Donkey Games

What would you do...
...if you were asked to play basketball?
...in front of a large crowd?
...while riding a donkey?
...for a fundraiser for students?
...and the United Way of Utah County?

I said yes.

Come watch me make an, um, well, fool of myself, along with many others in the community for a good cause.

Click here for more information.

What's Up? - 21 March 2016

What Was Up? 

Council Work Meeting

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 15, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118) George Stewart made a motion to prepare a draft ordinance changing the Consolidated Fee Schedule representing the fees in Column H, rounding them off to the nearest $50 and not to exceed the City of Orem. A comparison with Orem City will also be presented at the April 12, 2016 Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Despite the Herald's assertion about my hope, I am still torn on this issue. Good development brings such long term benefits to the City and poor development can bring such long term problems. Focusing on cost recovery through fees may make sense in the short term, but I worry about the long-term unintended consequences that these decisions may have. With that said, our fees appear to be on the low end of what is being charged by surrounding cities, and bringing our fees up to the level that the Administration estimated would recover full costs for servicing basic projects would keep them inline with other cities.
2. A follow-up discussion on the mission statement created for the Ad Hoc Housing Committee. (16-018) Council Member David Knecht moved to add #3 to the Ad Hoc Housing Committee Mission Statement. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0. With the addition of the third bullet point, the Mission statement now reads,
   
   The purpose of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee is to research best practices and make recommendations for:
   1. Understanding what characteristics meet the tenets of a balanced and healthy neighborhood that promote owner occupancy and long-term residency;
   2. How best to proactively address housing issues county-wide by engaging surrounding cities, the school board, housing advocates, and other experts; and
   3. Determining the current and near-term market demand for housing, and the best types, distribution, and location of housing to meet the demand.
   
   I want to thank Mr. Sewell for working with me on this and I thank the Committee and Council for considering our suggestion.
3. A discussion by Community Development on the Southwest Neighborhood Plan, by Engineering on traffic-related issues, and by David Harding regarding the West Side. (Council Priority-West Side) (16-015) This discussion will continue with a presentation by Dave Decker at the April 12, 2016 Work Meeting. The visuals for my presentation can be found here.
4. A follow-up discussion on an ordinance adding to the duties of the Executive Director regarding the responsibility for oversight and review of the General Plan and Chapter 13, annually. (16-035) Council Member David Sewell made a motion to move this back to the Rules Committee. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0. The Rules Committee will try to work out the wrinkles and propose some clear language.
5. A discussion on Pocket Neighborhoods. (16-039) Report Only. The City is working on a draft for a "Pocket Neighborhood" for a piece of ground it owns near 400 W and 1500 S. Ross Chapin has been retained as a consultant.
6. A discussion and overview of the Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget.(16-038) Report Only. If you are interested in what Provo is up to and what might be on the horizon, I highly recommend looking through this plan. The format is a bit dry, but as far as information and the importance of the projects, it is a treasure trove.
7. Closed Meeting A closed meeting was held.

Council Meeting

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 15, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024) Continued. The agreement is still not ready, and there is no longer the urgency there once was. We may not see this for a few more months.
2. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the preparation of a Draft Downtown Redevelopment Community Development Area Plan for new development located within the area from 100 West to 200 West and from 100 North to 400 North in Provo, Utah. (16-036) Approved 7:0. This is our approval for the RDA Staff to prepare a draft.

What's Up? - 11 Mar 2016

What's Coming Up?

The feedback from the last What's Up was underwhelming, so I'm evaluating whether I should dedicate this time to advancing other Council business. I do want to thank Carrie Prince for writing in with her thoughts on housing in Franklin. I do have an idea which may streamline these updates while making them more worthwhile to readers. I'll have to see what the other Councilors think of the idea.

This coming Tuesday's meetings are purposely light, in order to allow the Council extra time in the closed meeting to whittle down the candidates for the Executive Director position.

Council Work Meeting

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 15, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118) We will pick up our discussion from last time. Take a look at my report from last time if you are interested. We have comparative data from other cities and over all we are on the low side of fees.
2. A follow-up discussion on the mission statement created for the Ad Hoc Housing Committee. (16- 018) I believe this will also be a discussion about who will be invited to participate on the Committee as Citizen Advisers.
3. A discussion by Community Development on the Southwest Neighborhood Plan, by Engineering on traffic-related issues, and by David Harding regarding the West Side. (Council Priority-West Side) (16-015) Southwest Provo is the last large swath of undeveloped land in Provo. It represents our last chance for large "green field" development. How are we going to use it? I believe that Provo plays a unique role in the County and our Southwest area can benefit from and enhance that role.
4. A follow-up discussion on an ordinance adding to the duties of the Executive Director regarding the responsibility for oversight and review of the General Plan and Chapter 13, annually. (16-035) This ordinance would ensure that the Council is reviewing the General Plan as we set our goals each year.
5. A discussion on Pocket Neighborhoods. (16-039) Ross Chapin presented this concept during Provo's Zoning Summit at the end of last year. Creating a Pocket Neighborhood is one of the Mayor's goals for this year.
6. A discussion and overview of the Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget. (16-038) The CIP is part of the supporting documents for Tuesday's meeting. It's 186 pages. If you want to know what the City is up to, or even wants to be up to in the next few years, this should be your go to document.
7. Closed Meeting 

Council Meeting 

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 15, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024) This was postponed from the last meeting.
2. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the preparation of a Draft Downtown Redevelopment Community Development Area Plan for new development located within the area from 100 West to 200 West and from 100 North to 400 North in Provo, Utah. (16-036) In the last meeting we authorized the City to facilitate a transfer of property with a developer and the State. Projects for that area include a new District Courthouse, a hotel, a college campus, and parking. This item would authorize a Community Development Area to be drafted, which, if agreed to by the taxing entities, could offer tax incentives to encourage additional development on the three target blocks.

What's Up? - 5 March 2016

I'm falling behind. My council to-do list stands at 52, but I haven't added new items from recent email or the meetings of last week. I'm sure it would be over 60 now. I'm still trying to get into the groove and routine of serving on the Council. I'm sure I'll get faster and more efficient at certain things as I gain experience -- so much is new, and I'm still learning how to do things -- but I imagine I'll need to also adjust what I spend my time on so that I can accomplish the most important things.

I believe that communication with my constituents and other stake holders is one of those important things, which is one of the reasons that I write on this blog. It does take a lot of time though, time that I could be using to knock off a few of those "to do" items. If you read this, and find it worthwhile, please let me know with a short message however you'd like (801 310.9970, email, Facebook, Twitter, comments below).

There are some synergies with blogging. Writing the "What's Coming Up" feature helps me work through the material in order to be prepared for meetings, while authoring the "What Was Up" feature helps me organize and extract the "go do's" from our meetings.

One unusual thing that has taken up some spare time this week is our effort to find our next executive director. I snapped the photo on the right of the stack of applications, resumes, and other support documentation from the 47 individuals who have applied for the position. I estimate that there is around 350 pages. I finished reviewing them this morning. As daunting as the task of reading through this stack was, I couldn't help but think about the amount of effort that collectively went into creating these applications. Even more than that, the talent, skills, education, experience, and service that is summarized in this stack of paper is awesome. Literally. I am stuck with awe.

What Was Up? 

Council Work Meeting

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 1, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation and discussion with Claudia O'Grady and Jonathon Hanks of Utah Housing Corporation. (16-030) Report Only This was a very informative discussion. My conclusion shared in the last "What's Up" about LIHTC only being available in parts of Provo and one small slice of Orem was incorrect. The map showed areas in which LIHTC proposals get location bonus points. Many LIHTC funded projects occur outside of these areas, but the map does encourage the more projects to be in this area, as do several other factors for which points are awarded, like close proximity to rail transit, proximity to jobs, proximity to social services. LIHTC funding is awarded to proposals which earn the most points, so this system has a concentrating influence on low income housing.
2. A presentation and report from the Administration regarding the 25 fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118) Council Member George Stewart motioned to move this item forward to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting and Gary McGinn will prepare the comparative analysis of other cities’ fees for that meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0. There was a lot of discussion about this presentation and the study and presentation of user fees in general. The decision about what to do about the user fees presented this round was postponed until our next meeting to allow for fees from comparable cities to be collected. I'm still not sure that we will have enough information next time because these Community Development fees are related to plan check and building fees, which were not studied, or the associated activities in departments outside of Community Development. I thought we had an interesting discussion about who the "customer" is for this process. Is the developer/applicant the customer, or is it the residents of Provo?
3. A discussion on the mission statement created for the Ad Hoc Housing Committee. (16-018) Council Member George Stewart motioned to accept the Ad Hoc Hosing Committee Mission Statement. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0. Council Members are to give suggestions to Council Member Kay Van Buren. The Committee Members will consider the suggestions and bring this item forward to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting.We discussed the proposed Mission Statement before it passed. The scope is more narrow than it had been after the last Council started the project.
4. A follow-up discussion on Council Priorities and Vision for the City. (16-015) Ad Hoc Housing Committee has been formed and has a mission statement.
   
   Public Engagement – Council Member David Knecht motioned to accept Public Engagement as the name for this priority. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
   
   Structured Policy – Return this to the Policy Governance Committee for discussion on the relationship of established policies as they relate to the Council and General Plan. Matthew Taylor will prepare an ordinance amending the duties of the Executive Director to ensure that the Council review established practices. This item will be brought forward to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting.
   
   West Side – Council Members are to individually review the General Plan, Vision 2030. Community Development is to report on the Southwest Neighborhood Plan and a report by David Harding on his specific thoughts for the West side. Bring this to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting.    
   
   Public Engagement – David Knecht will report on the first bullet point under outcomes. David Sewell will report on the second bullet point under outcomes. David Harding for third bullet point. The assignment wasn't so much to report on the bullet items as it was that we would be the "champions" of the item.
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process. (16-023) This item continued to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting.
6. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred from the Planning Commission to Work Meeting Agenda. (16-020) This item continued to the March 15, 2016 Work Meeting.
7. A discussion on the status of infrastructure on the west side of Provo as it relates to future development. (16-031) Report only. We talked about both water and waste water. This and other infrastructure is needed for further development, and we need a clear vision of what the west side will become so that we can properly plan the infrastructure.
8. A discussion on the proposed 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033) This item is continued to the Redevelopment Retreat on March 22, 2016. We talked a lot about the value of the Social Services portion of the CDBG funding, and directed the RDA to prepare future proposals with 15% of the CDBG money going to social services.
1. 2016-17 CDBG Funding Recommendations
2. 2016-17 HOME Funding Recommendations
9. A discussion on the consideration of the transfer of property in downtown Provo to further the goals of the Redevelopment Agency. (16-034) Report only. This item was also heard in the Council Meeting. See my thoughts below.
10. Administrative Updates The process to update Vision 2030 is underway.
11. Closed Meeting A closed meeting was held.

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
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month Award for the Month of February 2016 - Aaron Davenport, Water Reclamation Well done, and well deserved.
3. Public Comment <<crickets>>
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) Approved 7:0 Well, so much for being prepared for the meeting. In the last "What's Up" I had a question about this item, but then I forgot to ask it in the meeting. I just emailed Economic Development the question. At least the follow up aspect of blogging is working. :)
5. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to Sanitation Fees charged at the Compost Yard. (16-029) Approved w/edits 7:0. The edits were to change "load" to "yard" if you read the pre-description of this item in the last "What's Up", you know what I'm talking about. Perhaps someone does read this. Or perhaps someone else caught the mistake.
6. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024) Continued to March 15, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 7:0. We didn't hear or discuss this item. Only the continuation (i.e. pushing it off to the next meeting) was approved.
7. A resolution authorizing the transfer of property in downtown Provo. (16-034) Approved 7:0. This is pretty cool. Read about it in the Herald.
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) Approved with the charge to ensure that the Downtown Master Plan is amended to be consistent with the Franklin Neighborhood Plan in regards to Franklin Neighborhood Fig. 3.3. Proposed Changes in zoning and land use; Approved 4:3 (Winterton, Harding, and Van Buren opposed). This item is a big one. I could spend the rest of the day writing about it. I did spend about 50 minutes at the Franklin Neighborhood Meeting on Wednesday discussing it. I know that some people were upset at my vote and the discussion before hand. Some of these people were at the Neighborhood Meeting. I felt like we achieve a remarkable amount of understanding in those 50 minutes. I should have engaged more with the neighborhood before the vote. As I said in the last "What's Up", I wasn't expecting this item to return so quickly, and as I said earlier in this "What's Up", there are many things that I should be doing that aren't currently getting done. I also believe that we came to the understanding that we have the same desired outcome for strong, stable, healthy neighborhoods. I'm just questioning if we are on the right path to get there. I will be addressing this more later, I have a separate blog post partly written. But there are only so many hours in a day.
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) Approved 7:0. Merely procedural

Internet Sales Tax

I received a phone call last week from "Americans for Prosperity." Perhaps you did too. The caller asked if I was aware that the Utah Legislature was considering collecting sales tax on Internet purchases. I indicated that I was. She asked if I supported this effort. I indicated that I did. And then she was no longer interested in talking with me. I can only guess at what she would have told me if my responses were different. I do know what I wanted to talk to her about. I wanted to talk about the email that her group sent me a couple weeks ago. Perhaps you received one too.

Since she wasn't interested in continuing our conversation, I guess I'll have to post my thoughts here. But before I address the email, I should establish some context.

I don't particularly enjoy being taxed. I don't like paying my cell phone bill. I often complain about the doctor's bill. But I'm glad that I have access to high quality medical care, I choose to pay for cell phone service, and I use the services provided by my city, county, state, and country. When I stop and think about it, I'm grateful for the opportunity to pay these things and for the benefits I get in return.

Two more things touching taxes. Just because I don't oppose the principle of taxes, doesn't mean I blindly support any tax. Which services should offered by the government and at what level of service are very sensitive questions and the answers may be different in different communities. An important part of our self-government is choosing, through our representatives, which services we want to receive (and pay for). Much of my time on the Council revolves around trying to provide the best value to Provo residents for their tax dollars. The City as a whole is very conscious of this balance.

Apart from the use of taxes, is the system for levying and collecting taxes. Volumes can be written on this subject, but let me just say that generally we (the people) agree that everyone should pay their fair share (and that there are many different ideas of what people's fair-share looks like).

So with that, let's jump into the email:

David,

If you're anything like me, you buy a lot online. It's the way of the future and so much more convenient than going to the store.I could quibble here about what the future might look like or the convenience and amazing customer service I find in visiting my local stores, but that's not my main point.
And for years, when you bought something online, they  didn't collect the sales tax. But now? Does the nebulous "they" refer to the State or online retailers? This matters because the "truthiness" of this assertion depends on who "they" refers to. The state requires all residents to pay a sales tax on everything they buy and attempts to collect all of it. If sales tax wasn't collected and remitted for us conveniently at the time of transaction (like brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers with a "presence" in the State) then we are required by the State to remit this sales tax when we file our state tax return. I know from experience that trying to calculate the amount of sales tax owed on Internet transactions, where sales tax wasn't collected, is very onerous. Anyway, this paragraph is misleading, and is only true of online retailers without a presence in Utah.
Lawmakers are looking to do away with that tax break by forcing retailers to collect the sales tax on internet sales.Calling this a tax break ignores the fact we are already required to pay it. It's only a tax break in the spirit of the "five-finger discount" (which isn't really a discount).
Which means all of your online shopping is about to get 4.7% more expensive. Not to mention, its going to create an uneven playing field between megacorporations with the resources to comply with the tax code in any number of different jurisdictions and small businesses who don't have the same kinds of luxury. Not all, I'm sure any avid online shopper has noticed that some sites collect sales tax. And shopping on sites that don't, only gets more expensive if you (knowingly or unknowingly) weren't paying the required sales tax at the time of your tax return filing. The "uneven playing field" argument is ironic and laughable. Laughable, because the thought that it would be hard, or expensive, for anyone, including small businesses, to access the sales tax rate for any US address, is silly in the information age. Ironic, because any brick-and-mortar store owner would love to tell you about the "uneven playing field" that exists because not all online retailers are required to collect sales tax.
Which brings me to my next point: we need to stop this bill from moving forward. Would you mind signing our letter to lawmakers today? Tell your legislator: don't tax the net! Purchases on the Internet are already taxed. Requiring online retailers to collect sales tax only makes it easier for people who believe in the rule of law to honor, sustain, and obey it.
Your wallet will thank you later.

For freedom,
Evelyn Everton
State Director
Americans for Prosperity Utah 

Two bills are before the State Legislature which address this issue and are now being actively debated. Part of these bills is a provision that it will be revenue-neutral to the State, meaning that the Legislature will reduce the overall sales tax rate so that the overall State sales taxes generated will remain the same.

So why should I weigh in on a city-focused blog? Sales tax is the largest source of funding for City services. As more purchases move online, less sales taxes will be generated and the City will have to raise taxes elsewhere to fund the same services. Also, our physical retailers play an important role in our community in many ways, including providing jobs and convenient and timely access to goods.

I encourage everyone to get informed on this issue before contacting your Legislators or signing any petition.

What you don't know...

...(or smell, or see) can kill you!

Provo City Declares Radon Awareness Month

Yesterday, at the City Council meeting, Provo City declared March as Radon Awareness Month.  When was the last time you tested your home for this silent killer? If it's been more than a couple years, it's time to do it again.

It could happen to you! Mayor Curtis shared his experience of finding a high radon level in his home through routine testing, and Council Chair Santiago related the loss of her neighbor to lung cancer who was living in a home with elevated levels of radon.

The good news is that it is cheap and easy to test your home, as well as learn more:

• Habitat for Humanity ($6 tests)
• State of Utah ($8 tests)
• Utah County ($10 tests)

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.