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