load. Perhaps "yard" meaning a cubic yard should be used.
6. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024) Before the old plant was torn down, UMPA operated a power plant in a building that it leased from Provo. After the campus is rebuilt, UMPA will operate a power plant in a building it owns on land that it leases from Provo.
7. A resolution authorizing the transfer of property in downtown Provo. (16-034) See item 10 from the Work Meeting agenda
8. A public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Franklin Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0003GPA) I'm a bit surprised to see this back before the Council after only a month. I hope that Community Development was able to adequately meet with residents and address their concerns. I still have concerns over adopting a plan that contains a future zoning map that conflicts with a future zoning map that was adopted a year ago or so. Should we modify the Downtown Master Plan at the same time so that there isn't this discrepancy? If we are trying to clearly communicate, it won't help to have two recent maps saying two different things. Also, I'm still not settled with having single family detached designated for the properties that face 500 W. Some of the lots are already being used for multi-family housing. I fear that instead of redeveloping into single family detached homes, this zoning will just prevent redevelopment from occurring. On the Council we've been talking about the "missing middle" of housing options, listening to market demand, and allowing for different housing types and mixed use where they make sense. Where makes more sense than along 500 W?
9. An ordinance amending Section 1.01.010 (Title - Effect on Prior Legislation) and Section 1.01.020 (Citation) of the Provo City Code, and revising, codifying, and compiling the general ordinances of Provo City. (16-028) This is a book-keeping item, finalizing the 2016 version of the Code book.

What's Up? - 20 Feb 2016

What Was Up? 

Council Work Meeting

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 16, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the creation of an ad hoc housing committee. (16-018) Council Member David Harding moved to have Kay Van Buren, David Knecht and Kim Santiago be on the Ad Hoc Housing Committee with Kay Van Buren appointed as Chair, and for the committee to report back in two weeks with their proposed mission statement for Council action and a timeframe for the work on it. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.We agreed that it would be up to the Committee to decide which 'Citizen Advisers' to bring in, when, and how often.
   A study of Housing Policy was a priority for the previous Council and has been identified as a continuing priority by the current Council. There is a concern that our City policies and practices are not producing the housing outcomes we desire. The formation of a Council Housing Committee is the next step in the plan of action laid out near the end of last year.
2. A follow-up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015) Zoning Compliance: Council Member George Stewart moved that staff research legislative options and include anything that has been discussed today. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.The question was: what are the next steps in addressing this priority. The Administration is developing a plan to address zoning compliance with the tools that they have. The Council will look into how we can address it through legislative action. Our first step will be to ask our Staff to research options and best practices.Development approval Process – In committee. We have held our first committee meeting, and will have our second coming up this week. We have also visited with a few stake holders outside of the committee meetings. I am very optimistic about the fruits of this effort.General Plan Update: Council Member Gary Winterton moved to refer the General Plan update to the Governance Committee and to review all the issues that have been raised today. Also, looking at how it was updated historically. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0. It would be hard to over-emphasize how important the General Plan Update will be. I am not on the Governance Committee, but I'll be communicating with them my ideas for how it should be structured.Economic Development: A proposed committee will take up this issue.
   
   Budgeting to Priorities: Council Member Kim Santiago moved to send this priority to the Budget Committee. After review with Mayor Curtis, the Budget Committee will come back with an outline on the budget priorities and what types of documents will be requested from Administration. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0. I'm looking forward to hearing back from the Budget Committee on this issue. I'm struggling to understand the scope of this priority and hope they can provide some clarity. I'm intrigued by priority based budgeting principles and am interested in exploring if they should be implemented by Provo City, and if so, what is the best way to transition into a new system.Civic Engagement: Council Member David Harding moved for the Council to approve inclusion of another council priority titled Civic Engagement and that Dave Harding will create a priority sheet for it that incorporates the four aspects which are general communication, group outreach, engagement tools and public participation. It will then be passed off to Council staff for inclusion. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. 7:0. After some discussion, and counsel from Wayne Parker, it was obvious that the Council wanted to limit the scope and quantity of adopted priorities. I hope that we will be able to move through and accomplish many of these priorities quickly so that we can address some of the remaining proposed priorities. After reviewing the previously adopted priorities, I felt like the one area that was missing was public engagement. I proposed that we roll a few similar proposed priorities into one and add it to the list of adopted priorities.This item is continued to the March 1, 2016 Work Meeting.We'll spend more time at our next Work Meeting developing plans to address our priorities.
3. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process. (16-023) Continued to March 1, 2016 Work Meeting.Councilor Stewart wanted to help us make up some time after our last discussion went long, and he wanted us to have more time to read the material he provided.
4. A discussion regarding an ordinance change proposal to remove timing restrictions from General Plan amendment requests. (16-027) Council Member Gary Winterton moved this item to the Development Approval Process Committee to analyze the number of days allotted for a neighborhood meeting to be held, to review the changes made by Brian Jones and move on to the Planning Commission. Approved 7:0.I was able to voice my concern that we may be addressing a symptom rather than a root problem. I believe the consensus on the Council is to take care of this now and then we can revisit it as the Development Approval Review and General Plan Update efforts address the larger problems. We spent some time also discussing the neighborhood chair's role in this process.
5. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred to the Planning Commission to Work meeting Agenda. (16-020) This item was continued to the March 1, 2016 Work Meeting.Still playing catch up with the agenda.
6. A discussion on a budget appropriation request of $40,000 from the Economic Development Department to fund various initiatives within the department. (16-026) Council Member George Stewart made a motion to continue this item to the March 1, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.I believe everyone on the Council felt comfortable with this request. We voted to move it to the next step, which is having the item come before the Council in a regular Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute all agreements regarding the implementation of Provo 360 which is a city-wide software solution. (16-021) This item to be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.I believe that Ms. Santiago read through most, if not all of the three related contracts. I skimmed through them, but I do not feel like I could independently verify that the vendor the Administration selected and negotiated with is the best option. What I was able to do, based on the information that was presented, was to feel comfortable that they City had gone through a robust process to evaluate the different proposals and make their selection.
8. A discussion on the UMPA/Provo City Power Plant Property Lease Agreement. (16-024) Council Member George Stewart made a motion to continue this item to the March 1, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Kay Van Buren. Approved 7:0.Before the old plant was torn down, UMPA operated a power plant in a building that it leased from Provo. After the campus is rebuilt, UMPA will operate a power plant in a building it owns on land that it leases from Provo.
9. Closed Meeting. A closed meeting was held.

Council Meeting

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 16, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation from the Covey Center - The Andrews Brothers The show must go on! I believe that is the premise of this musical, and the principle was demonstrated by the actors when they ran into technical difficulties. I'm looking forward to the show.
2. A proclamation to Eureka City Boy Scout Month, Provo Troop 51. Provo Troop 51 is the oldest active scout troop in the state and is celebrating its 100th birthday. It was originally organized in Eureka, but soon moved to Provo, where it is now sponsored by our local Elks Lodge.
3. Public Comment I don't think I'll be commenting on the Public Comment portion too often, but one resident shared his thoughts this time which lead to a lengthy discussion among the Council. This resident was concerned that the Council was not being inclusive in our deliberative process.
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute all agreements regarding the implementation of Provo 360 which is a city-wide software solution. (16-021) Approved 7:0.See my commentary on this item above when we heard it in the Work Meeting

Transportation, Transit, Proposition 1, and HB 215

Open Response to Commissioner Bill Lee's Request for Input

Utah County Commissioner Bill Lee sent an email to city councilors in the county discussing HB 215 and asking for our input. This is an issue that many in our District feel strongly about, on both sides of the question. I imagine that some of you would be interested as well in the thoughts that I shared with Commissioner Lee, so I am posting them below. I should note that they are fairly similar to what I expressed in a letter to the editor that I wrote about a year ago that was published in the Herald, Deseret News, and Tribune. (I linked to the Tribune because they published it in full.)

As always, I invite your feedback, either by email, in the comment section below, on Facebook, or Twitter.

Commissioner Lee,

Thank you for reaching out to council members across our county on this topic. The funding of our transportation system is an important issue on the state, county, and local level.

To answer your question, yes, I agree with the ULCT position, decided on by its Legislative Policy Committee, and articulated by Cameron Diehl. The way I see it, we have serious challenges facing our county and local transportation systems, and it would be irresponsible to try to address it solely by funding our roads. I don't see funding UTA as coming at the expense of our cities, but as a way to support our cities with a regional transit system that can't be built by the cities in isolation.

I believe that UTA has been very effective in establishing the roots of the robust transit system that we will need more and more as our county grows. Unfortunately, UTA has also exhibited some significant lapses in ethics and judgment which has undermined the public's trust in the organization. I feel that much of the opposition to Proposition 1 is attributable to this lack of trust. But the failings of UTA does not diminish our need to build a viable transit system (if we want to maintain our quality of life and the usability of our roads as our county population blooms). Instead of turning our backs on mass transit, we need to demand more accountability from UTA and support the efforts by new UTA Board Chair H. David  Burton and the new board members to change the culture and to hold it to the highest ethical standards, in order to win back the public's trust.

As you requested, I am sharing my thoughts with you, I am expressing my thoughts to Cameron Diehl (by copying him on this email), and I am contacting my state representatives (who are also copied). I will also be active on this issue in the interim. I acknowledge that not all of my fellow council members, nor constituents for that matter, will agree with me on this issue.

Thanks again for reaching out to us, and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
David Harding
District 5 Councilor
Provo Municipal Council

On 02/18/2016 06:43 PM, Bill Lee wrote:

Dear City Council Members,

With the defeat of Proposition 1 last year, many have asked, "Now what?"

This year Rep. Brian Greene ran a bill (HB 215) to change some of what was concerning to many in our county. HB 215 would give more local control to the cities by changing the allocation formula of the proposed 4th quarter-cent sales tax so that 80% of the revenue would go to the cities and 20% to the county. (Contrast this with Proposition 1, which would distribute the money as follows: 40% to the cities, 40% to UTA, and 20% to the county.) As you can see, HB 215 would give the cities twice as much revenue as Proposition 1. HB 215 also provides tremendous flexibility by allowing cities to give a portion of their sales tax revenue to UTA if they so choose.

Here is the concern I have. Last week, I attended the legislative committee hearing on HB 215, expressed my concerns for more local control, and asked that this bill be heard on the House floor. We had a county commissioner, a mayor, and a citizen there to speak in favor of the bill. On the other hand, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) were there to speak against the bill. Cameron Diehl from the ULCT spoke against the greater funding and local control that HB 215 would provide. According to Cameron, Proposition 1 is some sort of grand bargain agreement that was made by special interest groups, and the legislature should not tinker with it even though voters in many counties (including Utah and Salt Lake Counties) rejected it.

Unfortunately, HB 215 did not make it out of committee.

Here is my question: As city council members, do you share Cameron's opinion that you do not want to change Proposition 1 even though it was so soundly defeated in our county? Do you agree with him that you do not want your cities to receive double the amount of revenue that HB 215 provides? In my view, we have serious road issues that need to be addressed, but trying to make counties fit a one-size-fits-all "grand bargain" that funds UTA at the expense of our cities does not make any sense.

If you would like to see HB 215 brought back in the future, here are a few things that you can do. First, call Cameron Diehl and express your thoughts; his office number is ###-###-####, his cell is ###-###-####, and his email is cdiehl@ulct.org. Second, please let me know what your thoughts are on this issue; my cell number is ###-###-####, and my email is WilliamL@utahcounty.gov. Third, talk with your state representatives; remember, most Utah County legislators voted against the bill last year (HB 362) that created Proposition 1. Fourth, it's going to be really hard to pull this back up during this legislative session, so we all need to be active on this issue in the interim.

Thank you for all that you are doing. Feel free to contact me at any time.

Best regards,

Bill Lee
Commissioner
Utah County

P.S. I showed this email to Commissioner Graves as well before sending it out, and he expressed that he agrees with the sentiments I have shared here. Please also reach out to him on this issue at gregg@utahcounty.gov or at ###-###-####.

What's Up? - 13 Feb 2016

• I'm still working to set up a framework to communicate effectively and efficiently with constituents and other stake holders of District 5. I'm grateful for the help of Karen Tapahe, who is the Council's Community Relations Coordinator. The plan this time will be for this blog-based update to go out to a budding email list, the District's Facebook group, and on Twitter.

What's Coming Up?

See the Public Docs Howto for tips on getting more information on these topics.

Council Work Meeting

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 16, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the creation of an ad hoc housing committee. (16-018) A study of Housing Policy was a priority for the previous Council and has been identified as a continuing priority by the current Council. There is a concern that our City policies and practices are not producing the housing outcomes we desire. The formation of a Council Housing Committee is the next step in the plan of action laid out near the end of last year.
   A supporting document includes a list of citizens who have been recommended to assist the Committee. (I've had difficulties in the past with SIRE links changing frequently, so if that link is broken, you can always get to it by following these instructions.) I invite you to look over the suggestions, if you are interested in this topic. Feel free to contact me if you have thoughts on the suggestions or if you have a person that you would like us to consider. I also welcome feedback on the proposed "Mission Statement".
2. A follow-up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015) I've put a lot of time and effort into the process of defining Council Priorities. There were a variety of approaches suggested, and I proposed a way to structure our priorities. It looks like we will be taking a hybrid approach. Last Work Meeting we selected 8 priorities, which took a long time to discuss and tweak, so we opted to wait until the 16^th to discuss the rest. There were 25 priorities (or projects) proposed by Councilors. Some wanted to combine related priorities, I advocated for keeping them focused and specific. I am fine with selecting a large number of priorities, and then working on a few at a time. Now it appears that the Council is leaning towards capping our priorities to ten, and if that is the way that we are going to structure them, perhaps it would be better to bundle the similar projects.
   If the Council doesn't select all of my particular priorities, I'm looking for a way to publicly list them and track any progress that is made on them.
3. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process. (16-023)
4. A discussion regarding an ordinance change proposal to remove timing restrictions from General Plan amendment requests. (16-027) There is no "Item Description" for this one, as there are for the others, so I wonder if the above item was accidentally separated from item 3.
   While I am not specifically against eliminating the time restrictions for General Plan Amendments, I worry that we are treating the symptom rather than the underlying illness with this item. It doesn't make sense to have time restrictions on General Plan Amendments if the General Plan is being used like a redundant zoning map. But what is the proper solution, eliminate the time restrictions or fix the way we use the General Plan? Several Council Priorities and potential priorities should address the way we structure our City Vision and our City Policy. I think that the question of time restrictions would be best answered when these issues are addressed holistically.
5. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred to the Planning Commission to Work meeting Agenda. (16-020) I am on the Council Rules Committee, and for this item we will be discussing the Committee's recommendation regarding the placement of land use items directly on the Work and Council Meeting agendas. The Pros of automatically adding land use items to the agendas is that applications and proposals can be streamlined and can get an answer quicker. The Cons include the Council feeling obligated to consider all agenda items regardless of whether there has been enough time to prepare, or even if there is an abnormally large number of agenda items that may push the meetings to go very long. If the Council chooses to continue items, there is the potential for the public to show up to a meeting expecting an item to be addressed that will be continued to another meeting with or without any discussion. We feel that the Committee's recommendation is a good compromise, so that items can be heard in a timely manner, but that there is a clear and understood way to continue items that need more time which lessens the impact on the public.
6. A discussion on a budget appropriation request of $40,000 from the Economic Development Department to fund various initiatives within the department. (16-026) This is an area of Council duties that I am still getting familiar with. I don't have any specific concerns, but many questions. I am looking forward to having these questions answered as I listen to the presentation and have the chance to ask questions afterward. I'm glad that we will have time after the Work Meeting before we vote on this. If you are interested or have concerns about this item, I invite you to attend the meeting, or view the recording afterward and then give me you feedback.
7. A discussion on a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute all agreements regarding the implementation of Provo 360 which is a city-wide software solution. (16-021) This is a much larger item than the previous one, and one that I feel the weight of trying to review. I believe that we need a new, more integrated system. Based on what I've heard, this new system will be a benefit to the residents of Provo, the providers of City services, and the managers and officials of the City. It will help us to be more efficient and effective, and will allow us to better evaluate the impact of our efforts. But how can I verify everything that I'm being told? How can I properly fulfill my role of oversight and appropriation? We are being given access to a lot of information, but I feel inadequate to make in independent assessment. I guess I'll be doing my best to get up to speed on it, and will rely on the expertise of other Councilors and our Administration. Like always, I welcome feedback from you. We are scheduled to hear this item later in the evening at our Council Meeting.
8. A discussion on the UMPA/Provo City Power Plant Property Lease Agreement. (16-024) This one looks pretty straight forward. UMPA operates a power plant at our current Power Complex and wants to continue to operate one after the complex is rebuilt.
9. Administrative Updates
10. Closed Meeting

Council Meeting

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 16, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation from the Covey Center -  The Andrews Brothers
2. A proclamation to Eureka City Boy Scout Month, Provo Troop 51.
3. Public Comment
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute all agreements regarding the implementation of Provo 360 which is a city-wide software solution. (16-021) See my description of this item in our Work Session.

What Was Up? 

Council Work Meeting

1:00 PM, Tuesday, February 02, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding a proposed resolution appropriating $97,000 in the Engineering Capital Improvement Fund for lighting and landscape improvements on 300 South applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-016) This item to be heard at tonight’s meeting.[This item will be discussed below.]
2. A follow up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015) Approved to adopt first 8 priorities discussed today. The next 17 priorities will be discussed at the February 16, 2016 Work Meeting.[This item was discussed above.]
3. Discussion comparing Council goals and priorities to the Mayor's goals and priorities. (16-019)
   Continued to February 16, 2016 Work Meeting.
4. A discussion on ad hoc housing committee (16-018)
   Continued to February 16, 2016 Work Meeting.[This item was discussed above.]
5. Council Rules Policy Evaluation: Items Referred to the Planning Commission to Work meeting Agenda (16-020)
   This item referred to the Rules Committee.[This item was discussed above.]
6. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.
   I could tell you, but then I'd have to...be indicted for breaking state law.

Council Meeting

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 02, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $97,000 in the Engineering Capital Improvement Fund for lighting and landscape improvements on 300 South applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-016)
   Approved 7:0.This money was made available because of a small land transaction took place to fix the property line of the new LDS temple downtown. UDOT is rebuilding 300 S, and Provo wanted the lighting and landscaping to match the South State Street section of this route. UDOT is okay with that, as long as we pay for the difference. This appropriation will do just that.
2. A resolution consenting to the appointment of an individual to the Provo Housing Authority Board.(16-017)
   Approved 7:0.Council Chair Kim Santiago was nominated by the Mayor. A City Councilor has traditionally had a seat on this Board.
3. A public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Franklin Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0003GPA)
   Continued 6:1 Council Member David Sewell opposed.There is too much to explain here for the time I have remaining. The item was continued so that the Council, Community Development, and the residents will have more time to understand and tweak the plan.
4. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.29.150(3) (Uses Conducted Within Buildings) in the Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zone to add an allowance for outdoor storage with increased landscape standards. City-Wide Impact. (15-0013OA)
   Approved 7:0I was concerned that this change would be altering the vision for the area in order to accommodate current interest. I worried that we could be selling ourselves short by lowering the bar to bring in companies who are not compatible with the intended use which might then make the area less appealing to the types of businesses that we want to get into Mountain Vista.
   I was assured by the Office of Economic Development and the Mayor that these interested parties are the kinds of business that we are looking for and that we won't be selling ourselves short.
5. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.290(4) (South State Street Design Corridor and Guidelines) to clarify language in the South State Street Design Corridor. Spring Creek and Provost South Neighborhoods. (15-0019OA)
   Approved 7:0. This one was straight forward. The zoning code was cleaned up, more clarity given, and an additional option was added.

What's Up? - 2 Feb 2016

So I've wanted to use modern communication tools to help interested members of the public stay up to speed on what's going on with their City Council. I'm still adjusting to life on the Council and organizing my time to be as effective as possible. Time spent on this blog is time away from pushing other priorities forward. But this is a priority for me, and I want to get going with it, even if it isn't polished. Here is what I came up with this time. I imagine it'll morph a little as I go along. This is coming very late, just before the meetings. I'll try to do better next time.

What's coming up?

2 Feb 2016 Work Meeting:

1) A discussion regarding a proposed resolution appropriating $97,000 in the Engineering Capital Improvement Fund for lighting and landscape improvements on 300 South.
There is not much information in our packets on this one (instruction on how to access the support documents is here). I imagine that this has to do with the road reconstruction project. I look forward to learning more about this tomorrow. 
2) A follow up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the city.
I'm excited about this one. We've put a lot of work into defining our priorities, and I hope we can wrap this up and get to work on them. Information on the work that has already been done, including preliminary priorities, can be found in the packet.
3) Discussion comparing Council goals and priorities to the Mayor's goals and priorities.
From the packet: "The purpose of this item is to compare the Council Priorities to those of the Mayor and get a better understanding for where the Council and Administration align. The Council is interested in understanding where there is alignment of goals so that the Council may provide recommendations and develop policy to guide Administration efforts."
4) A discussion on an ad hoc housing committee.
Housing is a topic that has concerned the former Council and the new Council for months. It is a broad topic that covers specific concerns like the "missing middle" and concentrations. A fairly major effort is underway to study the best practices from other cities and to see how to best apply them to our City. This committee is the next step in this process.
5) A discussion on Council rules regarding how land use items get on Work Meeting agendas.

2 Feb 2016 Council Meeting:

1) A presentation of the January Employee of the Month Award to Lisa Stewart, Legal Secretary.
I've always enjoyed this segment in the past. We have some great employees service our city! Congrats to Lisa Stewart, I look forward to the presentation tomorrow.
2) A presentation from Women in Leadership by Pat Jones.
Ms. Jones is the CEO of the Women's Leadership Institute and has been a leader in business and public service. Read more about her contributions.
3) A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $97,000 in the Engineering Capital Improvement Fund for lighting and landscape improvements on 300 South.
See my description on this item in the Work Meeting.
4) A resolution consenting to the appointment of Kim Santiago to the Provo Housing Authority Board.
A member of the Council has traditionally served on the Board for PHA.
5) A public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Franklin Neighborhood Plan as part of the Provo General Plan.
I could fill up a couple of pages on this item alone. I support the Neighborhood Planning effort in general, and this particular plan is a product of a lot of good work and collaboration. But I also have some concerns with the overall effort and with a couple of aspects of this particular plan. I plan to discuss these concerns at the meeting tomorrow.
6) A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.29.150(3) (Uses Conducted Within Buildings) in the Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zone to add an allowance for outdoor storage with increased landscape standards.
In a nut shell, here are my questions about this item:
1. What is the vision for this area?
2. Is the current zoning appropriate for the vision?
3. Will the proposed amendment make it more likely to realize the vision?
4. Does the vision for this area need to be revised?
7) A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.290(4) (South State Street Design Corridor and Guidelines) to clarify language in the South State Street Design Corridor.
We went through this information at the last Work Meeting. It looked fairly straight forward to me.

What's been up?

19 Jan 2016 Work Meeting:

Consideration of the creation of a proposed ad hoc Council Development Approval Process Review Committee focused on city development processes. (16-011)   Approved 6:0.Council Member Kay Van Buren excused.
This is a major priority for me, I'm excited to be on the committee.

A discussion and assignment of Council  Members to various committees. (16-007) Approved for Council Members  David Knecht, to  be the Chair of  the Neighborhood Program Review Committee, David  Sewell, Chair of the  Rules Committee,  Kim Santiago, Chair of the Budget Committee, Gary  Winterton, Chair  of the Policy Governance Committee, Council Member  David Sewell  Chair of the Council Development Approval Process Review Committee and Kay Van  Buren as a Committee  Member. Approved 6:0. Council Member Kay Van Buren excused.
You can see the make up of the committees in the support documents for this item of the agenda.
A follow up  discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015)   Approved to  adopt  the four  Council values presented by Council  Staff and for  each individual Council Member to use the format that David Harding has introduced to complete each  of their individual priorities. The drafts are to be shared with other Council Members for their review and completed by the February 2, 2016 Work Meeting. Approved: 7:0.
We made some good progress. Hopefully we will wrap up tomorrow.
A report from the Mayor's Provo Bicycle Committee. (16-010)   Report Only
2015 was the best year...yet.
An update on  Provo City  Sanitation Composting and Green Waste Recycling. (16-013)   Report Only
...
An overview of the Provo  City  Franklin  Neighborhood  Plan.  Franklin Neighborhood.  (150003GPA)  This item will be heard at the February 2, 2016 Council Meeting.

An overview of a request to amend Section 14.29.150(3) Uses Conducted Within  Buildings in  the Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zone.  City-Wide Impact. (15-0013OA) This item will be heard at the February 2, 2016 Council Meeting.

An overview of a request to amend Section 14.34.290, to amend the South State  Street Design Corridor.  Spring Creek and Provost South Neighborhoods. (15-0019OA)  This item will be heard at the February 2, 2016 Council Meeting.

19 Jan 2016 Council Meeting:

A presentation by the Covey Center.

A presentation of the Winter Commuter Award.

A review of the 2015 Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR). (16-014)

A public hearing on  a resolution amending the General Plan to include Provo  Downtown  Streetscape Standards in a new Appendix I (City  Design Standards). City-Wide Impact. (150004GPA)  Approved 7:0, Use Streetscape Standards that  Austin Corry sent on 1-19, titled  “Exhibit ADowntown Streetscape Standards”

A public hearing on  an ordinance amending Provo  City Code Sections 14.06.020 (Definitions) and 14.34.230 (Residential Facilities). City-Wide Impact.  (15-0017OA) Approved 7:0.

Open for Business: During the last Work Meeting, we formally approved the creation of the Council Development Approval Process Review Committee. I will be the Chair of that committee and will serve with Council members Dave Harding and Kay Van Buren. The Administration will be working in close cooperation with us to develop standards for desired outcomes and service levels for the development approval process. Council Priorities and Vision: This is the first year since I have been on the Council where we have made an effort to identify priorities for the year at the very beginning of the year.