What's Up? - 28 May 2016

What Was Up?

This post covers three meetings held on May 17th. The green text is from the summary on the Council's blog. In preparing this report, I noticed that the Council was unanimous in every vote taken throughout the day. I'm not sure how often that happens.

JOINT MEETING WITH PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD

12:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

Council met with members of the Parks and Recreation Board prior to the regular work session. Topics of discussion included the East Bay Golf Course, the desire for a regional sports park, and the recreation, arts, and parks (RAP) tax.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an amendment to a Development Agreement, removing the requirement that each dwelling unit be occupied by the owner(s). (06-0004DA)
   This item will be placed on the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting. Applicant was asked to address the questions raised in the Work Meeting, speak to a bank and come back with prepared language to present to the Council.
   My impression was that the Council is supportive of the proposed twin home, but is reluctant to completely waive the owner-occupation requirement unless it is completely necessary. The reasons for my reluctance are that I don't want to set the precedence of changing agreements without a really good reason, and I'm cautious to change something that I don't fully understand. Why did the Council at that time and the developer at that time decide to enter into that agreement? Maybe there was a really good reason that I am unaware of. What has changed that necessitates a change to the agreement? 
2. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042) Council Member David Sewell moved to ask staff to bring this item back to the Council.
   Rachel Stone, former Council Intern and current IS Staff, presented research into software platforms that the Council could integrate to facilitate easier citizen engagement with the Council. The research was conducted by several people, including Council Staff and Interns. Three platforms were presented and the Staff recommendation was for Open Town Hall.
3. A discussion on the Council Staff Budget Review Process. (16-059)
   Report Only.
   Various aspects of the Budget will be reviewed by different members of Council Staff.
4. A discussion on the Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee. (16-051)
   Karen Tapahe was asked to set up the five Neighborhood Area Council Meetings. Also to have an article precede the meetings to get the word out to residents.Discussion continues on Provo City's vision document (Vision 2030) and how it will be updated. The Community Development Department will work with the Neighborhood Program to hold meetings this summer in five different areas of the city, inviting Provo residents to give input, ask questions, and discuss the document.
   I am pleased with the Policy Governance Committee's recommendation for aggressively reaching out for public feedback on the the update to Vision 2030. If done right, the new document, Vision 2050, will guide the decision making by City leaders and residents.
5. A discussion on the Fire Department Apparatus needs. (16-060)
   Council Member David Sewell moved to hear this item at the June 21, 2016 Council Meeting.
   My pre-meeting description still applies, "All of the Department's ambulances and fire trucks are more than 10 years old. The last vehicle purchase was in 2006 and included 9 vehicles. The Department is proposing that vehicles be replaced on a staggered schedule to avoid infrequent but large purchases."
6. A discussion and update on the 820 North Corridor Study. (16-061)
   Report Only.
   This was a fairly high-level, coarse-grained study of travel demand along the corridor over the next 40 years. The needs were assessed and the public was asked to state their preferences about how these needs are met. The level of public participation was quite good for this type of survey. Results can be found here: Low-Res, High-Res. The survey didn't ask the public about their opinion on the number of proposed lanes, but focused on other elements of the proposed roadway.
7. A discussion on a section of the City Center Roof Replacement. (16-062)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to hear this item at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting where Council will consider an appropriation from fund balance. Seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren. Approved 7:0.
   The City has been reluctant to put any significant money into the current City Center building because it is nearing the end of its useful life. But with no plans in the works for replacing it, some investments need to be made to keep it functional.
8. A discussion on the Recreation Center Capital Projects. (16-064)
   Council Member David Harding moved to have a resolution drafted appropriating the requested funds back to the Parks and Recreation Department for the described projects and to be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   The Rec Center has been wildly popular. The level of usage has exceeded all expectations. The revenue from passes (including day-passes) have exceeded yearly projections and more than cover the operating budget. Rec Center management are requesting the use of some of that surplus revenue to be reinvested into the operation to improve efficiency and to improve patron experience at the higher usage levels. For an efficiency example, mobile computing (tablets) are requested for some staff members so that they can better respond to customer needs throughout the facility without needing to return to desks to look up or record information. For a user experience example, more pool-side furniture is requested to accommodate the greater number of people using the outdoor pools.
9. A discussion on the reprogramming of CDBG Funds. (16-065)
   Council Member George Stewart moved that the appropriation of money for the 400 West Street sidewalk be heard at the June 7th Council Meeting. Council Member David Knecht moved that in regards to the transformer, it be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting with the option of instead of the City paying the full $50,000, have the financing of half this amount be added to the existing loan already owed increasing the loan by $25,000 and the city paying half. Other options are welcome as well. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
   Rather than operate a City-run tech/start-up incubator, the City previously decided to support "other groups who are working directly with early stage and start up groups like – 1 Million Cups, Startup Dojo, Startup Building, Braid, Startfest, etc." The results of the tech-space provided at the Startup Building are impressive. This request would be part of our ongoing support in this area.
10. A discussion on a resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation approving the signature of a Collateral Assignment of the Parking Lease to Key Bank, a Collateral Assignment of the Joint Development Agreement, and an accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-063)
    Council Member George Stewart moved to approve to have this item on tonight’s Council agenda. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.
    From before: "The 63 East developers would like to buy out the City's investment/interest in the project." The Collateral Assignment will allow tenants continued access to the parking garage even if the developer defaults to their lender.
11. The Provo City Community Development Department requests approval of the Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan for 2014-2015. City Wide Impact. 16-0003GPA, Brian Maxfield, 801-852-6429
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting.
    From the Executive Summary: "Within 25 years (2040), Provo City is projected to have a population of over 150,000 people; a 32 percent increase over the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014 population estimate. The current need for Moderate Income Housing in Provo is broad, and the future demand will be even greater if Provo fails to properly address the provision of such housing as a necessity." This plan is required by the State, and is actually more of a report on Moderate Income Housing activities over the past two years.
12. Susan Christensen requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.32 of the Provo City Code to allow for reuse of an existing commercial building in the Residential Conservation Zone. Although this application has city wide implications, the specific address for this request is 389 East 200 North. Joaquin Neighborhood and City Wide Impact. 15-0020OA, Robert Mills, 801-852-6407
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting. 
    The Zone Text Amendment would allow small, neighborhood grocery stores, and bike repair/sales shops in existing commercial buildings inside of the RC zone. There are only two properties which fit this description. The applicant owns one of these properties and was looking to put in a neighborhood grocery store, but is now working with the Provo Bicycle Collective to allow them to move to a larger location. Though this affects only two properties, I hope it is the start of a trend to allow useful, neighborhood-scale commercial offerings in our neighborhoods, in a way to minimizes conflicts and serves our residents.
13. Kevin Reisch, representing Remmer Properties LLC, requests a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) zone to the Del Coronado PRO (PRO-20) Zone for 0.34 acres located at 177 South 1000 West. Franklin Neighborhood. 15-0013R, Aaron Ardmore, 801-852-6404
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting.
14. Kevin Reisch, representing Remmer Properties LLC, requests an Ordinance Amendment to Provo City Code Section 14.50(20).040 to reduce the minimum project area size from 0.9 acre to 0.34 acre in order to build a new duplex on .34 acres located at 177 South 1000 West, in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. 15-0014OA, Aaron Ardmore, 801-852-6404
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting.
    From before: "I remember this item from last year when a four-plex was proposed and denied. The proposal this time around is for the dilapidated single-family detached home be replaced by a duplex. "
15. IHC Health Services requests a Zoning Map Amendment from the One Family Residential (R1.6A) Zone to the Health Care Facilities (HCF) Zone, for the UVRMC campus expansion, comprising of approximately 0.46 acres of IHC Health Services owned property only, generally located between 800 North and 880 North and between 250 West and 440 West. North Park Neighborhood. 16-0006R, Dustin Wright, 801-852-6414
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting.
16. IHC Health Services requests approval of a Street Vacation for 250 West and 880 North, generally located between 800 North to 940 North and between 300 West to Freedom Boulevard, adjacent to property owned by IHC Health Services for future hospital expansion located in the One Family Residential (R1.6A) and Health Care Facilities (HCF) Zones. North Park Neighborhood. 16-0001SV, Dustin Wright, 801-852-6414
    This item will be heard at the June 7, 2016 Council Meeting.
    There are no plans to close 300 W and per policy, the property under the vacated streets will be transferred to the adjacent property owners without cost. From before: "IHC has acquired three of the last four lots on the two blocks and would like them rezoned as "Health Care Facilities". They are also asking for the vacation (removal) of two smaller streets. The property all around these streets is owned by IHC. I believe IHC has been a great part of our community and we are being served by their expansion. I will be asking if they have any plans to request the closure of 300 W. Also I'm curious if they are paying the City for the property on which the streets currently reside"
    Closed Meeting 
17. A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by Kena Jo Mathews regarding Habitat for Humanity
2. Presentation for Employee of the Month of March, 2016 - Rylee Snelson, Parks and Recreation Department
3. Presentation for Employee of the Month of April, 2016 - Suelen Whetten, Police
4. Public Comment 
5. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)Approved 7:0.
   Here is the tentatively approved budget that we will be considering over the next few weeks. We welcome public feedback.
6. A public hearing on a resolution approving the 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan, an update to the 2015-19 five-year Consolidated Plan, for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033)Approved 7:0.
   This item has raised the alarm of some of our residents. The concern centers around a new HUD rule called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." We asked the Administration about these concerns. I invite anyone who is concerned about this rule to read it at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh/.
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)Approved 7:0.
   This is part of the budgeting process.
8. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation approving the signature of a Collateral Assignment of the Parking Lease to Key Bank, a Collateral Assignment of the Joint Development Agreement, and an accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-063)Approved 7:0.
   This is the same item as #10 in the Work Meeting above.
9. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation consenting to the Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing documents and authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to sign the accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-066)Approved 7:0.
   This affects the Provo Towne Centre Mall. From before: "This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives."
10. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)Approved 7:0.
    This is part of the budgeting process.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 2.50.130 (Executive Director of the Municipal Council – Assignment of Duties) to clarify language regarding the duties of the Executive Director of the Municipal Council. (16-046)Approved 7:0.
    From before: "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."
12. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to Community Development fees. (15-118)Approved 7:0.
    From before: "This action raises some of the Community Development fees related to developments. These fees were studied and were found to be below the cost to provide the services and below the average of what surrounding communities were charging. The effective date is set to correspond to the new budget cycle and will allow time for the development community to be aware and adjust their plans if necessary."

West Side Grocery

I received an e-mailed question about what it would take to get  grocery store on the West Side. Here is the question, along with my response:

Thank you Dave for the heads up on what's going on in my neighborhood. I was wondering what is it going to take to get a grocery store on the west side of the freeway? Is council even considering this after all the requests for it?

Great questions. Here is what it would take:

Option 1: Provo City creates a Department of Grocery Stores and gets into the grocery store business, buying the property, building the store, and the running the operation. Some in the community might not think it is the proper role of the City to run a grocery store. 

Option 2: Provo City signals a desire to attract a grocery store, and publicizes an ever increasing package of incentives until a group takes us up on the offer. If grocery store operators felt that they could successfully run a store in Provo, west of the freeway, they would already be there. Depending on the perceived profitability gap, the incentive package might have to be large. Some in the community might not think that offering huge incentive packages is sound fiscal policy for the City. 

Option 3: Provo City engages with the citizens to plan for a healthy, sustainable, vibrant community west of the freeway, allowing for enough people to reside in the area to make the operation of a grocery store an attractive opportunity for grocery store operators. It takes more time, but it builds the foundation for the area to thrive in the long term. The difficult part of this is helping residents think about what kind of community they want to live in, and what choices to make now to make that a reality. Not everyone shares the same vision of what the area should be. Sometimes we don't consider the longer-term consequences of our choices. If we choose to zone the area for half- and quarter-acre lots, there is a real possibility that no grocery store will ever choose to locate in Provo, west of the freeway. 

If a grocery store could appear on the Westside with a snap of the Council's figures, we would have already snapped years and years ago. I don't believe there is a Councilor who wouldn't love to see a grocery store there. I am very interested in the planning that is underway right now for the area. I am hopeful that we will make wise decisions about the future which will provide a great quality of life for all residents of our great city. 

Thanks,
Dave

What's Up? - 14 May 2016

What's Coming Up?

I'm exhausted just looking at the agenda. I'm not sure how many people will read this all the way through, but you may want to scan through it to see if there are any items of interest to you. If you really want to have some fun, read the supporting documents for the Work Meeting and the Council Meeting. Together they weigh in at nearly 700 pages.

COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD JOINT MEETING

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the Golf, Covey Center, and Peaks Arena.
2. Long Range/Next Level Facilities
3. Regional Sports Park 
4. RAP Tax

There are no supporting documents at all for this meeting, so your guess is as good as mine.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an amendment to a Development Agreement, removing the requirement that each dwelling unit be occupied by the owner(s). (06-0004DA)
   This item is of interest to me. I've seen many development agreements entered into, and I have wondered what will happen in the future with this agreement. Well here is an example of someone looking to modify the agreement nine years later. At question is a provision in the agreement that "each unit will be occupied by the owner thereof." This provision was suppose to last for 15 years, so it should be in effect for another six.
2. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   This is a part of our effort to address our Public Engagement priority. "Rachel Stone, Provo City E-Government Specialist, will be presenting a comparison of online community engagement tools. This will be an opportunity for Council Members to see which tools they would like to use in the future."
3. A discussion on the Council Staff Budget Review Process. (16-059)
   We will be planning how to review the proposed budget in preparation for its adoption.
4. A discussion on the Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee. (16-051)
   We were told at our last meeting that the draft of Vision 2050 will be done by our next meeting. Our Policy Governance Committee was asked to propose a process and timeline to ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to review, understand, and give feedback on the proposed vision.
5. A discussion on the Fire Department Apparatus needs. (16-060)
   All of the Department's ambulances and fire trucks are more than 10 years old. The last vehicle purchase was in 2006 and included 9 vehicles. The Department is proposing that vehicles be replaced on a staggered schedule to avoid infrequent but large purchases.
6. A discussion and update on the 820 North Corridor Study. (16-061)
   "Second and final presentation to Council on progress and recommendations of the 820 N Corridor Study being performed by Mountainland Association of Governments, jointly with Provo City, outlining future traffic/active transportation needs along Provo’s 820 North Corridor."
7. A discussion on a section of the City Center Roof Replacement. (16-062)
   The roof over the Fire and Community Development Departments is 44 years old and band-aids aren't working any longer. Replacement will be a major expense, but as none of the plans to rebuild the City Center have panned out, we need to make tough decisions about how to keep our building from flooding.
8. A discussion on the Recreation Center Capital Projects. (16-064)
   Not only are we not subsidizing our Rec Center out of our General Fund, the Rec Center is poised to collect more money from membership fees and day passes than planned expenses. Several ideas will be presented as to how to reinvest the proceeds to improve the patron experience despite the increased usage, as well as improve the efficiency of the operation.
9. A discussion on the reprogramming of CDBG Funds. (16-065)
   About $50k towards the reconstruction of 400 W between 100 N and Center. About $50k grant to owners of the Startup Building to relocate a transformer. 
10. A discussion on a resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation approving the signature of a Collateral Assignment of the Parking Lease to Key Bank, a Collateral Assignment of the Joint Development Agreement, and an accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-063)
    The 63 East developers would like to buy out the City's investment/interest in the project.
11. The Provo City Community Development Department requests approval of the Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan for 2014-2015. City Wide Impact. 16-0003GPA, Brian Maxfield, 801-852-6429
    This biennial plan is required by the State. The intent is to ensure that communities are accommodating enough median income housing.
12. Susan Christensen requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.32 of the Provo City Code to allow for reuse of an existing commercial building in the Residential Conservation Zone. Although this application has city wide implications, the specific address for this request is 389 East 200 North. Joaquin Neighborhood and City Wide Impact. 15-0020OA, Robert Mills, 801- 852-6407
    There are two instances in Provo where a "non-conforming" commercial building is attached to a residence in the Residential Conservation (RC) zone. The owner of the one property in Joaquin Neighborhood is requesting a code change that would allow either a grocery or bicycle repair and sales use in these existing building. In addition to the City Staff, I have reached out to Joaquin Neighbors and have found them to be supportive and excited for this change. My only concern is the fact that there is no off-street parking associated with this commercial building. This concern is addressed in the Staff report, "However, in this case, the property is ideally located within walking or biking distance to the residents who will be utilizing the commercial use, thus greatly reducing the need for automobile dependence." I believe the current plan is for the Provo Bicycle Collective to move into this space. The Collective is currently in my home Neighborhood. Our neighbors have been very happy with having the collective nearby. But there is a parking lot at the current location, and it is used by Collective patrons. I have heard for years about problems with parking in Joaquin, I just want to make sure we don't regret this decision in the future if it compounds the parking problem.
13. Kevin Reisch, representing Remmer Properties LLC, requests a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) zone to the Del Coronado PRO (PRO-20) Zone for 0.34 acres located at 177 South 1000 West. Franklin Neighborhood. 15-0013R, Aaron Ardmore, 801-852-6404
14. Kevin Reisch, representing Remmer Properties LLC, requests an Ordinance Amendment to Provo City Code Section 14.50(20).040 to reduce the minimum project area size from 0.9 acre to 0.34 acre in order to build a new duplex on .34 acres located at 177 South 1000 West, in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. 15-0014OA, Aaron Ardmore, 801-852-6404
    I remember this item from last year when a four-plex was proposed and denied. The proposal this time around is for the dilapidated single-family detached home be replaced by a duplex. 
15. IHC Health Services requests a Zoning Map Amendment from the One Family Residential (R1.6A) Zone to the Health Care Facilities (HCF) Zone, for the UVRMC campus expansion, comprising of approximately 0.46 acres of IHC Health Services owned property only, generally located between 800 North and 880 North and between 250 West and 440 West. North Park Neighborhood. 16-0006R, Dustin Wright, 801-852-6414
16. IHC Health Services requests approval of a Street Vacation for 250 West and 880 North, generally located between 800 North to 940 North and between 300 West to Freedom Boulevard, adjacent to property owned by IHC Health Services for future hospital expansion located in the One Family Residential (R1.6A) and Health Care Facilities (HCF) Zones. North Park Neighborhood. 16-0001SV, Dustin Wright, 801-852-6414
    IHC has acquired three of the last four lots on the two blocks and would like them rezoned as "Health Care Facilities". They are also asking for the vacation (removal) of two smaller streets. The property all around these streets is owned by IHC. I believe IHC has been a great part of our community and we are being served by their expansion. I will be asking if they have any plans to request the closure of 300 W. Also I'm curious if they are paying the City for the property on which the streets currently reside.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by Kena Jo Mathews regarding Habitat for Humanity
2. Presentation for Employee of the Month of March, 2016 - Rylee Snelson, Parks and Recreation Department
3. Presentation for Employee of the Month of April, 2016 - Suelen Whetten, Police
4. Public Comment
5. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)
   We've now had two weeks to "review and consider" the proposed budget. We will consider at least a few tweaks before tentatively adopting the tentative budget that will be scrutinized by the Council, Staff, and the public.
6. A public hearing on a resolution approving the 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan, an update to the 2015-19 five-year Consolidated Plan, for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033)
   Each year Provo has to submit an Action Plan to HUD as part of receiving federal grant money. 
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   There is no information other than an amount. Perhaps the details are buried in the main budget document.
8. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation approving the signature of a Collateral Assignment of the Parking Lease to Key Bank, a Collateral Assignment of the Joint Development Agreement, and an accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-063)
   This is the same item as #10 in the Work Meeting above.
9. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation consenting to the Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing documents and authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to sign the accompanying Estoppel Certificate. (16-066)
   This is the same item as #3 from the Work Meeting two weeks ago. After that meeting I wrote: "This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives."
10. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
    This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 2.50.130 (Executive Director of the Municipal Council – Assignment of Duties) to clarify language regarding the duties of the Executive Director of the Municipal Council. (16-046)
    This item has finally made it to a Council Meeting. Previously I've describe this as, "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."
12. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to Community Development fees. (15-118)
    This action raises some of the Community Development fees related to developments. These fees were studied and were found to be below the cost to provide the services and below the average of what surrounding communities were charging. The effective date is set to correspond to the new budget cycle and will allow time for the development community to be aware and adjust their plans if necessary.

What's Up? - 12 May 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Provology Graduation
   Congrats to the latest batch of Provology Graduates!
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
   I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Bingham, but it is obvious that he had a huge positive impact on our city and in the lives of many who served along side him. Provo's water future is far more secure because of his efforts.
3. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo. (16044) Approved 7:0.
   I was pleased to vote to approve Richard Brimhall to serve on this board.
4. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah. (16-047) Approved 7:0.
   The Council went through an exhaustive (and exhausting) processes to identify Cliff Strachan as the best person to serve as our Executive Director. 
5. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project. (15-110) Continued to April 26th, Approved 5:2. Council Member David Harding and Gary Winterton opposed.
   Much has been written about BRT and the agreements that were approved and signed the week after this meeting. I won't rehash it here. I voted against continuing the item because I felt it best to make our decision that night. Many of the public had taken the time to come down and participate in our meeting. Far fewer attended the week after. Some members of the Council were concerned that some last minute changes were made. I understand that concern, but we had carefully reviewed the vast majority of the agreements and I thought it would be better take the necessary time that evening, even to recess if necessary, in order to review the changes.
6. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033) No Action
   More time was requested.
7. 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. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
   CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. We approved 15% of the CDBG funds to be used for social services. More details can be found here, here, and here. Comment below if the links stop working.
9. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048) Continued to May 3rd. Approved 7:0. 
   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.
10. 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. (16-0001R) Replace all references to LDR with R2-PD. Approved 7:0. Remove lots 1 &2 from rezone and have staff make text adjustments to the ordinance. Approved 7:0. Approve Ordinance as amended with Development Agreement to include Site Plan, Elevations, all documents described during meeting and CCNRs. Approved 7:0.
    This project was designed with the 55+ demographic in mind, though it won't be age restricted. Some neighbors expressed concern about any development which doesn't provide only single-family-detached housing. This proposal is for single-family-attached housing in the form of twin homes. Many in the Council have expressed an interest in exploring more diverse housing types scattered about our city. Many of our older residents would like to find homes which better meet their needs (less bedrooms or less yard work) now that their life circumstances have changed, but they also don't want to move away from their neighbors. Having some independent-living type houses throughout our city would allow these senior residents to do just that. This would also free up more large, single-family-detached homes for other families to grow into.
    There was some discomfort about the miss-match between the proposal (twin-homes) and the proposed zoning (LDR which allows for town-homes, with a density up to 15 units/acre). Members on the Council inquired whether there was another zone which better fit the proposal. Community Development staff determined that the R2-PD (twin-homes/duplex) zone would accommodate the proposal, and that the two lots with existing structures, were fine remaining R1.10. The developer was fine with any zoning designation as long as it allowed the proposal to proceed. This is what was approved by the Council.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee ( 15-109)  Report Only
   A lot of good work is being done.
   "Utah County, including Provo City, has some of the best agricultural soil and climate in the state, but the land is rapidly being lost to agriculture due to urban sprawl. To combat this, The Nature Conservancy" is donating $90,000 to Provo City "to protect agricultural land."
   Land in Provo is scarce and rising in value, both monetarily and its value to the community. Our agricultural land has the potential to benefit our community, but I worry that it is not currently being used to its potential. With the ways it is being used now (mostly for alfalfa and grazing), it is hard to justify the effort and money to prevent it from being converted to another use. The problem is, once it is converted to another use, there is no practical way that we'll ever get it back.
2. A discussion regarding Body Cameras (16-052)  Report Only. Administration will come back to a future meeting with an action item.
   Body worn cameras for police are a top topic nationally. Here in the state, we are the largest jurisdiction that is not using these cameras. Of the top ten police forces in the state, all are using cameras or are implementing their use. We were presented with the interim findings of the Department's on-going study of available cameras and on the parameters that they are weighing. The benefits include reduced complaints about officer conduct (presumably because everyone is on better behavior when they know they are being recorded, and the officers are protected against false claims). The concerns usually revolve around privacy. The State Legislature provided some direction on the privacy concerns this year.
3. A discussion on Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing Documents for Brixton Capital (16-053)  Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.
   This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives.
4. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties (16-046) Council Member David Sewell moved this revised ordinance to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting.
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process (16-023) Update Only
6. A discussion on Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee (16-051)  Council Member Gary Winterton moved to (1) create Vision 2050, (2) have adequate public vetting and (3) then ask staff to align it with the General Plan. Seconded by Dave Knecht.
   Added: Gary Winterton added to the motion to have it come back to the committee with a timeline for vetting of the Vision in two weeks with a recommendation of the public process.
   Council Member Dave Harding made a substitute motion: change the 3rd step in the original motion to staff should align the General Plan with Vision 2050. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   Community Development is working with various committees to update Vision 2030 (which will now be called Vision 2050). I lost the battle to merge the documents by having Vision 2050 become Chapter 1 of the General Plan. Instead, we will move ahead with just aligning the documents. I had more success fighting for the time and concerted outreach for robust public vetting. There is a desire to move quickly on accepting the update so that we can get right on the update to the General Plan. It would be very helpful to get the General Plan update completed quickly so that the updated plan can be used in creating the next budget, which process starts soon after we adopt the coming budget. I felt strongly that we needed more than just a 30 day comment period, where we invite the public to give us feedback. I argued for an aggressive outreach campaign, taking the proposed Vision to the people, and working hard to get that feedback and the corresponding buy-in from the community. At our next Work Meeting we should see both the draft of Vision 2050 and a proposed plan for the public vetting. Based on the approved motion, Vision 2050 should be created to capture the community's vision of our future. It should align with the current aspects of our General Plan, and reflect the best thinking of the Council, Administration, and the broader public. The proposed Vision will go through a public vetting process, after which, it needs to be approved by the Council. At that point our city will have an articulated vision to guide the update of the General Plan. The up-to-date Vision and General Plan will then guide future land use decisions by the Council and will guide the preparation and adoption of future budgets. It is hard to over emphasize how much weight these two documents will have on the future direction of our City, and how important it is for the public to be involved in the vetting process.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (15-118)  Council Member George Stewart moved to adopt the ordinance with the change to line 98 making it effective July 1, 2016 and to hear this item at the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. (I believe this passed unanimously.)
   This action raises some of the Community Development fees related to developments. These fees were studied and were found to be below the cost to provide the services and below the average of what surrounding communities were charging. We changed the effective date to correspond to the new budget cycle and to allow time for the development community to be aware and adjust their plans if necessary.
   
8. A discussion regarding the General Plan update regarding the Jail Property (16-050)  Council Member David Sewell moved that Council will support the existing process of the Southeast Neighborhood Planning and that the Council input (from this meeting) will be given to the neighborhood regarding the jail property, the adjacent property and State property as they continue their Neighborhood Planning.. If the result of the Neighborhood Plan is different than that of the current General Plan, consideration should be given to change the General Plan. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Passed 7:0.
   I am in the middle of writing an entire essay on this item and the related issues. I hope to publish it here soon. This is part of the larger discussion that many in the community are having regarding housing. Stay tuned.
9. Administrative Updates    
10. Closed Meeting  A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   In my "What's Up?" post previewing this meeting, I took this item description to mean that the band Foreigner was coming to play at the Covey. Instead the cast gave us a preview of their play production of The Foreigner.
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
   Congratulations Susan Krueger-Barber! This was well deserved!
4. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)  Motion to (1) refer budget to the Budget Committee and (2) receive a report from the Budget Committee and (3) to hear the item on the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.According to Utah State code, a tentative budget is to be "reviewed, considered, and tentatively adopted." I felt uncomfortable with approving the budget, even tentatively, without having the opportunity to "review" or "consider" it. We are still on track to authorize a budget without requiring any special sessions.
5. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)  Approved 7:0.
   We love our Provo River Trail. This is a great use of this grant that is earmarked by the County to our city.
6. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048)  Approved 7:0.
   As stated in a previous "What's Up": "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."
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.  As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   As the Storm Water District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
9. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)  Approved 7:0.
   "As stated in a previous "What's Up": 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."
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)  Approved 7:0.The stated reason for this requirement was for utility easements. These won't be used in this development, so I don't see any harm in reducing the requirement if the utilities issue a waiver.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)  Approved 7:0.
    The Council had a great discussion regarding proposals which fall just outside the parameters one of our current zones, which otherwise fit the proposal very well. Our recent practice, if we felt the proposal would further our city's vision, has been to approve a more intense/less restrictive zone which allows the proposal, even if the zone doesn't fit the proposal all that well, and even if the zone itself doesn't fit with the city's vision. We have been relying on proffered development agreements to hold the developer to the proposal, as the zoning would allow far more than what was being proposed. In this case, the proposal is to form a third lot out of two existing lots, each with an existing single-family-detached home, and allow another single-family-detached home to be built on the third lot. All three lots have more than 6,000 sqft, so an R1.6 zone would appear to be a good fit. Unfortunately, the street frontage of the third lot is barely too narrow for the zone, therefore the LDR zone is proposed. LDR allows for residential up to town homes, which doesn't describe this proposal very well. I don't think anyone on the Council had concerns with this particular proposal, and we passed in unanimously, but I hope that we've started a discussion about how to best deal with proposals that are just outside of the most obvious zone.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)  Denied 7:0. I don't believe the city would be served by reducing the front yard setbacks of solid fencing above 3'.
    

BRT Questions, Answers, and Discussion

I'd like to wrap up this round of the BRT saga. Much of my time over the past month has been spent communicating with residents about the project. Though much of the communication has been with people who disagree with my vote, it has generally been a positive experience, cultivating understanding on both sides. There were a few exceptions, like a new friend who called me a coward, thief, and either corrupt or ignorant, but overall it has also been one of the more rewarding experiences of being on the Council.

I want to share some snippets of conversations I've been having by email. There is no real order to the excerpts, I just skimmed through my inbox and grabbed parts that I thought might be interesting. I'm not using names, as I have not asked permission. I've taken the liberty to fix some of my grammar and edit for length. My words are in blue.

• I wonder why we aren't putting in a train. I understand the costs. Let's put in a more safer, stable and more permanent system.
• I am all for a train. There is a night-and-day difference between riding a regular bus and a lightrail train. The point of BRT is to try to take all of the aspects that make lightrail so appealing, and repackage them into a form that is much less expensive. BRT should feel much more like lightrail than a regular bus...UTA has indicated that they will change this system over to lightrail when there is sufficient population and demand. They note that by putting in dedicated lanes now, the corridor is preserved for rails in the future. As much as I would love to have lightrail now, I think BRT is the right intermediate step.
• I guess the real issue for me is the vision of Provo's future. Will it remain a cute, friendly college town with strong LDS values or will it turn into another SLC.  I really don't want to see it turn into another SLC.
• It's a bit cliche, but the most constant thing in Provo's history is change. Provo now is different than it was at the 20 years ago, which was different than the way it was 20 years before that, and so on. It has always been the heart of the County, and less rural than its satellite communities. It has remained the center through steady growth and development. Even its LDS-ness has shifted over time. In the early decades, Provo was a distance away, both physically and culturally, from the center of Zion. Church leaders in Salt Lake often chastised us for lax observance, including the slow efforts to build the tabernacle. In many ways, the cultures of the two cities have swapped.I love the culture and the uniqueness of our city, I think it is part of what makes us great. Growth and progress have brought us to this point. I think we would destroy what we have if we tried to freeze our community in place. I feel that we instead need to carefully plan how we can maintain our great quality of life even while we grow.Growth will come. Success attracts people. And much of our growth will be from our own children. Even if we could freeze our population size, we would have to give up our role as the business, education, cultural, entertainment, commercial, and government center of the County in order to shield ourselves from the impact of the large County growth.If we are going to double the number of people traveling on our roads, we can't just double the width of our roads. Traffic and congestion is coming, unless we can provide commuters with convenient alternatives. Some of our residents may never ride on a BRT bus, but they will benefit from the service by having roads that are less congested.
• Please help keep us free.  I am grateful you are so open, I really am.  Every new regulation, every new program, every new public benefit is one degree less freedom we all are left with.  The government who has the power to give us everything also has the power to take everything we have from us. As [redacted] said, 'freedom is the fuel which government consumes'.  (This quote was attributed to a locally-elected State official.)
• One of the freedoms that I relish in America is the freedom of self-governance. The concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is truer in local government than any other level. There is always tension and a tug-of-war between different levels of government, but we, as a community, enjoy a fairly broad ability to chose what kind of community we want to be and what we want to become. We have the ability to chose if we want to run our own electric utility, we can chose how we want to set up our transportation infrastructure, we can chose, to some degree, how we want to run our school system. At its best, government is the vehicle by which we exercise this freedom.
• I do have one question; who pays to remove BRT stops should BRT fail?  
• The lease agreement that we are considering spells out UTA's responsibility to pay for the removal of any infrastructure they put in if it is no longer used.
• UTA proposed, in one of their presentations, that folks would ride BRT to the Orem mall, go shopping, and return by bus.  Personally, I want them to shop in Provo…but who goes school shopping for a family of six or seven on the bus when they have a family car?
• I don't think that school-shopping families of six are the intended customers for BRT. They are welcome, but are not who this line is being built for, in my opinion. The #1 intended customer is the commuter. Imagine someone who lives in Provo and works some place north of here. BRT may give them quick access to FrontRunner. Or imagine the reverse. Some one lives north of Provo and has a daily commute into our Downtown, or to BYU, or to the Novell campus. BRT may make it much more convenient for them to take FrontRunner, because it solves the problem of how to get to where they are going once they get off the train. Imagine the impact to our congestion and our air quality if a significant number of people leave their cars at home, or at a FrontRunner station far from Provo. Imagine the financial impact to some families who will be enabled to get by with just one car, because of the option to commute using transit. I believe the second intended customer is the university student. Many BYU and UVU students feel the need to bring a car with them to college. Recent and coming changes will convince more of them that a car is an expensive luxury that they can do without. The new BYU shuttle is helping some students leave their cars at their apartments, but they still need their cars when they are going places other than campus. BRT will make two malls and our wonderful Downtown easily accessible without driving. I'm sure that BRT will be used by some other people, and will help with game-day traffic, but it is not intended to be the be-all, end-all solution to everyone's transportation needs. Even people who will never ride it will benefit from BRT because of the reduction in congestion and the improvement in our air quality that it will bring.
• I don't think the city should be involved in using public funds to create or enhance a public transit system. If we are to have public transit, it should be run like a business. The company could contract with the city to get permission to use roads, perhaps, or build bus stops, but the funding should come from the company, not from the city. If public transit is going to be so good and so profitable, why couldn't a private investor put down capital and get a business loan like everyone else?
• I'm curious why you think transit should be privately run, but roads should be publicly run ("focus funds on fixing roads"). We could sell our roads to the highest bidder and have them pay for the repairs and upkeep and then charge drivers whatever the market demands for usage.
• You also bring up an interesting point regarding the government's role in public transportation vs. public roads. I had to think about that one for a bit. I guess my short answer is that if I felt there was a feasible way to privatize road building and maintenance, I would be in favor of that as well. The reason I don't think it is feasible is primarily due to ownership of land. It would be nearly impossible for a private company to coordinate the purchase and use of so many rights of way. The actual construction and maintenance can obviously be contracted out to the lowest private builder, but the ownership and control of roads is one of the few things that I think is better handled by government. It is also important to note that EVERYONE uses the roads. Everyone pays taxes and everyone benefits. 
  Public transportation is markedly different. First, there are no substantive issues with land. Any minor use by a transit service (for signs and bus stops) is on land that has already been set aside by the government. Second, the demand for public transportation is very low. It is not something for which tax dollars seem appropriate, especially when it would not be hard for a private company to offer an efficient transportation service (e.g., taxis, shuttles, etc.).
  I believe that anything that can be done privately should be done privately. The more government can deregulate and get out of the way, the better. In all of these things, we need more people like you who are willing to present the issues and engage in discourse with your constituents. Thank you for your time.
• Before serving on the Council, I spent a couple of years on the City's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, and studied and thought a lot about transportation policy. You say that "EVERYONE uses the roads" to which I agree, but I would frame it as "everyone has transportation and mobility needs". The people, at least partly through their government, set up transportation systems. Back in settlement times, roads were mostly for pedestrians, but other modes of transportation were also welcome, including horses, carts, and wagons. For a time we had a "Provo Street Railroad" (http://utahrails.net/streetcars/provo-street.php). Right now our transportation system is designed mostly around private automobiles. Other cities rely of public transit to varying degrees. Every system has consequences, both good and bad. Because of our unique geography, our automobile usage has a greater impact on air quality than most places. Building up our transit infrastructure will broaden our transportation options and will diversify our system. Even people who will never ride transit will "use" and benefit from the system, just as someone who doesn't own a car, or even is home-bound, still uses and benefits from our current system. I'm not necessarily arguing for the BRT project here, just that there is a public need for transportation, and that it is wise for community leaders to thoughtfully plan for a transportation system that best meets the needs of the people.
• I'm sure you know, but the UTA has already been much in the news in recent years for their baffling, corrupt, and unethical actions. This is my no means intended to be an attack on ALL of UTA; I'm quite certain that many of them are honest, caring people trying hard to solve real problems. However, as the old proverb warns us, "the fish rots from the head down;" I am very concerned about giving more of our tax money to an organization of which the Office of the Legislative Auditor General so recently warned us is estimated to be approaching a shortfall $1.2 billion against their projections from 2007. Rail maintenance continues to be dangerously underfunded, there are still significant, unanswered questions about the UTA's Farebox Policy, and so on.
• Finally, I think the willingness of UTA to enter into this unprecedented project governance model where they cede their control, is yet another indication that the agency has been sufficiently chastened and is reforming in earnest. Agency culture does not change over night, but I am seeing encouraging signs. Of course, much is in the eyes of the beholder. When the fall out from the Switzerland trip hit the news a few months back, some saw it as a sign of continued corruption at UTA. I saw it as a sign that it is no longer business-as-usual at UTA, that board members didn't follow strict, newly-created policies, and they were swiftly shown the door. I do have confidence in H. David Burton, and look forward to the continued improvement at UTA and the eventual restoration of public trust. 
• "Listen to the people whom you are sworn to represent, please." "The majority of your tax-paying constituents are opposed to BRT.  Please listen to the people you were chosen to represent." "It seems like common sense to me to see that this is not something the people in this town want, or even need."
• Excerpts from "Results of the 2014 Provo Registered Voter Poll 5 June 2014"
  Quin Monson
  The Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy Brigham Young University
  
  "Bus Rapid Transit Provo City’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal has proven to be a controversial issue. However, the 2014 survey confirms that voters in Provo overwhelmingly support BRT, with nearly 79% of respondents indicating that they either somewhat (38%) or strongly (41%) favor BRT.
  
  "Favorability Analysis: Statistical analysis demonstrated that the area of the city in which a respondent lived does not play a significant part in the level of support of BRT, with the notable exception of those neighborhoods directly east of Brigham Young University. Among respondents in precincts 11 and 36, often referred to as the “Tree Streets,” support of BRT was significantly lower, though still above 64% overall. The key difference between this neighborhood and the rest of Provo is the significantly higher rate of “Strong” opposition to BRT, indicating that a minority of residents have intense feelings on the issue, while the neighborhood, taken as a whole, remains supportive of BRT. Our survey questions did not address specific routes for BRT, although these results are likely due to the proposed route on 9th East, to which many residents in this area have voiced opposition."

What's Up? - 2 May 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A discussion on a recommendation from the Municipal Council Budget Committee on 2016-2017 Budget Preparation Guidelines. (16-041)
   A motion was made to move this item back to the Budget Committee for further discussions between Council and Administration. Approved 7:0.
   Priority-based budgeting is a revolutionary approach and is considered a best practice. Imagine if held a three-day spring festival, the Police Department might provide security, the Fire Department would provide medical services, Parks and Rec might spend funds on the activities, the Mayor's office might cover the publicity, Economic Development could get involved in promoting the City. In traditional budgeting and accounting, the costs of this event might be spread across multiple budgets, and buried and combined with other expenses in various line items within those multiple budgets. It would be difficult for the public as well as decision makers to understand the full cost of the festival, and to evaluate if the benefits justify the price and whether the event should be grown or cut back in future years. In priority-based budgeting systems, this festival would be treated as a separate "program" and money would be proposed and approved for the program which would then be allocated to the various departments working on the festival. Expenses would be assigned to the project and we could see which programs are over, on, or under budget.
   
   You can imagine that priority-based budgeting is a significant departure from the way budgeting and accounting has been done, and would take a significant amount of effort to fully implement.
   
   During this Work Meeting we discussed a recommendation from our Budget Committee, as well as a presentation from the Administration regarding changes to how the budget can be presented this year. There are differences between the two, but I am extremely encouraged by what I see as improvements in our budget system in just the first year of looking at PBB. Much of the conversation is focused on how we can implement the new Provo 360 integrated software platform, so it will facilitate PBB workflow in the future.
2. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118)
   This item was continued to the May 3, 2016 Work Meeting.
   The proposal had not been prepared as directed by the Council so we had to continue the item.
3. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   A motion was made that David Harding continue to work with staff and research this issue of public engagement and specifically on-line interaction. He will update the Council on May 17, 2016 Work Meeting. Approved 7:0.
   Council Intern Soren Schmidt has researched this item during his Spring Semester, and presented his findings to the Council. He found that Provo's government does a relatively good job at making information available to the public, but that we could do better at organizing it in a way that it would be easier to find, navigate, and understand. He highlighted a couple cities nationally who do a good job at this and recommended how we could follow their lead.
4. A discussion on funding for the Miss Provo Pageant (16-045)
   A motion was made to proceed with the request outlined by Mayor John Curtis that $11,000 from the Mayor’s budget be moved to the Council budget and that a line item be added to the Council Budget for $10,000 and that the pageant will not be a large administrative burden. The total fund for the Miss Provo Pageant in the Council office will be $21,000 effective July 1, 2017. Approved 4:3. [Council Members Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed]
   Currently Provo City supports the Miss Provo Pageant with about $11,000 each year. In exchange for this, the organization creates a float for us each year and represents us in a dozen or so parades. Miss Provo attends several other events as asked. The organization came before the Council to ask for more funding to help pay for the scholarships that are awarded. The Administration, who up to this point coordinated with the Pageant, felt like they were running it as they saw best, and that if the Council felt like more support was justified, we should take over the relationship. I felt strongly that the current arrangement was reasonable, and that Provo City was getting some services out of the relationship. I think scholarships are great and I think that community supported institutions are an important part of our community. I did not feel comfortable with the City spending tax-payer money to fund these scholarships. I think it sets a bad precedent. How do we choose which scholarships we fund and which we don't?
5. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Sections 14.41, 15.03.300, 15.03.310, 15.04.120, and 15.06.030 in order to clarify code and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
6. A discussion on a request by Ivory Homes for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.49E.050(6)(a)(iii) and 14.49E.040(6)(b)(ii) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet instead of one five foot and one eight foot setback in single-family residential areas. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on a request by Adam Hall for a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) to facilitate a three-lot subdivision for property located at approximately 1080 West 500 North. North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
8. A discussion on a request by Brian Dabb on an ordinance text amendment to Section 14.34.500 to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in Residential Zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

 

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   Do you want to know what love is? I hear this juke box hero is as cold as ice.
   ***Update: at the Council Meeting I learned that the Covey Center was presenting "The Foreigner" not "Foreigner" the band. I apologize if I raised the hopes of any Foriegner fans out there.***
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
4. Public Comment
5. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)
   Currently, the only support document is the draft resolution. I can't imagine that I will be able to even begin reviewing the budget between now and our vote. I understand the tentative adoption of a budget is required by ... but why even approve something tentatively before having a chance to look at it? I'll be asking this question.
6. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)
   The grant is funded by the County restaurant tax and is allocated based on population. The Provo River Trail was rated as the most popular part in a recent resident survey. This grant will support the effort to renovate the Trail.
7. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048)
   We discussed this item a bit in our April 19th Council Meeting, but the resolution was not completely ready then. Here is what I wrote last time: "Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners."
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
9. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   As the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission." Nothing in the Work Meeting changed my opinion.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "If a waiver is obtained from the Utilities, the 8' side-yard set-backs can be reduced to 5'." I didn't see any reason why this should not be allowed.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "Three houses are on two lots and the lots can't be modified in the RC zone. Under a different zone, three lots can be created out ot the two, one for each home. LDR is the only zone that allows single-family detached homes on the lot size of the smallest proposed lot. LDR would allow the three homes to be torn down and replaced with a 7-unit town-home, but the applicant proffered to enter into a development agreement restricting this "subdivision" to three units." I'm not thrilled about rezoning this plot to LDR to accommodate three single-family detached homes. I believe that an R1.6 zone won't work because the lot width is too small at 55'. I will be asking what is the minimum lot width for R1.6.
13. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "The applicant proposes that solid fencing, up to six feet high be allowed in certain portions of front yards across Provo." I don't think this is a good idea, so I'll need to be convinced otherwise if I am going to vote for it.