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.