Merry Christmas!

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

West Provo

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

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

Eminent Domain

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

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

West Side Planning and the Purpose of Agricultural Preservation

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

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

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

Purposes of Agricultural Preservation

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


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


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

West Provo Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's Up? - 5 December 2016

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

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

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

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

Public Comment


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