Bus Ridership

Much of the email that I have received on this evening's vote has mentioned the low ridership of the current buses in Provo.

I wasn't able to find the comment to quote it here, but on November 4th, 2015 (the morning after the general election) a Provo resident posted on Facebook that she was glad that Proposition 1 hadn't passed. She went on to explain that she never rides public transit because it is inconvenient; there are no routes by her house, doesn't go where she wants to go, is too infrequent, and takes moves too slow. I had to scratch my head at this comment, because those are the exact things that Proposition 1 was suppose to address. Similarly, these are some of the reasons that current bus ridership is so low, and highlights some of the advantages of BRT. BRT will be frequent, with buses 5 minutes apart during peak transit times. BRT is rapid, with streamlined boarding and traffic signal prioritization. BRT connects major nodes in the Provo/Orem area and extends the utility of FrontRunner.

The reasons why bus ridership is low, are the reasons why BRT will thrive.

Many of us travel to Salt Lake, even infrequently. My guess is that many more of us have ridden on TRAX than have ridden UTA buses in Salt Lake. BRT will be far more similar in function and feel to lightrail than to standard buses.

I grew up in Salt Lake and lived through the debate prior to the construction of their light rail system. The voices of opposition were loud, and predicted failure. Though I was a youth, I worried that the opponents might be right and the impact TRAX would have if they were. The controversy quickly dissipated once the system opened, and cities in Salt Lake County now compete fiercely to have the next TRAX spur service their communities.

I believe that BRT will have a similar trajectory in our County.

Opposed to BRT?

On Saturday an email was sent requesting that people contact members of Provo's City Council to voice their opposition to BRT. Since then I have received around 60 email on the subject. During my three and a half months on the Council, this is by far the most email I have received on any issue. I am grateful that so many people care enough about our community to get involved. I have carefully read and considered each email. Roughly three quarters of the email I have received are from people who reacted to the email by writing to me in opposition to BRT and a quarter of the authors reacted by writing to me in favor of the project.

I do not know who all received the "Opposed to BRT?" email. Some of the respondents identified themselves as Provo residents, others appear to be from Utah County, but not within the City. Not everyone in the City received the email. I did not receive the email. A few people have identified themselves as precinct chairs (I assume of the Republican Party). I do not know how representative of the general population was the distribution list.

Because some of the email I received contained similar misunderstanding, I became concerned about the content of the original email. This morning someone posted a copy of the email on Facebook so I was able to read it for myself. Unfortunately there is a lot of incorrect information in the email. This makes it difficult to know how much weight to give the letters that I have received.I understand that some people have carefully studied this topic, listening to arguments from people on both sides of the issue, and have decided to oppose the project. I understand that position and respect it. But when the authors repeat back the incorrect information from the email, I have to wonder if they would have written to me if they had been given correct information.

I've been asked what I believe is incorrect in the email, so here are my objections:

'In last Wednesday’s Daily Herald, it was reported that “The total cost including matching funds from local and Federal sources is estimated at $190 million.”
What? $190 million? Remember when it was only $150 million?
Who is going to pay the extra $40 million?
Not the County because they have committed only $65 million and not the Federal Government who have committed only $75 million. So that would appear to mean that PROVO and OREM citziens, who were supposed to “only” pay $10 million, will now have to pay that extra $40 million.'

The BRT portion is still projected to cost $150 million (Note that this portion also includes lots of landscaping (including far more trees than we have now), new bike lanes, and other enhancements.) The "extra" $40 million is for the University Parkway widening project that UDOT was independently planning to do. By combining the two projects, money is saved, and construction hassles are reduced.

By the way, the $10 million of the $150 million that isn't federal or county money is being "paid for" by the street right-of-way leases. The only "matching" that the City is doing is in the value of the rights-of-way being leased. Orem's leases also goes into the $10 million, but the lion's share comes from UDOT street leases. University Ave and University Parkway are UDOT roads and UDOT will be leasing the right-of-way (whether we lease our local roads or not, which leads to the next point.)

'We have one last good chance to stop the proposed Bus Rapid Transit project'

Provo's City Council asked the Council Attorney to look into the probable outcome of not authorizing the agreements. The legal opinion is that the BRT project will likely happen anyway, but will perform worse and we would lose out on some of the negotiated enhancements, and would lose our spot at the negotiation table. The email did not discuss the second agreement that is being voted on on Tuesday. This will form a first-of-its-kind governance model for the project where the six partners have an equal voice in decisions. The six partners are Provo, Orem, Utah County, Moutainlands Association of Governments, UTA, and UDOT. Again, each partner has an equal voice.

Many email writers see the vote on Tuesday as a vote on the BRT project. I see it as a vote on how well the project will be implemented and whether we are going to have a voice in the project.

'In this coming Tuesday’s Provo City Council meeting, the City Council will be voting on whether to lease our city property to the UTA for the next 50 years...which will allow UTA to tear up Downtown Provo and our local neighborhoods so they can build their “down the middle of the road” bus lanes and bus stops.'

The language here is fairly imprecise and inflammatory. I don't want to quibble about word selection, but it gave many the wrong impression. We are not leasing our city property to UTA, we are leasing *some* of our city property, specifically space for exclusive lanes on sections of 900 N, 700 N, and 1860 S, and space for 7 stops. It is not a blanket lease for UTA to do whatever with any and all of our city property. Some people took it to mean this. Again, the way the phrase "tear up" is used is inflammatory. Our downtown will not be torn up. Our neighborhoods will not be torn up. University Ave will be torn up, and rebuilt. 700 N will be reconstructed. 900 E will not be. Road construction is never pleasant, but we have lived through it before and we will live through it again, with or without BRT. Many people who wrote me understood the hyperbole, some did not. The lease is for exclusive lanes on the roads listed above and not University Ave. The degree to which our downtown is "torn up" will not be affected by this agreement.

I started this post during my lunch hour but was not able to finish it in time. I have many more thoughts on the topic and the points that were made, both for and against, in the many email that I have received, but I'll save them for another time. I have some other responsibilities to attend to this evening. This post focuses on what I feel is incorrect information in the original "Opposed to BRT?" email.

Just a quick parting thought: As the original email suggested, many of the email writers told me that they would hold me accountable for my vote on Tuesday. I'm not sure if that was intended as a threat or a warning, but it is something that I welcome. Should I decide to run for reelection, I sincerely hope that voters will consider all of my votes. I want to be held accountable for all of my actions on their behalf. If the voters decide that they would rather someone else represent them, then I'll gladly step aside. In the mean time, I will be studying the issues, weighing the arguments, carefully considering public input, and deciding what I think is in the best interest of our beloved Provo. I believe that is what I was elected to do.

What's Up? - 16 Apr 2016

What Was Up?

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO JOINT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

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

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

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. Provology Graduation 
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
3. Public Comment Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda
4. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo.
   (Richard Brimhall)
5. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah.
   (Finally)
6. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project.
   I had a new experience this evening. I had 19 letters come into my email inbox in a little under 4 hours voicing people's positions on BRT. I want to thank everyone who cares enough to get involved. Apparently the impetus was an anti-BRT email that encouraged people with concerns to reach out to the Council. Ten people did. The email also motivated nine people who support the BRT project to reach out as well.
7. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   We saw this item and items 8 and 9 in our Work Meeting a month and a half ago. I wrote this last time, "CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. The CDBG Social Services Committee has two recommendations: one that uses 15% of the grant and one that uses 12.5% of the grant." The Council decided to pursue the 15% plan.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017.
9. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. 
10. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency.
    Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.2 acres of real property, generally located at 2470 West 1160 North, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview North Neighborhood.
    The proposal is for a 26-unit, mostly twin home development that would be targeted to the over 55 age-group. There has been some discussion if LDR is the best zone for this proposed project.

What's Up? - 13 Apr 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, April 12, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A tour of the Public Works Water Reclamation Facility.
   The tour was very informative. It is very apparent that we have outstanding civil servants keeping our drains flowing. It is apparent that Public Works has tried to stretch every dollar and to keep things lean. It is also apparent the Provo has underfunded this operation, and has charged rates well below what was necessary to keep up with the long term capital replacement needs of our waste water system. The infrastructure is literally crumbling. More on this later.
2. A discussion regarding the approval of a lease agreement between Provo City and Utah Transit Authority regarding various Provo City streets for the purpose of constructing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System.
   Report only, item to be heard at April 19^th Council Meeting
   We received an update on the project and corridor design, including stations and projected timelines. We also had the opportunity to discuss the two proposed agreements. There are some obviously wrinkles to work out, but we have been promised the final versions soon. Everyone appears committed to working together to make this project as good as it can be.
3. A discussion on the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plans and the plans for the RAP Tax.
   Report only
   I was wrong on my earlier speculation of this item. We neither heard from Grantwell or discussed much the delayed implementation of the RAP tax. It was mostly a review of all of the park upgrades and creations that are in the works. One Department worry is that residents will be so excited that they won't want to wait for the improvements which will happen steadily over the 10 years of the RAP tax. I was perhaps most excited to see an actual concept for the long rumored Beach Park on the shores of Utah Lake.
4. A discussion regarding Eagle Summit Construction, LLC request for a zone change from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for property located at approximately 2470 West 1160 North. Lakeview North Neighborhood.
   Report only, item to be heard at April 19^th Council Meeting
   I think I'll stick with my description from before.
5. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred from the Planning Commission.
   Approved with changes to handbook amendment - 7:0
   We gave our Chair more flexibility in scheduling Land Use items on our Council Meeting agenda to hopefully avoid a super crowded agenda that takes us late into the night.
6. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties.
   Continued.
   We were running way over time, so this was punted until our next Work Session.
7. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process.
   Continued.
8. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   Conintued.
9. A discussion regarding Public Works infrastructure in Provo City.
   Much of our waste-water facilities are nearing their end-of-life. We have the option to replace the equipment and structures at the current waste water plant in phases over the next several years, or build a new plant.
   The previously proposed rate hikes will not be sufficient for either scenario. One thing that we can do is change how we charge the base rate (the portion of the bill that stays the same regardless of how much waste water you produce. It is intended to cover the fixed costs of the waste water system). Currently we charge one base rate for every meter: $7.31. A single family home with one meter is charged $7.31 per month. A 300 unit apartment complex also gets charged a single base rate of $7.31 per month, if it uses a single (much bigger) water meter. If this proposal is adopted the waste water charges to large multi-family complexes will go up much more than the general population, if they have had few meters than units. The counter argument is that they haven't been paying their "fair share" all along. If this proposal is adopted then the rate increases for the rest of our residents will still need to be larger than previously presented, but not by as much as they would otherwise.
   Over the next 85 years, the rebuild in place and the move the plant scenarios will cost the City roughly the same, but the rebuild scenario pushes the most expensive years out for another 50 years, the new build would cost a lot more up front. There are a variety of reasons why a new build, in a location that makes more sense, would be good in the long run, but I'm not sure I can be convinced that we should pay more in the short run when we seem to be so far behind and need to catch up in so many other areas as well.
10.  Closed Meeting

What's Coming Up?

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO JOINT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

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

1. Discussion/Update – Balance of Housing Distribution
2. Discussion – Provo/Orem TRIP Lease Agreement
3. Discussion – Trampoline Gyms
4. Discussion – Orem NIA Program

What's Up? - 11 Apr 2016

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 PM, Tuesday, April 12, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding the approval of a lease agreement between Provo City and Utah Transit Authority regarding various Provo City streets for the purpose of constructing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. This is the hot topic. If you try to keep your finger on the pulse of Provo, I'm sure you've heard plenty of talk about this. Here are three communications that I suggest reading if you want to get up to speed on different takes:
   1. An email by Councilor Dave Knecht to his district (and posted to FB by Christian Faulconer)
   2. A newsletter by Councilor Dave Sewell (posted to FB by Darla Fairbanks Stephenson with some commentary)
   3. An explanation of the two agreements before the Council by City CAO Wayne Parker (If this link breaks then go to the online agenda and read the first file under this item).
   My overall position on the role of transit in our community was published almost a year ago. I am not a fan of routing the line around BYU, but I believe the Council took a very hard look at this issue two years ago and made their decision. I believe that it is in our best interest to work together to make this project as beneficial as possible for our community. I believe that entering into these two agreements will do just that.
2. A discussion on the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plans and the plans for the RAP Tax. The agenda packet is pretty thin on this item. I know BYU's Grantwell team has been looking into our options. I also know that a mix-up has delayed the implementation of the new tax. I imagine that this discussion will touch on these as well as other topics.
3. A discussion regarding Eagle Summit Construction, LLC request for a zone change from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for property located at approximately 2470 West 1160 North. Lakeview North Neighborhood.
   I generally agree with the direction of this proposed development. I feel that it adds a housing type that isn't currently available which will be attractive to some in our community. I'm not sure that clustering 24 twin homes is the best way to do this, but in my opinion it is better than building more homes that fit the current R1.10 zoning. My biggest concern is that the density allowed by the requested zone is more than three times greater than what the proposed project calls for. The developer has signaled a willingness to proffer a development agreement. I am curious to see if the proffered agreement will address my concern.
4. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred from the Planning Commission.
   This is a fairly straight forward clean up of our Council Rules and Handbook.
5. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties.
   This is a fairly straight forward clean up of City code related to the duties of our Executive Director. The most important change adds an explicit duty of facilitating an annual review of priorities and strategies from the General Plan.
6. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process.
   Again, this one doesn't have a lot of documentation. I'm curious to see where this one goes.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   I'm feeling better about adjusting our Community Development fees. They haven't been adjusted for some time, we are below the average for surrounding cities, and the adjusted rates still seem reasonable.
8. A discussion regarding Public Works infrastructure in Provo City.
   Much of our waste-water facilities are nearing their end-of-life. We have the option to replace the equipment and structures at the current waste water plant in phases over the next several years, or build a new plant. There are pros and cons to either approach. If you would like more details, I recommend going to the online agenda, selecting "A tour of the Public Works Water Reclamation Facility." and reading the first and last documents filed under this item. The last document get into the possible funding.
9.  Closed Meeting