Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to District Five, Provo, and the World! May we find peace and love in our hearts and our community. May we have goodwill towards all. May that peace, love, and goodwill be reflected in our actions and our service to others.

West Provo

I know many of you are on the edge of your seat, anticipating my write up of December 6^th's meetings. You'll have to hold on just a little longer. I'm part way through it, but much of my time has been focused on West Provo.

West Provo is the topic of this post and I recommend that anyone who has interest in the future of this area read through the end of it. It covers two topics: The requested authorization of eminent domain for the next phase of the Lakeview Parkway, and future development in the area of Provo west of I-15 and south of the Provo River, with a heavy emphasis on how agricultural uses are treated.

Eminent Domain

Authorization of eminent domain was considered at our 6 December Council Meeting, and the item was continued until our next meeting on 4 January. Many questions were raised during the meeting, to which we asked our City Engineer, David Graves to respond. He has done so. Normally this information wouldn't be published until the Thursday before the meeting (which in this case would be 29 December), but I requested that we get it out sooner to give the public more time to review it before the meeting. I'm grateful that the Council Staff were able to make it happen. So here is some light reading for your holiday enjoyment: http://www.provocitycouncil.com/2016/12/lakeview-parkway-project-information.html

I should note that for the "Westside Connector" portion of the Lakeview Parkway, three separate times Public Works came to the Council to request eminent domain permission. I believe the three requests, all of which were granted, covered nine or so properties. If I remember right, 37 or so of the properties directly affected by this stretch have reached negotiated resolutions, including a majority of the nine. Only two properties haven't been settled on, and the City is still hopeful that agreement can be found on the last two without turning to the courts for eminent domain. My point is that even if we authorize eminent domain, it doesn't mean that it will be used. I believe it is everyone's hope that negotiated resolutions can be found for this next phase as well.

West Side Planning and the Purpose of Agricultural Preservation

In an extraordinary step for transparency because of the intense public interest in this topic, the Council made the meetings of the West Side Planning Committee open to the public. Even if you can't make it to the roughly every-other-Tuesday meetings, you can follow along here: http://www.provocitycouncil.com/p/west-side-planning-committee.html. You'll find summaries of each meeting, along with links to the audio of the proceedings.

One of the hot topics of study and discussion has been the future of agriculture in West Provo. We have talked a lot about "Open Space" which agricultural land can be considered, along with things like developed parks, and natural environs. A couple meetings ago, Committee members were given the "homework assignment" of explaining what they see as the purpose of agricultural preservation. I took this as a sincere question, because the outcomes that we want to achieve by agricultural preservation will determine how we go about the preservation. Avid readers of my blog (or should that be "avid reader") know that I already posted my homework submission, but for the rest of you all (or is it just "you") here is the link: http://provodistrict5.blogspot.com/2016/12/purposes-of-agricultural-preservation.html.

I'm checking into whether the rest of the submissions are considered part of the open meeting and can be posted. Hopefully we can get them onto the West Side Planning Committee blog very soon. So check back often!

Purposes of Agricultural Preservation

Heritage and Sense of Place
Farming has been a part of life in West Provo for the last 150 or so years. It is a part of the heritage of the area. Preserving agriculture in West Provo helps preserve that heritage. Healthy communities have a sense of place. Growth and develop in West Provo should be done in such a way as to honor and respect the heritage and sense of the area.


Psychological Wellbeing and Recreation
Agricultural land functions as a type of "Open Space". It is peaceful and can create a sense of wellbeing in many who merely look upon it. Getting out into an agricultural area can give someone a sense of solitude and a place to think, meditate, and reflect on the weightier matters of life. If we plan to spend public resources on something, we need to make sure that it is happening in a responsible, effective and efficient manner. If we set aside a certain amount of dollars to ensure that the residents of Provo have access to places which provide such benefits, we should use the use the money in such a way to get the biggest benefit for the most people. Other types of "Open Space" include developed parks and natural habitat. Certain sections near the Provo River bank allow for public access to wooded areas, like Paul Reams Wilderness Park, and the picnic tables along the last mile or so of the river before the Stake Park. Such areas could be preserved and expanded. Boardwalks could be built in the wetlands and in the coming Provo River Delta. The land could be used for developed parks, possibly even a regional sports park. All of these open spaces can provide important benefits to our community, and I think that a mix of open space types is likely to provide the best value for our investment.
Some of the best ways to provide interactive open space is through private ventures like the corn maze and the rope's course which already exist in West Provo. Other types of agritourism and recreation in natural(ish) settings may be private, public, or joint ventures. Salt Lake County's Wheeler Farm (a public park), or Young Living Farm in Mona (a private venture open to visitors), are examples from other places. A community garden would be another example. We should be prudent in how much public resources are used to support the retention and expansion of such amenities.


Food Security
West Provo has some of the best growing conditions in Utah. By restricting the land to only agricultural uses, we are less dependent on food being shipped in from elsewhere. I believe the last number of acres that we were discussing as having potential for development was 870. A rough rule of thumb is that one acre of land can produce enough food for one person (http://www.farmlandlp.com/2012/01/one-acre-feeds-a-person/). So if we restrict development from all 870 acres, and all of it begins to be used for food production, we could theoretically feed roughly three-quarters of one percent of the current Provo population. Perhaps the bigger impact is that the population of Provo wouldn't grow as quickly, so one could argue that there would be more food security because there would be less mouths to feed. But the demand for housing in the region would not be any less and the population that wouldn't come to Provo would likely go elsewhere in the County, likely in less compact form, requiring even more agricultural land be developed which would actually decrease the food security of everyone in the County, including Provo residents. This is why the Agricultural Toolkit advocates for more compact growth which allows for less agricultural land overall to be developed.

West Provo Agriculture

My friend and Council colleague, Dave Knecht, serves on the West Side Planning Committee with me. This Committee has been tasked with recommending policy to the Council to guide land use decisions in West Provo. On Wednesday he sent out an email to his distribution list which said, in part,

"Recently the Provo City Council formed a West Side Planning Committee and one of the main questions being asked is:
What is the purpose of Agriculture in Provo, now and in the future ?

Unless there is a compelling answer to this question, explaining the need and value of local agriculture by this Friday, then there will likely be NO agricultural element in the new West Side Plans and eventually every square inch of farmland on the West Side will be developed if at all possible." (bolded emphasis is from the email).

Since then I have received, or have been forwarded, many responses from upset residents of Provo. I have decided to address this issue here on this blog, in an effort to efficiently respond, and in the interest of transparency.

I have communicated with Councilor Knecht, to let him know that I disagree with how he characterized the situation, and he has looked over this blog post and has had a chance to clarify or dispute what I have written. He has told me that wrote his email based on his understanding at the time, and it is obvious that we took "Purpose" question to mean different things.

First, let's start with the area of agreement: the first paragraph. I agree that one of the main questions being asked of the committee is, "What is the purpose for agricultural preservation?" Agricultural preservation is one of the main topics that we have been studying and discussing. It is one of the factors that we are attempting to understand so that we can find the right balance. The question, "What is the purpose for agricultural preservation?" isn't a combative question, for which if there isn't a satisfactory answer then all agricultural uses will be exterminated. It is an honest question to help us define what are we trying to accomplish through agricultural preservation. What goals are we trying to achieve? What would successful agricultural preservation look like? These are important questions that will help shape the policies that we recommend.

Next, the area of disagreement: the second paragraph. I disagree that "there will likely be no agricultural element in the new West Side Plans" under any circumstances. Not one member of the committee has expressed any interest in this. Quite the opposite, all of the discussion has been about balancing the wishes and interests of all stakeholders. I can't speak for others on the Committee, but for myself, the reason I have invested huge amounts of time and effort to be on this committee is because of my fear that West Provo would be developed with no vision or plan and we would lose what makes West Provo so special.

The Friday deadline (which has since been pushed to Monday) was for Committee members to submit their thoughts so that we can continue our discussion next Tuesday. There is a separate request for information and opinion going out to large land owners in West Provo, with a proposed deadline of January 19th. The point is we are still discussing these topics and there will be many opportunities for the public to weigh in on the plan as it is developed. Your input is always welcome, but there is nothing magical about today being your last chance to save agriculture in West Provo.

What's Up? - 5 December 2016

The item generating the most feedback from the public is Item #9 in the Council Meeting regarding the authorization to pursue eminent domain. I've been surprised that I haven't heard anything recently about the South East Neighborhoods Plan, which we are being asked to adopt in Item #13. Perhaps most of the concerns have been addressed.

If you haven't already, be sure to check out Provo's Open City Hall, the new platform for engaging with and providing feedback to the City Council.

Here are the links to the documents for tomorrow's meetings (all ~550 pages).
Work Meeting
Council Meeting
If either link is broken, you can go here for instructions on how to access the documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 6th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Rules Committee Policy Evaluation: A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   The Council Rules Committee is recommending a fairly significant overhaul to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook. Some of the changes make the Handbook much easier to understand, and other changes will make our meetings flow more efficiently and effectively. I really appreciate the work of the Committee, particularly the Committee Chair Dave Sewell, and Council Attorney Brian Jones.
2. A discussion on recommendations of potential committee members for the Impact Fee process and review
   At our last Work Meeting, we decided to move ahead with forming this committee. It appears that we will be discussing potential members for the committee. The document packet does not contain the names of the nominees. It only has the documents that we reviewed last time.
3. A discussion on sections of the proposed Vision 2050
• Section 7 - Public and Non-Profit Partnerships
• Section 8 - Safety
• Section 10 - Diversity and Unity
• Section 11 - Governance

I feel like a couple of these sections need to be polished a bit more. I wasn't always clear what was trying to be communicated, and in a few instances I'm pretty sure what was written wasn't what was intended.
4. A discussion on a proposal to create an Arts Council
   We haven't had a functioning Arts Council for a while now, and with the new RAP tax, we need some leadership from our art community to ensure the best impact from our public investment.
5. A discussion on an appropriation for Fire Department equipment and software
   There are three components to the proposed appropriation: dispatch software, department operations software, and personal firefighting gear. At the last budget cycle, I was appalled at how underfunded our 911 center was. I'm hoping this new software will help ease the stress and demand on our dispatch personnel. The operations software was already approved but delays in the implementation pushed it into a new fiscal year. The firefighting equipment purchase would be taking advantage of a warranty replacement of some gear to get all of the gear updated.
6. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee
   There is no information in the document packet for this item. It is the regularly scheduled opportunity for Don Jarvis and the Sustainability Committee to report on current issues and efforts related to sustainability and environmental stewardship in the City.
7. A discussion regarding Provo City's Driveway Standard
   There is a short description of this item in the document packet, but it doesn't disclose what changes are proposed to our Driveway Standard. Currently, the Standard is to "not allow access from residential properties on collector and arterial streets unless approved by the City Engineer."
8. A discussion on a request for an amendment to the Provo City Major Street Plan for the extension of 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
   This is the next step in connecting the Lakeview Parkway to the rest of our street system. It will be an important link to help our students get to the new high school location.
9. A discussion on an ordinance text amendments to Chapter 14.20, Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone, to allow for mixed-use redevelopment of the Plum Tree Shopping Center, located at 2230 North University Parkway. City-Wide Impact.
   I am excited about this development, but I was a little worried about how changes to the SC3 zone might unintentionally affect other properties in Provo with this zoning designation. In reading through the material I was encouraged that the staff also had this concern and had put considerable thought into how the proposed changes might affect the Provo Towne Centre and Riverwoods properties.
10. A discussion on a request for amendments to the Provo City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14.38) to increase signage allowances in the DT1, DT2, ITOD, Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. Downtown, Dixon, Franklin, Franklin South, and East Bay Neighborhoods.
    In response to current businesses, Provo Economic Development is proposing some "modest" changes to our sign regulations in Downtown (and Center Street to the freeway) zones. It mostly affects non-ground-floor businesses and businesses who share a common entrance.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 6th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A special Citizen Recognition for Sally Breeden presented by the Mayor.
2. A Presentation of Handel's Messiah - Amy Norton, Wasatch Chorale
3. Provology Graduation
4. An audit report from Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose, & Erickson and a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
   I admit that I did not read all 120 pages of the Report, though I read through the first twenty or so and skimmed the rest. I applaud the competence and professionalism of our finance department. I invite any who are interested to dive into the report. 

Public Comment


5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.28 (Metropolitan Water District) to change the number of board members and rules for removal.
   The changes include moving from five members to seven members, and will now include two members of City Staff instead of one. The chair will now be selected by the Municipal Council.
6. A resolution appointing individuals to the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo.
   We will be appointing individuals to the board.
7. A resolution adopting the 2017 Council regular meeting schedule.
   It's pretty much the same schedule, 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, with a few changes to accommodate holidays and other events.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 2.50.010 (Municipal Council Rules) regarding the procedure to adopt, suspend, or repeal Council rules.
   This is the same item as Item #1 from the earlier Work Meeting.
9. A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3240 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.
   Being asked to authorize eminent domain (should it be deemed necessary) is one of the most difficult aspects of council service. It is always hoped that negotiations will be successful and that eminent domain will never be used, and that is still the hope in this case. It is in the public interest to have streets in the proper location, and for the streets to be put in before other development. Just consider the difficulties surrounding 620 North (the subject of the next item) and 820 North. Lack of foresight and street alignment for connectivity has put us in a position where there are no good options. The Lakeview Parkway alignment in Phase 1 is not needed right now, but it will be in the future. Now is the time to secure the alignment.
   
   Much of the concern is related to the bisecting of the Corn Maze. I have met with the owners and had a very good conversation with them. Their operation is exactly the kind of agricultural use I want to see continue and thrive in West Provo. I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to find workable solutions for all parties.
10. A resolution amending the Major and Local Street Plan to extend 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
    This is the same item as Item #8 in the earlier Work Meeting.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.4 acres of real property, generally located at 54 West 4200 North from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    This was Item #7 from the November 15th Work Meeting. Here is what I said about it then: "The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences."
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20 (SC3 - Regional Shopping Center Zone), to allow Mixed-Use development within the zone. City-wide Impact.
    This is Item #9 from earlier in the day.
13. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
    Two years in the making, the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan is ready for a vote by the City Council. I recommend interested parties read the plan.

What's Up? - 24 November 2016

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

What Was Up?

This is the report of the Council meetings from nine days ago. It took considerably longer to write than usual. There were many tricky items that require careful consideration. The report is relatively long. I recommend skimming through it and only reading about the items that you care about. Items of particular interest might be: clean air and diesel, concept plans for rezones, moving from Vision 2030 to Vision 2050, tax increment financing, impacts of the PHS relocation, and the adequacy of land-use tools.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
   Presentation only. The Council seeks to further discuss this item at a future date with the Utah County Commissioners.
   What I wrote previously, "Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it."
   
   The Utah County Commission will hear the item next Tuesday, 29 November. I am hopeful that the testing will be reinstated.
2. A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
   Council Vice-Chair David Sewell moved to accept the first two steps common between the proposals—use of concept plan and rezone—then to review staff recommendations for a text amendment at a future date. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
   When considering legislation, I try to ask, "what is the worst that can happen?" I don't always vote with the assumption that the worst will happen, but I think it is important to consider the potential unintended consequences.
   
   I think that the worst-case in this instance is that an applicant could submit an insincere concept plan, just copying-and-pasting pretty pictures off of Google. The new development rights are vested with the r5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Centerezoning and General Plan amendments, so the applicant could build whatever they want or sell the property off to someone else who has no connection to the concept plan.
   
   The current requirement of a full application, rather than just a concept plan, doesn't by itself preclude this from happening, but it makes it costlier to present an insincere plan.
   
   I hope that we can make reforms to the process that lower the barriers to "good" development while strengthening the protections against "bad" development. The use of  "development agreements" was discussed a lot during this item. Unfortunately, development agreements seem to cycle in and out of favor in Provo City, both in terms of entering into them as well as enforcing them, so I don't have full confidence in them.
3. A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
   Council Member David Knecht moved this item to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0. This item will come back to Council after the Planning Commission has heard it.
   This cuts much of the red tape required to make minor lot adjustments. I feel this is an example of a change that reduces barriers that aren't helpful in protecting the community.
4. A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
   Council Member George Stewart moved to proceed with the Budget Committee recommendation to complete an Impact Fee Analysis. Council Chair Kimberly Santiago moved to add to Mr. Stewart’s motion the creation of a committee to move this impact fee study forward. Mr. Stewart agreed. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   It is time for Provo to update our impact fee analysis which is necessary to adjust the fees which developments pay to help cover the costs of extending city services to them. If a proposed state statute amendment passes, we will be able to update components of the analysis as various utility plans are updated, rather than continuing to do monolithic updates once the whole analysis is out-of-date.
5. A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
   • Section 3: Recreation and Parks
   • Section 4: Natural Resources
   • Section 5: Heritage
   • Section 6: Prosperity
   Council Members discussed various changes and revisions to wording of Vision 2050.
   Our review continues. I think that the suggestions that the Council made will strengthen the document. I really need to assemble the peices together on the blog to make it easier for you all to review it as well and provide meaningful feedback. I'll try to get it done over the holiday weekend. [With as long as the report took to write, ,I'm not sure I'll be able to get to this over the weekend.]
6. A discussion on updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
   Presentation only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   See item #4 below.
7. A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   I don't recall any opposition from the neighbors or anyone else, and I don't recall having any concerns myself.
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
   Hats off to Ryan Rieske and Rebecca Hunt for their exemplarly service to the people of Provo. Provo City could not provide the quality of services it does without the dedication of our city employees.
   
   Public Comment
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Provo Holdings 2, LLC.
   Ammended 5:2. Council Members David Harding and George Stewart opposed. Approved amended resolution 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
   Tax increment financing (TIF), whether property tax or sales tax, is controversial. In a nutshell, taxing entities give some of the higher tax proceeds, generated by a new investment, back to the entity that made the investment. At its best, TIF spurs investment and development that wouldn't occur on its own, by returning some of the newly generated taxes that wouldn't have occurred without the development. At its worst, TIF is a form of corporate welfare, violating basic tax premises that businesses help pay for the services they consume and pay into the community on which they rely.
   
   When evaluating requests for TIF, I consider multiple criteria:
   • Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment?
   • Would the investment happen without the TIF?
   • Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment?
   • Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? (When considering the "public benefit derived by using TIF", this is not the future value of the development with the investment vs. the current value of the development, it is the future value of the development if TIF is used vs. the future value of the development if TIF isn't used. The TIF formulas are based off of the current value, but it is a mistake to assume that no future development would occur if the TIF isn't granted.)
   • Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive? 
   
   So how does this request for TIF measure up? The original request was to reimburse the owners of the Parkway Village up to half of the cost (estimated at $1.2M) to remove (and replace) a building to accommodate a new four-way intersection that is proposed as part of the BRT/University Parkway widening project, using the increase in sales taxes for up to the next ten years.
   • Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment? Yes, the investment of Parkway Village will allow for a full signalized intersection which will improve access to both the Parkway Village and The Mix. This investment will make the area more economically productive.
   • Would the investment happen without the TIF? I am not sure, a case could be made that the return on the investment for the Parkway Village would more than justify the investment without TIF. I have to rely on our Economic Development team's judgement on this question. It is their opinion that TIF is needed to get this done.
   • Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment? In order to accommodate the four-way intersection a building needs to be torn down. That is pretty exceptional.
   • Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? Assuming that the intersection wouldn't happen otherwise, yes it is significantly more valuable.
   • Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive? I made this request of Economic Development when they were negotiating, and I have to trust them that that is what they negotiated.
   So yes, it would have been easy to support the original request. In addition to the original request negotiated between Economic Development and the Parkway Village owners, the owners made an additional request that if any of the ten years remain after half of the costs had been reimbursed, the additional tax increment would be split 50/50 with the City (rather than 100% to the City). They stated that they would be happy if the original request is granted, but were also asking for more.
   
   It was easy for me to oppose this additional request. The investment would happen without the additional TIF. The value the TIF is more than what is necessary to achieve the goal of the TIF. Because of this, I don't think that granting the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
   
   I should note that the Council added in a cap, so that not more than the cost of the investment will be reimbursed. In order to reach that cap, it was estimated that the $25M in sales that took place on this property over the last year would need to increase four-fold to $100M per year over the ten years. It is unlikely that we will reach this cap, but this gives you an idea of the kind of economic development we expect from the BRT/University expansion project. The public is investing $190M in this project, and there will be real returns on our investment. The commercial property owners along the route stand to benefit greatly from our investment. Sales tax returns roughly 1% back to Provo City. TIF reduces this amount.


4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
   Approved 7:0.Here is what I wrote before, "Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. "
5. An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.
   As I've written in the past, "This allows a new business to access utility right-of-ways in the City," and, "As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise."
6. A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
   Approved 7:0.
   As I pointed out last time, this is yet another consequence of the relocation of PHS that may not have been fully appreciated at the time the decision was made. Significant money has to be spent to extend the necessary infrastructure to the new location. Other projects, which have been planned for several years, and have waited their turn, are being bumped back several more. In a committee meeting this week, the Fire Chief commented on his concern over the new location and the challenges that it has created in providing acceptable response times for a building of that size.
   
   I have continued to point out these negative consequences. I mention them here on this blog, I mention them in Council meetings, and I mention them in joint meetings with the School Board. I'm not trying to be a sore loser, I'm not trying to publicly embarrass the School Board. I'm trying to raise the awareness, of the Board and the public, of the full consequences of moving a centrally located school, in an area that is fully developed and already has significant infrastructure in place, out to the edge of the city, to an area that only has infrastructure planned and in place that would serve low density residential. There are infrastructure costs as well as societal costs. I want everyone to be aware of these costs, as our city experiences them first hand, so that it will help inform our decisions in the future.
   
   Sadly, we are not the first community to make a move like this. It has been well studied and the consequences well documented. These are the consequences warned of by some of the opponents of the relocation. I do not feel that these warnings were appropriately considered when the decision was made. At the time we were told that the School Board makes its decisions based on the best interest of the students over the impact to the broader community. I hope that the next time a decision like this comes up, that we will consider all of the consequences, and will look to the experiences of other communities as well as our own in the relocation of PHS.
   
   I do want to express my appreciation to the members of the School Board for their service to our community and our children. Just because I disagree with some of their decisions does not mean that I question their dedication or commitment to our children. The quality of our school district has a huge impact on the quality of life we enjoy here in Provo. The quality of the School Board has a huge impact on the quality of our school district.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   Approved 7:0.
   In voting for this rezone, I helped authorize the use of a sledge hammer (the DT-1 zone) to put in a finishing nail on which to hang a picture (convert an office to a residential unit), and duct tape (the development agreement) to try to mitigate the consequences of using the sledge hammer. Of course the duct tape will have its own consequences the next time we want to do something different with the wall (redevelopment).
   
   I'm not particularly proud of my vote. We could have asked if putting in the finishing nail was worth the hassle given the tools that we had available. We could have also asked why we don't have a better tool for the request before us. We could have gone to the store and bought a new tool, but that costs time and money. Instead, when asked nicely by a member of the public, we accommodated the request the best we could with the tools we had available.

What's Up? - 11 November 2016

Happy Veteran's Day. I want to personally thank all those who have served our country in this capacity.

Next Tuesday is another round of City Council meetings. Here is some links to the supporting documents, but they will break if anything is updated.
Work Meeting
Council Meeting
If either link is broken, you can go here for instructions on how to access the documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
   Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it.
2. A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
   I have mixed feelings on this one. I understand the reasons for streamlining the development application process, but after a rezone is granted, the property owner is vested with all of the development rights afforded by the rezone. Regardless of what the concept plan shows, without some sort of legal agreement, there is no way to make sure that the actual development relates at all to the concept plan.
3. A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
   This one is much more straight forward. A simple lot line adjustment would no longer require a complex review.
4. A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
   Impact fees are "A one-time fee imposed by the City on new construction to fund the cost of infrastructure to meet the needs of new development" and are "Based on providing the same level of service to the new development as is provided in the city currently." The Committee is recommending that we review impact fees, which will require hiring a consultant.
5. A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
   • Section 3: Recreation and Parks
   • Section 4: Natural Resources
   • Section 5: Heritage
   • Section 6: Prosperity
   We are reviewing proposed updates to the City's main visioning document (moving Vision 2030 to Vision 2050). We will be reviewing and discussing the four listed sections.
6. A discussion updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
   Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. 
7. A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
3. Citizen Recognition-- Sally Breedan
   
   Public Comment
   
   
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Partners.
   Parkway Village is across University Parkway from the current Plum Tree Plaza. With the reconstruction of University Parkway, a full four-way intersection could be put in to provide better access to the complexes on both sides of the Parkway. This would benefit the property and business owners on both sides, but would necessitate the removal of a current building on the south side. Parkway Village Partners would like to be reimbursed for up to half of the costs associated with the new intersection and demolishing and rebuilding the building from the increased sales taxes generated at Parkway Village over the next 10 years. In addition to this tentative agreement that they have worked out with our RDA, they are asking to split the increased sales taxes 50/50 with the City if there is any remaining time after half of the construction costs are covered. I support the tentative agreement. I am skeptical that the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
   See Item 6 on the Work Meeting agenda (above).
6. An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   This sounds very similar to the non-exclusive franchise we granted to First Digital in our last Council meeting. As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise.
7. A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
   I have been impressed at the agility and flexibility shown by our Public Works Department to mitigate the impacts of the Provo High relocation. I don't know if the residents near the new Provo High campus will ever fully appreciate the decrease in impact that getting this section of the Lakeview Parkway in place before the school opens will have on their quality of life. At the same time, important projects that other areas of the City have been patiently waiting on will be delayed for years in order to make this happen. I fear that this is only one of the many community impacts that may not have been fully appreciated when the decision to move the school was made. Any savings to the School District have been or soon will be more than eclipsed by additional costs to the City, which, not coincidentally, are borne by the same tax-payers.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   On this proposal I have previously written, "As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch." Two weeks ago we continued this item because the development agreement which was proposed when the neighborhood voted on proposal was not proffered to the Council. Since it is back on our agenda, I assume that the development agreement will be proffered this time. This does not address my concerns, though, that this corridor will be ripe for redevelopment soon and this proposal does not position us well to encourage the best redevelopment.

What's Up? - 4 November 2016

What Was Up?

The commissioning of a Solar & Energy Committee, and changes to business licencing and the Planning Commission.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A discussion on Land Trusts in Provo
   Council Member David Harding made a motion to indicate the Council’s interest in further exploring a community land trust with NeighborWorks of Provo. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.What are community land trusts? According to the National Community Land Trust Network, "CLTs are nonprofit organizations—governed by a board of CLT residents, community residents and public representatives—that provide lasting community assets and permanently affordable housing opportunities for families and communities. CLTs develop rural and urban agriculture projects, commercial spaces to serve local communities, affordable rental and cooperative housing projects, and conserve land or urban green spaces. However, the heart of their work is the creation homes that remain permanently affordable, providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower income families."
2. A discussion regarding Housing Committee recommendations
   Council Member David Knecht moved that the Council support the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Housing Committee that the West Side Committee work with Community Development to answer the questions displayed on the screen. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Council Member David Harding made a substitute motion to [adjust some of the wording].  Approved 7:0.
   At the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee, the Council requests that Community Development work with the West Side Planning Committee to address the following policy questions: 
1. What is the vision for the west side regarding Land Use? 
2. Does Provo want to allow the west side to develop spontaneously or does Provo want to designate areas for development and other areas for conservation? 
3. Is the City interested in preserving land for agriculture or is it interested in development on the west side/ If both, how do we balance those? 
4. Could Transfer of Development Rights help? 
5. What would be an appropriate area from which development rights would be sent, and what would be appropriate receiving area(s) for development credits? 
6. What steps should be taken to put new, residential owners on notice that they have moved into an agricultural area and are subject to the typical impacts of agricultural uses?
3. A discussion on the creation and mission of the Solar & Energy Committee
   Council Member Gary Winterton moved this discussion on solar to tonight’s Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Kay Van Buren. Approved 7:0.
   See Item 5 in the Council Meeting report below.
4. Changes to Provo City code related to Provo 360 software implementation for business licensing
   Council Member David Knecht moved that the Council request the neighborhood emails be included on the messaging for Provo360 business licensing messaging. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 6:0. Council Member George Stewart excused.
   This includes rental dwelling licences, as well as regular business licences. It was already scheduled for our Council Meeting later that evening. The motion was to add a feature request.
5. A discussion about the Provo Metropolitan Water Board appointments and related updates to Provo City Code
   Council Member Gary Winterton moved that the Council recommend a Metropolitan Water board of seven with two staff members: (1) Water Resources Director) and (2) Director of Public Works or his designee. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approve 7:0. All other decisions regarding this item will be made at the Council Meeting on November 15^th.
   Previously the Board consisted of five members, including only one member of City staff (the Water Resources Director).
6. A discussion on Provo City property and the proposed conversion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
   Report Only. Once the environmental process is complete, this item will be placed on the agenda for Council consideration.
   See my description of this item from last time.
7. A discussion regarding section in Vision 2050
• Section 1: Family and Neighborhoods 
• Section 2: Land Use and Growth 
• Section 9: Transportation and Mobility
No action taken. Review only. (Council will forward comments to Bill Peperone.)
This review of Vision 2050 and update to Vision 2050 helps set the vision of Provo City for some time to come. Now is the time to influence it.

8. Provo City Community Development Department requests review and recommendation of the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan. Provost, Provost South, and Spring Creek Neighborhoods.
   This item will be heard at the November 15, 2016 Work Meeting.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 1st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. An ordinance amending Provo City Code and the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to license administration and fees charged for Business Licensing.
   Approved 7:0
   Same item at #4 above. Business License renewals will be conducted on the month of application, rather than all of them on the same month.
2. An ordinance granting First Digital a non-exclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0
   This allows a new business to access utility right-of-ways in the City.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   Continued to a future meeting date based on the developer bringing promised items forward. Approved 7:0
   I have several concerns about this application. The first and foremost is that the applicant (as required) presented it first at a neighborhood meeting, and the neighborhood voted on the proposal. At that meeting the applicant explained that they would proffer a development agreement with some specific commitments. When the neighbors voted, they voted on a proposal that included the development agreement. When the proposal went before the Planning Commission and before the Council no such development agreement was proffered. Neither the Neighborhood Chair nor the applicant attended our Council Meeting. What worries me the most is that if I hadn't attended the neighborhood meeting no one would have known that the neighbors had voted on something different than was being presented.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to alter the number of Planning Commission members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. City-Wide Impact.
   Approved 7:0
   My previous explanation: "The proposal will move the Commission for 7 members and two alternates to 9 full members while still only requiring 4 members to make a quorum."
5. Solar Item.
   • Motion to approve the Joint Commission as constituted on the document. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
     Solar/Energy committee member recommendation:
   • Brent Norton, Chair
   • Don Butler, Vice Chair
   • Travis Ball
   • George Stewart
   • Cheryl Taylor
   • Steve Christiansen
   • Dave Sewell
   • Melissa Kendall
   • Ryan Evans
   • Kate Bowman
   Support Staff:
   • Dustin Grabau
   • Brian Jones 
   • Karen Larsen 
   • Larry Walters 
   • Kevin Garlick 
   • Bryce Mumford
   • Motion to approve having the Joint Commission answer the established policy questions and report back to Council by January 3, 2017, or January 17, 2017, at the latest. Approved 5:2. Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposed. Considerations for what Solar & Energy Committee should talk about (We made some changes to this list, but I don't yet have access to the updated list): 
   • What is the best way to protect the long term health of Provo Power/City while at the same time appropriately supporting our citizens’ desire for alternative energy sources? 
   • In answering the above question, the committee should consider issues of equity and transparency, and the following issues:
   • Future/Vision of clean energy in Provo
   • How much do we want to subsidize or not subsidize solar energy? 
   • Is solar energy different from wind energy or other forms of energy? Are we subsidizing those other forms of energy as well?
   • Do we want to promote solar energy? At what cost?
   • How will the impact be on the power company if/as we move away from traditional energy?
   • The power company gives 11% of its revenues to the General Fund
   • What is our policy on clean energy already? What do we want it to be in the future?
   • What will technological advancements in clean energy do to power?
   • How will this affect power revenues, and consequently, power contributions to the General Fund?
   • Considering that other cities are likely watching what we do, what precedent do we want to set for the rest of the state? Do we care?
   • How will solar fees impact bringing in high-tech companies to Provo? Do we want high tech companies in Provo?

What's Up? - 31 October 2016

Happy Halloween everyone. Here is the rundown of tomorrow's meetings.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A discussion regarding Housing Committee recommendations
   There is no information on this item in the document packet, so it's hard to comment on it. The Committee was established to address one of the Council Priorities: Housing.
2. A discussion on Land Trusts in Provo
   There is no information on this item either. Back in July we had a presentation by Community Housing Trust which is operating up in Summit County. Land Trusts seemed to be an interesting tool for ensuring quality affordable housing.
3. A discussion on the creation and mission of the Solar & Energy Committee
   Nothing in the document packet, but we'll be creating the committee which will advise the Council on policy regarding solar generation in Provo.
4. A discussion on community solar
   Again, nothing in the document packet, but I've very optimistic about the potential of community solar to be an important part of Provo's energy future.
5. Changes to Provo City code related to Provo 360 software implementation for business licensing
   Finally, something with information in our packet. The City is implementing a new integreted software system which is more flexible than the current system. With this new implementation, it is proposed that we move to renewing business licences and rental dwelling licences based on the month of application rather than a set month for all licences each year.
6. A discussion about the Provo Metropolitan Water Board appointments and related updates to Provo City Code
   There may be some contradictions in the document packet or maybe I'm just confused. Overall, the proposal is for the Water Board to be expanded to 7 members from the current 5.
7. A discussion on Provo City property and the proposed conversion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
   Recreational property, previously acquired though the Land and Water Conservation Fund was inappropriately though inadvertently sold off rather than being "converted" by being replaced by new recreational property. This oversight has been identified and two new sites have been identified as possible replacements. See the document packet for more information.
8. A discussion regarding section in Vision 2050 
1. Section 1: Family and Neighborhoods
2. Section 2: Land Use and Growth
3. Section 9: Transportation and Mobility

We are reviewing proposed updates to the City's main visioning document (moving Vision 2030 to Vision 2050). We will be reviewing and discussing the three listed sections.
9. Provo City Community Development Department requests review and recommendation of the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan. Provost, Provost South, and Spring Creek Neighborhoods.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 1st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. An ordinance amending Provo City Code and the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to license administration and fees charged for Business Licensing.
   This is the same as item 5 in the Work Meeting above.
2. An ordinance granting First Digital a non-exclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   I'm looking forward to learning more about First Digital.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   Here is what I wrote before it was heard in the last Work Meeting: "As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to alter the number of Planning Commission members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. City-Wide Impact.
   My previous explanation: "The proposal will move the Commission for 7 members and two alternates to 9 full members while still only requiring 4 members to make a quorum."

What's Up? - 24 October 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion with Shawna Cuan from the Governor's Office of Energy Development on proposed legislative improvements/changes to the C-PACE program (16-092)
   Report Only.
   The State is considering changes to the program because of low usage. They've researched the biggest barriers as well as more successful programs around the country. They have developed a list of changes and wanted to get feed back from local officials to make sure they understand our concerns and won't be introducing more concerns. In general it looks like the changes will lower the perceived risk and staff time requirement to the local jurisdictions. The biggest question this raised with the Council is why do the local jurisdictions even need to be involved if pretty much everything is being handled by the State? For information on C-PACE see: http://energy.utah.gov/utah-c-pace/
2. An update from the Development Approval Review Committee (16-023)
   Report. The Development Approval Review process will continued at a future retreat.
   A long list of potential reforms were presented, which were developed by the DAP Review Committee and the Administration. I think that these reforms will improve many of the biggest short-comings of the current process. I expressed my concern, though, that the focus has been on improving the developers experience, and we need to carefully consider if these reforms also lead to better outcomes for the community. I also feel that we need more time and effort focused on the Pre-Council Approval Process (for rezones or General Plan amendments) to better define how projects can morph as they move through the process.
3. A discussion regarding the policy development of the Vision 2050 plan (16-051)
   Update Only.
   I was unaware that the document that was presented at the public open houses had been reviewed by various committees. I was under the impression that the only changes were some additions from the General Plan. A new draft has now been released which incorporate the latest round of feedback from the public. I will soon public a blog post dedicated to the update to our city's vision.
4. A discussion on finalizing a name for the new civic engagement tool (16-042)
   Council Member David Knecht moved to accept the name “Council Conversations” as the name of the civic engagement tool and to accept the policy statement as written. Seconded by Council Member Kim Santiago. Council Member David Harding made a substitute motion to call the new civic engagement tool “Open City Hall” and to accept the policy statement as written. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 5:2. Council Members David Sewell and Kim Santiago opposed.
   I am very excited about the potential of this new tool, which I have written about in several past editions of "What's Up?" This discussion focused mostly on what to call the new tool. The name "Council Conversations" was proposed first, and would have worked well. For a variety of reasons, likely different for each voting Councilor, we chose to call it "Open City Hall". Look for a future announcement that the tool is up and running.
5. A discussion on a potential revolving loan fund (16-111)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to advise Dixon Holmes that the Council feels Economic Development is moving in the right direction regarding this issue. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   We previously had a revolving loan for small local businesses struggling in the "financing desert" before reaching the point that commercial banks are willing to invest. Work is underway to bring back a revolving fund in a new format.
6. A discussion on potential sales tax increment for a retail shopping center on University Parkway (16-112)
   Council Members approved the direction in which this item is heading.
   This is for the area across from the Plum Tree Shopping area. In order for a full "four-legged" intersection to be put in, which will improve access to both sides of University Parkway, a current building will need to be torn down. A sales tax increment is being considered to partially reduce the cost to the property owner.
7. Kevin Fairbanks, representing Pie House LLC, requests a Zone Change of 0.31 acres from Residential Conservation to General Downtown (DT-1). The property is located at approximately 245 North 500 West. No changes to the property are proposed with this Zone Change request. Dixon Neighborhood. 16-0010R
   This item will be heard at November 1, 2016 Council Meeting.
   No vote was expected or taken, it was already scheduled to be heard November 1st in the Council Meeting, but I was able to express my concerns that little public good will come of the proposed rezone, but there may be increased uncertainty. The biggest surprise to me was that no development agreement was being discussed in the meeting, though the City Staff who were presenting said that that doesn't mean that one won't be proffered in the Council Meeting. This surprised me because the development agreement was a major part of the presentation to the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting.
8. Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding proposed changes to the number of Planning Commission members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. City-Wide Impact. 16-0019OA
   This item will be heard at November 1, 2016 Council Meeting.
   The Council's Rules Committee explained this amendment to the full Council. The only change that was made was the removal of a phrase that was proposed which gives the Mayor the ability to remove a Planning Commissioner "without cause". The Commission by-laws already address this issue, it was not requested by anyone in the administration, and was only added because other boards and commissions have this phrase and we were looking to make the governance of the various boards more uniform.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Consideration of a motion to rescind the adoption of Ordinance 2016-27, approved on October 4, 2016, which amended energy rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule by adding a Solar Generation Capacity Charge. (16-093)
   Approved 4:3. Council Members Kay Van Buren, George Stewart and David Knecht opposed.
   In the latest turn of this saga, the Council overturned it's own 4-3 decision to add a new charge on roof-top solar customers. We did so by another 4-3 decision. The reality is that the Council supports the creation of a Joint Commission with the Administration to more fully study the broader impacts of coming changes and how solar generation fits into the long-term vision of the City. We also supported delaying any changes for 3 months while this Commission works, with the caveat that we do not expect to grandfather any new solar customers, so they should only proceed understanding the risks. We were just divided about whether we should rescind the (unimplemented) solar charge in the mean time.
2. A resolution appropriating $205,281 in the General Fund for body-worn cameras and equipment for storage and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-103)
   Approved 7:0.
   I believe the timing is right on this issue.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property,generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
   Approved 5:2. Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposed. (The motion was to deny the resolution)
   The General Plan calls for this property to become residential, but there are access issues and integration issues with the rest of the area, as well as a complicated history. I am uncomfortable approving a rezone until we are presented with a viable development which addresses these issues and complies with the General Plan.
4. A resolution approving an online civic engagement services provider and appropriating $10,800 in the General Fund for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017. (16-042)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.

What's Up? - 17 October 2016

Looking back at the meetings two weeks ago as well as forward to tomorrow's meetings.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A report on vendor selection for software related to the Council priority to improve public engagement (16-042)
   Council Member David Harding moved to accept the recommendations proposed by the Executive Director and to implement it. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.The staff selection committee presented the feature set and the pricing information on the top three options. Peak Democracy's Open Town Hall platform stood out and was the committee's recommendation. Staff will now prepare this item for formal consideration at a Council Meeting 
2. A discussion on parking 
1. A discussion on the Joaquin Parking Study (16-068)
   Report only.
   Susan Krueger-Barber presented the documented parking violations over a week's period. It is obvious that something needs to be done. Joaquin Neighborhood has done everything that we ask residents to do when they bring us an issue to be addressed. They have put in a lot of effort to define the problem and suggest possible solutions, and they are willing to partner with the City to implement the solutions.
2. A discussion about potential amendments to parking standards in Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) & University zones  (16-109)
   What is the right amount of off-street parking in these areas? What factors are compounding the parking problem? What are some potential solutions? 
3. An update regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
   Update only.
   To be honest, I don't remember what was discussed. I think it was a brief update about where Staff is at and their next steps. 
4. A discussion on vendor selection and implementation of Body-Worn-Cameras for Police Officers (16-103)
   Council member George Stewart moved to appropriate money to the recommended option of body cameras. Seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Buren. Approved 7:0.
   The Police Department is recommending the Axion camera system by Taser. They made a compelling case and laid out their extensive review process.
5. A report and continued conversation regarding the balance of private solar energy generation, consumption, and net metering alternatives (16-093)
   Report Only. This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
   I'll discuss this item in the Council Meeting section below.
6. A discussion on potential legislation related to Trampoline Gyms (16-105)
   Council Member David Knecht moved to make the changes to the proposed legislation. Brian Jones is to implement the changes into the ordinance for tonight’s meeting. Seconded by George Stewart. Approved 7:0.We briefly discussed the idea of requiring the public posting of the number of serious injuries in the last 6 months (or other appropriate time frame) in the area where people pay to enter the gyms. I believe such a provision is in the public's best interest, it allows them to make informed decisions, gives the safer gyms an advantage over less safe gyms, and gives the gym operators an added incentive to make sure the gyms are as safe as possible. The gym operator who has worked with the committee developing the regulations opposed the provision and the Council didn't want to derail what has been a very collaborative process. We decided to not include the provision, but some Councilors suggested that we keep the provision in reserve, to be added if the proposed provisions do not reduce the number and severity of injuries to more appropriate levels.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of James Miguel as the Chief of the Fire Department for the City of Provo. (16-107)
   Approved 7:0.
   Chief Miguel replaces Chief Gary Jolley.
2. An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 6.11 (Trampoline Gyms) to regulate the licensing of Trampoline Gyms in Provo. (16-105) 
   Approved 7:0.
   This was hailed as a model of cooperation to create meaningful regulation. See item 6 in the Work Meeting above for more discussion.
3. An ordinance amending Energy Rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-093) 
   Approved 4:3. Council Members Kim Santiago, David Sewell, David Harding opposed.
   In 2009 the Council approved net metering for rooftop solar customers. Rooftop solar customers continue to use the electrical grid, and contributes to the ongoing costs, but reduce (or eliminate) the amount that they pay toward the grid. Roughly 10% of our power bill is transfered to the City's general fund, reducing the amount we pay in property taxes. Solar users reduce (or eliminate) what they pay towards the general services we receive. I think it is a legitimate policy question whether the City should use rates and fees to incentivize rooftop solar, and to what extent. What I don't think we should do is drasticly change the rate structure on our residents who previously financed rooftop systems based on the policies that the Council previously put into place. I have previous post that delves deeper into this issue. Currently there are discussions about revisiting this topic. 
4. A resolution appropriating $260,000 in the General CIP Fund for purposes related to the Fleet Facility Project and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-110) 
   Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
   This fixes a bookkeeping mistake in the current budget.
5. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024) 
   Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
   This allows UMPA to build a backup power plant on the new Provo Power campus. The backup plant is a great resource for our critical institutions like Utah Valley Hospital.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property, generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R) 
   Continued to the October 18, 2016 Council Meeting.
   The applicant requested a delay.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, October 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion with Shawna Cuan from the Governor's Office of Energy Development on proposed legislative improvements/changes to the C-PACE program (16-092)
   There are no documents on this. The Council recently approved the implementation of C-PACE in Provo.
2. An update from the Development Approval Process (DAP) Review Committee (16-023)
   The DAP Review Committee has been meeting throughout the year on this complex issue. We are now entering the phase where we can report back our findings to the whole of the Council. I was very involved with this committee until about a month ago when I was selected to chair the Westside Planning Committee. In reading the current recommendations, my biggest concern is the focus on streamlining the process for developers and builders rather than improving the outcome for the community.
3. A discussion regarding the policy development of the Vision 2050 plan (16-051)
   At the beginning of the year the Council was concerned with inconsistencies and redundancies between Vision 2030 and the General Plan. Community Development was worked to incorporate aspects of the General Plan into Vision 2030 and held five open houses around the City to gather community feedback. In this meeting we will be discussing the path forward to update Vision 2030 to Vision 2050 and an update to the General Plan.
4. A discussion on finalizing a name for the new civic engagement tool (16-042)
   What's in a name? We will discuss naming our new civic engagement software platform. The current proposal is "Council Conversations." Do you have any suggestions? My concern with the current proposal is that it focuses so strongly on the Council. Many residents don't differentiate much between the Council and the Administration. They have an issue with the City and want some place to go have find answers or submit feedback, without worrying in whose court the issue currently resides. Many issues spend far more time incubating in the Administration before coming to the Council, and I think it would be good to get the information out there on a single platform from the beginning. The Council Office has a limited staff, and to get solid, up-to-date information on the issues, I believe we will need to work closely with department staff. For all of these reasons, I think we should consider this a City tool rather than a Council tool. (This is related to item #1 in the previous Work Meeting above).
5. A discussion on a potential revolving loan fund (16-111)
   ***Updated***The City use to have a revolving loan fund for small businesses that are not yet mature enough for traditional bank loans. It was funded with CDBG money and had many strings attached. A state-level non-profit is looking to partner with cities to offer a revolving loan fund.
6. A discussion on potential sales tax increment for a retail shopping center on University Parkway (16-112)
   ***Updated***The owners of Parkway Village, across from the Plum Tree shopping center, now exists. They are requesting Sales Tax Increment Financing to assist with the project costs. To me, the policy question is, "Is it in the best interest of Provo residents to invest the increased sales taxes that this project will bring into the project itself?" Does it move us towards the future we want?
7. Kevin Fairbanks, representing Pie House LLC, requests a Zone Change of 0.31 acres from Residential Conservation to General Downtown (DT-1). The property is located at approximately 245 North 500 West. No changes to the property are proposed with this Zone Change request. Dixon Neighborhood (16-0010R)
   As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch.
8. Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding proposed changes to the number of Planning Commission members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. CityWide Impact (16-0019OA)
   The proposal will move the Commission for 7 members and two alternates to 9 full members while still only requiring 4 members to make a quorum.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A resolution appropriating $205,281 in the General Fund for body-worn cameras and equipment for storage and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-103)
   The first year's cost of equipping our police force with body cameras. (Related to item 4 in the 4 Oct Work Meeting above.)
2. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property, generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
   My notes from last time: "This is a plot with a long and ugly history."
3. A resolution approving an online civic engagement services provider and appropriating $10,800 in the General Fund for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017. (16-042)
   This will fund the online civic engagement platform discussed as item 4 in the earlier meeting and item 1 in the 4 Oct Work Meeting, both above.

Solar Thoughts

For a few days now I've been trying to express my thoughts on the 4-3 decision by the Provo City Council to implement a new fee on rooftop solar customers. I've responded to a couple of email and talked with several people in person, but I felt overwhelmed each time I sat down and stared at a blank screen to write this blog post.

A "closed" neighborhood Facebook group began discussing this issue and asked me to join in. I found it much easier to respond to specific questions and statement and by the end of the night I found that I touched on most of the aspects that I've wanted to write about. Afterwards, as this topic has come up, I've wanted to point back to what I wrote in that group. So I'm going to highlight some of that conversation here, removing others' identity and editing for clarity: (Actually I did a lot of editing and rearranging to make it flow more logically.)

Resident A Is there something that says how much solar users can expect to pay when this goes in effect?

Like · Reply · October 5 at 9:56pm

David Harding $3 per month for each kW of system capacity. This will be waved on the first 2 kW of existing systems and applied to the whole system of new installations. The motion that passed calls for the fee will go into effect on January 1st.

Like · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 10:48pm

Resident B How are solar customers not participating in the infrastructure fees? My fees have not changed since I've has solar other than a decrease in kw used....

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:32pm

David Harding The sizing of power distribution infrastructure (which determines the cost) is not based on the total energy used (which is measured in kWh), it is based on the peak flow of energy (measured in kW). Peak demand is what determines the capacity of the infrastructure that must be provided.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:18pm

David Harding Customers with high demand spikes and low overall usage cost a lot to serve and don't generate a lot of revenue to cover those costs. Customers with lower demand (flatter usage, minimal spikes) and high usage don't cost much to serve and generate a lot of revenue. But our current meters can't tell the difference between a high demand and a low demand customer.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:21pm

David Harding Unless it is coupled with a battery, roof top solar generally doesn't decrease a customers peak demand very much, if at all, but significantly reduces their power usage. If you can follow my poor description, it should become obvious why net metering creates subsidization. The base charge is not sufficient to cover all of the fixed infrastructure costs.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:24pm

Resident A David Harding Thank you for the information. I'm starting to get a better picture of what's happening. I'm more than happy to pay my share, I just want to be sure that I'm being charged in a sensible, thought-out way.

Unlike · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 11:39pm

David Harding Oh, it's definitely thought out. But it doesn't address whether solar has value to the community outside of the power equation. It also doesn't take into account the Council's obligation to customers who made long term investments depending on policies that the Council previously put into place.

Like · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:23am

Resident A It seems to me that the easy solution is to charge people a flat rate across all customers for infrastructure, and then a separate line item for actual power usage. It sounds like Provo Power doesn't actually know their own infrastructure costs, so this may not be possible.

This fee sounds like this fee is a greedy shot in the dark. Maybe it will help, but at this point it just sounds like they are actively discouraging new solar installs, and punishing people that are trying to be responsible power users.

Like · Reply · 4 · October 5 at 10:11pm

Resident C Provo Power does not allow people to disconnect from the grid and charges a $600 hook-up fee. Non-solar customers do not pick up that cost. The city buys the power produced at full price and charges full price to the neighbors who use the power produced by solar customers. The credits given to solar customers covering the Google fiber and transportation fees is a flaw in the billing system that can easily be fixed. That inequity is not a product of solar customers but of a poor billing system within the city. If the city council was struggling about balancing fairness they would not target solar customers but change the rate structure so that all of the 24% of Provo power users who don't pay their infrastructure costs would pay their fair share. Mr. Walter laid out a fair rate change in the work session meeting on Tuesday. Looking only at solar customers to make up their infrastructure costs, I believe, was a very unfair thing for the council to do.

Like · Reply · 3 · October 5 at 10:16pm

Resident A I agree that solar customers should be paying for infrastructure. Absolutely. But if the council is looking for equity, that charge needs to be split evenly. Targeting solar customers doesn't seem equitable.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:22pm

Resident D As I understand it....solar customers are not participating in the infrastructure costs...yet they are utilizing the infrastructure.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:30pm

Resident A Resident D So, I'm back to my original proposal: A flat infrastructure charge for all customers. Whether you use solar or not. Whether your solar covers all your usage or not. Then, after that line item, a separate charge for the actual power used. That would be my idea of equitable.

Like · Reply · 3 · October 5 at 10:33pm

Resident D I think that would be most transparent. And I think Solar should pay separately for the Transportation Utility Fee and Fiber infrastructure.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:33pm

Resident A Resident D Yeah. I agree with that totally.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:35pm

Resident E A *huge* step in the right direction here would be to address the larger iniquities in the system. It's the fact that solar is being singled out that is most upsetting. Fix the structural problem in how infrastructure costs are split between users *first*; then address the unique challenges of solar.

Like · Reply · 3 · October 5 at 10:13pm

Resident F Maybe it should be transparent in the bills and delineate the infrastructure.

Unlike · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 9:58pm

David Harding Raising the base charge is an option. Currently the base charge that everyone pays covers only a third of the infrastructure costs, and less than a quarter of all fixed costs (which include infrastructure). Raising the base charge to cover more of the fixed costs would be matched with a reduction in the electrical usage rate ($/kWh) to make it revenue neutral. It is estimated that raising the base charge to even cover just the infrastructure costs would raise the bills on 15,000 customers (others would see their bills reduced).

The 24% number assumes that the fixed costs are split equally across all users. Some users place more demand on the system than others (based on peak demand, not total energy used) and are more costly to serve than those who put less demand on the system. A demand-based distribution of fixed costs is much more reflective of the cost to provide power to that customer. We just don't have the ability to measure demand at individual residences...yet.

It should be noted that such a change would also make roof-top solar less financially attractive to the solar customer, probably much more so than the $3/kW-mo capacity fee.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:54pm

Resident E The fee will scale based on the size of their array, despite this supposedly being put in place to account for fixed infrastructure costs.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 9:58pm

David Harding The intent was to address more than the fixed costs, part of our power bill goes to fund the general operations of the city. Larger solar systems avoid more of these charges, but with the solar capacity charge more is recouped. Keep in mind that the $3/mo-kWh fee doesn't remove all of the subsidy (but it may be enough to remove all of the potential return on investment).

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:58pm

Resident D I also don't think that Solar customer should be exempt from paying the Fiber and the Road fees as a separate line item.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 9:59pm · Edited

David Harding In the name of transparency, I like Larry Walter's idea to pull the "General Fund Transfer" portion out into it's own line. This would open up a new option, once we have the smart meters in place, to calculate the general fund transfer portion for all customers based on their gross usage rather than net usage.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:58pm

Resident B  Can you help explain to those of us who have solar, who were under the impression that we could have solar for free of a fee penalty living in Provo, are now subject to a monthly fee? It takes about 10 years to pay off the panels without any type of usage fee. This fee rate week destroy any type of solar progression in Provo and seems to contradict the $2000 state incentive for solar purchase. The city of Provo is now working against our awesome governor's pro-clean energy push.

Resident B The biggest frustration is in that when i called Provo City power last fall it was made clear to me that Provo city was not planning on placing any fee. I would have never purchased solar in a city with a grid fee, the savings do not add up.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:11pm

Resident D I may just be guessing here...but what IF Solar is the unknown and they just wrapped their heads around recent data and are now trying to address the problem...then they wouldn't actually be singling out Solar. It certainly seems like there is a lot more to discuss surrounding this issue.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:17pm

David Harding I appreciate your calm approach, Resident D, seeking for understanding. But I think we should have addressed the problem going forward, not retroactively.

Like · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 11:48pm

Resident E A *huge* step in the right direction here would be to address the larger iniquities in the system. It's the fact that solar is being singled out that is most upsetting. Fix the structural problem in how infrastructure costs are split between users *first*; then address the unique challenges of solar.

Like · Reply · 3 · October 5 at 10:13pm

Resident G I feel like those that already have solar power should be grandfathered out or at a minimum be phased in. I know I made my decision to go solar based on numbers that did not include the city adding additional fees. This has only made more of us want to go completely off grid as soon as possible. Won't the city lose more money if they no longer have us tied into the grid or are they hoping this pushes more people to go off grid?

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 10:07pm

Resident H I will seriously be considering batteries now and might also completely get off the grid. Unfortunately batteries aren't quite there yet. But with the Gigafactory coming online soon things will change very soon and I think it will be much easier to get fully off the grid.

Like · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 10:09pm

Resident D I absolutely understand that perspective.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:10pm

Resident E I'm not even sure that it's legal to be off grid. Will new construction pass inspection without an electrical hookup?

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 10:11pm

David Harding I have high hopes for what becomes possible when we align our electrical rate structure with the cost to provide electrical service. We will need to wait until we have the smart meters in place, but that will be coming very soon. With things like demand-based fees (this is how commercial customers are currently charged) and time-of-day pricing, technologies like batteries (with and without attached solar) can become very financially advantageous -- for both the customer and the publicly owned power utility!

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 11:09pm

Write a reply...

Resident H I still don't understand why this solar tax got put in place before the smart meters. Cart before the horse here. We know the smart meters will provide some very good detailed data on usage. Could we really not have waited to get some good data from the smart meters before throwing new taxes out? Once that data is out there and can be analytically instead of emotionally driven then I think more people could get behind change. They did spend time talking about how the Smart meters that have already been budgeted for will be installed soon so that they can monitor actual usage. Could we not have waited to get good solid data before pulling the trigger on this decision?

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 10:17pm

David Harding The urgency that I felt on this issue is due to the drop in solar installation costs and the related increasing rate in solar adoption. Net metering was put in place when solar was so expensive that only people willing to lose a significant amount of money would install solar, and net metering was a way to take the edge off. Now new solar installation (*may*) pay for themselves over their lifetime and even provide a return on the investment (but only because of a subsidization that is far greater than the ROI for the customer). People are upset (myself included) that solar customers who already have their systems, were not grandfathered. The number of current solar customers is small and grandfathering would not have been a significant cost (relatively speaking). But if we waited another 18 months the number of solar customers could have quadrupled, making it much more difficult to grandfather.

My preference would have been to grandfather current solar customers and place a moratorium on new net-metering contracts. After the new meters are installed and we have a coherent rate structure, new potential solar customers would be able to make an informed decision.

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 11:42pm

Resident D I wish they would have studied for a couple more weeks.

Unlike · Reply · 4 · October 5 at 11:14pm

Resident E Solar users are very cost conscious individuals. Remember these are people that are investing thousands in technologies with a rough payoff of 10 years or more in the future. They are committed, stable, responsible members of the community. They are al...See More

Unlike · Reply · 8 · October 5 at 10:17pm

Resident H I cannot like this comment enough.

Like · Reply · 1 · October 5 at 10:18pm

Resident D I totally know these solar users and they are the cream of the crop...and my beloved neighbors. So how would you create equity?

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:19pm · Edited

Resident E At the magnitude of the deficit under question, equity shouldn't be the first priority. Build trust and dialog first. The city can afford a few more years to work this out, study other cities, and find good solutions.

I don't have solar now, but I'm building a new home soon and Provo's solar-friendly policy had encouraged me to consider installing solar. Now I'm nervous about the prospect - not because of this specific fee, but because of the apparent knee-jerk implementation of it. What other fees are going to come down the line?

At the very least, existing solar users should have been grandfathered in. Now all of a sudden there is a lot of uncertainty about how the city will act in the future.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 10:24pm · Edited

Resident H It was a sad day that Provo implemented this tax on solar customers. Such a step backwards for this great area. It really hurts.

Like · Reply · 2 · October 5 at 10:07pm

Resident A The City Council doesn't seem to think there's more to discuss. If they did, they would be talking, not creating fees that don't make sense.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:18pm

Resident D Well there are options.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:20pm

Resident D The Council moves by 4 votes.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:28pm

David Harding And we lost the vote to grandfather current solar customers by a 3-4 margin.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:49pm

Write a reply...

Resident H It's time for me to tap out of this conversation. The council made a choice that I and many others disagree with. It's done, move on. Just remember next time it's time to vote.

Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:06am

David Harding I'm not yet ready to move-on on this one.

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 9:22am

Resident C I think that if the discussion continues, in the end we can work out a good and balanced ordinance that most people can agree upon

Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 9:33am

David Harding Resident C, but all sides need to be willing to learn, understand, and seek for the best interests of everyone involved.

Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:40am