What's Up? - 2 May 2016

What Was 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. (16-041)
   A motion was made to move this item back to the Budget Committee for further discussions between Council and Administration. Approved 7:0.
   Priority-based budgeting is a revolutionary approach and is considered a best practice. Imagine if held a three-day spring festival, the Police Department might provide security, the Fire Department would provide medical services, Parks and Rec might spend funds on the activities, the Mayor's office might cover the publicity, Economic Development could get involved in promoting the City. In traditional budgeting and accounting, the costs of this event might be spread across multiple budgets, and buried and combined with other expenses in various line items within those multiple budgets. It would be difficult for the public as well as decision makers to understand the full cost of the festival, and to evaluate if the benefits justify the price and whether the event should be grown or cut back in future years. In priority-based budgeting systems, this festival would be treated as a separate "program" and money would be proposed and approved for the program which would then be allocated to the various departments working on the festival. Expenses would be assigned to the project and we could see which programs are over, on, or under budget.
   
   You can imagine that priority-based budgeting is a significant departure from the way budgeting and accounting has been done, and would take a significant amount of effort to fully implement.
   
   During this Work Meeting we discussed a recommendation from our Budget Committee, as well as a presentation from the Administration regarding changes to how the budget can be presented this year. There are differences between the two, but I am extremely encouraged by what I see as improvements in our budget system in just the first year of looking at PBB. Much of the conversation is focused on how we can implement the new Provo 360 integrated software platform, so it will facilitate PBB workflow in the future.
2. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118)
   This item was continued to the May 3, 2016 Work Meeting.
   The proposal had not been prepared as directed by the Council so we had to continue the item.
3. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   A motion was made that David Harding continue to work with staff and research this issue of public engagement and specifically on-line interaction. He will update the Council on May 17, 2016 Work Meeting. Approved 7:0.
   Council Intern Soren Schmidt has researched this item during his Spring Semester, and presented his findings to the Council. He found that Provo's government does a relatively good job at making information available to the public, but that we could do better at organizing it in a way that it would be easier to find, navigate, and understand. He highlighted a couple cities nationally who do a good job at this and recommended how we could follow their lead.
4. A discussion on funding for the Miss Provo Pageant (16-045)
   A motion was made to proceed with the request outlined by Mayor John Curtis that $11,000 from the Mayor’s budget be moved to the Council budget and that a line item be added to the Council Budget for $10,000 and that the pageant will not be a large administrative burden. The total fund for the Miss Provo Pageant in the Council office will be $21,000 effective July 1, 2017. Approved 4:3. [Council Members Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed]
   Currently Provo City supports the Miss Provo Pageant with about $11,000 each year. In exchange for this, the organization creates a float for us each year and represents us in a dozen or so parades. Miss Provo attends several other events as asked. The organization came before the Council to ask for more funding to help pay for the scholarships that are awarded. The Administration, who up to this point coordinated with the Pageant, felt like they were running it as they saw best, and that if the Council felt like more support was justified, we should take over the relationship. I felt strongly that the current arrangement was reasonable, and that Provo City was getting some services out of the relationship. I think scholarships are great and I think that community supported institutions are an important part of our community. I did not feel comfortable with the City spending tax-payer money to fund these scholarships. I think it sets a bad precedent. How do we choose which scholarships we fund and which we don't?
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. (15-0012OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
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. (16-0002OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
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. (16-0002R)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
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)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

 

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 26, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

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. (15-110)
Approved 5:2. Council Member George Stewart and Kay Van Buren opposed.
This issue has sucked up almost all of my civic time over the past three weeks. I've been able to respond to most of the email I have received, but there are a few more I need to get to. Though it has kept me from working on other issues, I have really enjoyed corresponding with citizens across our City and a few from the wider County. We still don't all see eye-to-eye, but I have learned a lot and I feel that there has been an improved level of understanding. Here are a couple of news articles if you want to read more.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee (15-109)
   Information on the committee can be found here.
2. A discussion regarding Body Cameras (16-052)
   This was a hot topic at the legislature this year. I imagine we will be talking about how the City and our Police Department will implement the new changes.
3. A discussion on Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing Documents for Brixton Capital (16-053)
   Brixton Capital recently became the new owner of the Provo Towne Centre Mall. In 1997 when the Mall was built, Provo City, through our Redevelopment Agency, entered into a 25-year TIF agreement with the developer. The agreement required Agency approval for any transfer of TIF interest, which has happened a few times. We are being asked to approve an agreement that would allow a transfer of TIF money to the bank that Brixton wants to borrow money from to update the Mall, should Brixton default on the loan.
4. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties (16-046)
   From the last time this was on our agenda: "This is a fairly straight forward clean up of City code related to the duties of our Executive Director. The most important change adds an explicit duty of facilitating an annual review of priorities and strategies from the General Plan."
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process (16-023)
   This item has been put on the agendas since February, but keeps getting continued. Perhaps this will be the meeting where it is discussed. Here is an excerpt from a previous "What's Up": "Councilman Stewart requested this item and has provided a document for the discussion. 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 on Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee (16-051)
   There is a proposal to fold Vision 2050 (the update to Vision 2030) into the the General Plan. I support this proposal generally, but I definitely want to see the implementation details.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (15-118)
   We were going to discuss this in the last Work Meeting, but the proposal had not been put together in the way the Council had directed the time before. Here is what I wrote about it previously: "I'm feeling better about adjusting our Community Development fees. They haven't been adjusted for some time, we are below the average for surrounding cities, and the adjusted rates still seem reasonable." I believe the proposed ordinance needs to have the dates updated to reflect the delays that have occurred.
8. A discussion regarding the General Plan update regarding the Jail Property (16-050)
   There are no support documents yet but I believe this is about the property that Provo sold to Ivory Homes. I know there are some neighbors who are unhappy about what is being proposed. I am interested to learn more about it.
9. Council Executive Director's Items and Reports
   I think this is a new section. The Council recently hired a new Executive Director. I'm looking forward to working with Mr. Strachan.
10. Administrative Updates
11. Closed Meeting 

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 3, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   Do you want to know what love is? I hear this juke box hero is as cold as ice.
   ***Update: at the Council Meeting I learned that the Covey Center was presenting "The Foreigner" not "Foreigner" the band. I apologize if I raised the hopes of any Foriegner fans out there.***
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
4. Public Comment
5. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)
   Currently, the only support document is the draft resolution. I can't imagine that I will be able to even begin reviewing the budget between now and our vote. I understand the tentative adoption of a budget is required by ... but why even approve something tentatively before having a chance to look at it? I'll be asking this question.
6. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)
   The grant is funded by the County restaurant tax and is allocated based on population. The Provo River Trail was rated as the most popular part in a recent resident survey. This grant will support the effort to renovate the Trail.
7. 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. (16-048)
   We discussed this item a bit in our April 19th Council Meeting, but the resolution was not completely ready then. Here is what I wrote last time: "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."
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
9. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   As the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "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." Nothing in the Work Meeting changed my opinion.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "If a waiver is obtained from the Utilities, the 8' side-yard set-backs can be reduced to 5'." I didn't see any reason why this should not be allowed.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "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." I'm not thrilled about rezoning this plot to LDR to accommodate three single-family detached homes. I believe that an R1.6 zone won't work because the lot width is too small at 55'. I will be asking what is the minimum lot width for R1.6.
13. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "The applicant proposes that solid fencing, up to six feet high be allowed in certain portions of front yards across Provo." I don't think this is a good idea, so I'll need to be convinced otherwise if I am going to vote for it.