What's Up? - 16 Apr 2016

What Was Up?

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO JOINT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 14, City Council Chambers, 56 North State Street, Orem

1. Discussion/Update – Balance of Housing Distribution
   This was suppose to be a follow up on our discussion of this topic from last quarter, but I don't think anyone prepared anything. We rehashed a few things and reconfirmed our belief that it is in everyone's best interest not to concentrate low income housing and spread it out through out the valley, and agreed to work together to accomplish this.
2. Discussion – Provo/Orem TRIP Lease Agreement
   This was a quick discussion, acknowledging that the agreements are being finalized.
3. Discussion – Trampoline Gyms
   Trauma surgeons are alarmed at the rising number of young patients that they are treating for serious injuries stemming from participation at our local trampoline gyms. The County has looked at this and the Health Department drafted some proposed regulations, but the effort fizzled. The State may take up the issue, but it'll be at least a year out. Some members of Provo's Council will be meeting with stake holders next week to discuss the concerns. Orem's Council expressed an interest to participate in the dialogue.
4. Discussion – Orem NIA Program
   NIA stands for Neighborhoods in Action, and is similar to Provo's Neighborhood Program. We exchanged tips on successful programs.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1.  A discussion on a recommendation from the Municipal Council Budget Committee on 2016-2017 Budget Preparation Guidelines.
   The Budget Committee is recommending some initial steps towards budgeting based on priorities. Take a look at the recommendation if this kind of thing interests you. I do think that priority-based budgeting is how we should be doing it, but it takes a lot of effort to get there. I think this is a good proposal to use as a starting point in our discussion with the administration.
   
   My biggest concern is with the use of the nine priorities that the Council identified at the beginning of the year. The Council has taken some flak from some corners that "Zoning Enforcement" was our "Number 1" priority (I use quotation marks because our priority is Zoning Compliance and our priorities don't have a set ranking) instead of something like Public Safety or Maintaining Infrastructure. I have used a car analogy to try to explain how I see this. If I'm thinking about buying a used car, my priorities are to make sure the engine is in good shape, the frame is sound, and the power-train is solid. I'm not too worried if I notice that a tire is under inflated. If I'm headed out on a road trip with my well maintained car and I notice that one tire is under inflated, my priority is to get the tire topped off. This doesn't mean that tire pressure is more important than the condition of the engine, it's just the issue that needs to be addressed. The same goes for the priorities that we selected for this year, these are issues that we feel need some extra attention. We considered Maintain Infrastructure to be a priority, which is a core duty of city government, but we didn't select it because the Council has put a lot of focus on the issue over the past couple of years and we already have a good plan in place.
   
   So what does this have to do with Priority-Based Budgeting? The overall budget should be based on the Engine-type priorities, not our Tire Pressure-type priorities. Year-over-year adjustments should reflect our nine priorities, but the magnitude of the allocations should be based on long-range priorities like Public Safety.
   
   The first and fourth bullets in the proposal talk specifically of the Council's priorities. If we are going to base the budget on priorities, I think the Council needs to define priorities for the budget, not just use the list of issues we think needs our extra attention this year.
2. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   This item has been continued at the last two Work Meetings because of time restraints. My thoughts haven't changed from the last two times I wrote about it.
3. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process.
   A talented and dedicated BYU intern has worked with me to research the best practices nationally and in nearby cities for citizen participation. The semester is over and he will be presenting our findings.
4. A discussion on funding for the Miss Provo Pageant
   According to the group, Provo use to financially support the program more in the past and is asking for more financial support again.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Sections 14.41, 15.03.300, 15.03.310, 15.04.120, and 15.06.030 in order to clarify code and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact.
   Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission.
6. A discussion on a request by Ivory Homes for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.49E.050(6)(a)(iii) and 14.49E.040(6)(b)(ii) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet instead of one five foot and one eight foot setback in single-family residential areas. North Lakeview Neighborhood.
   If a waiver is obtained from the Utilities, the 8' side-yard set-backs can be reduced to 5'.
7. A discussion on a request by Adam Hall for a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) to facilitate a three-lot subdivision for property located at approximately 1080 West 500 North. North Park Neighborhood.
   Three houses are on two lots and the lots can't be modified in the RC zone. Under a different zone, three lots can be created out ot the two, one for each home. LDR is the only zone that allows single-family detached homes on the lot size of the smallest proposed lot. LDR would allow the three homes to be torn down and replaced with a 7-unit town-home, but the applicant proffered to enter into a development agreement restricting this "subdivision" to three units.
8. A discussion on a request by Brian Dabb on an ordinance text amendment to Section 14.34.500 to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in Residential Zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
   The applicant proposes that solid fencing, up to six feet high be allowed in certain portions of front yards across Provo.
9.  Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 19, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Provology Graduation 
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
3. Public Comment Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda
4. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo.
   (Richard Brimhall)
5. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah.
   (Finally)
6. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project.
   I had a new experience this evening. I had 19 letters come into my email inbox in a little under 4 hours voicing people's positions on BRT. I want to thank everyone who cares enough to get involved. Apparently the impetus was an anti-BRT email that encouraged people with concerns to reach out to the Council. Ten people did. The email also motivated nine people who support the BRT project to reach out as well.
7. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   We saw this item and items 8 and 9 in our Work Meeting a month and a half ago. I wrote this last time, "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." The Council decided to pursue the 15% plan.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017.
9. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. 
10. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency.
    Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.2 acres of real property, generally located at 2470 West 1160 North, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview North Neighborhood.
    The proposal is for a 26-unit, mostly twin home development that would be targeted to the over 55 age-group. There has been some discussion if LDR is the best zone for this proposed project.