What's Up? - 31 October 2016

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

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

What's Up? - 24 October 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

What's Up? - 17 October 2016

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

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

Solar Thoughts

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 9:56pm

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:32pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:18pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:21pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:24pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:22pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:30pm

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:33pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:35pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:54pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 9:58pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:58pm

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:58pm

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:11pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:17pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident D I absolutely understand that perspective.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:10pm

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

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

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

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

Write a reply...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident H I cannot like this comment enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:18pm

Resident D Well there are options.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:20pm

Resident D The Council moves by 4 votes.

Like · Reply · October 5 at 10:28pm

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

Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:49pm

Write a reply...

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

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

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

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 9:22am

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

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

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

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