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.