What's Up? - 10 February 2017

It was my goal to get these meeting reports out early, before I have to prepare for the next round of meetings.

I only used two colors of comments this time: light blue comments were taken from past "What's Up?" reports, dark blue comments are new.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, February 7^th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by BYU MPA students regarding a project in the Franklin and Franklin South Neighborhoods
   Presentation only.
   This was a straightforward presentation of the report which I had already reviewed. BYU Masters of Public Administration students studied our Franklin and Franklin South Neighborhoods for economic revitalization, specifically with an eye toward making the area more attractive to millennials. I agree with many of the principles promoted in the report. I believe many of the characteristics that attract Millennials also make for a vibrant community for others to live as well: walkability, sense-of-place, close proximity to daily amenities, etc.
2. A presentation from the Utah Ombudsman's Office regarding eminent domain proceedings
   Presentation only.
   This was a lively presentation and discussion. The takeaways that I took were that both the US Constitution and State Statute recognize that situations arise when private land needs to be taken for public use, that the landowners have a right to "just compensation", and that any member of the public who is facing eminent domain should contact the Ombudsman's Office.
3. A discussion on the West Side Sewer Line planning
   Presentation only.
   By redesigning the main sewer trunk, a number of pump stations can be consolidated, construction hassles reduced, and ~$7M can be saved.
4. A discussion regarding a proposed resolution expressing opposition to House Bill 164 and support for municipalities with respect to Enterprise Funds transfers
   Discussion only.
   See item 11 in the Council Meeting report below.
5. A report on the progress of the Urban Deer Program
   Brief presentation only; item continued to a future meeting following the end of the season.
   The report was far more in depth than the presentation. Last year the Council approved an Urban Deer Control Plan. Highlights of the implementation so far include:
   • 32 deer harvested, with the meat donated to needy and interested citizens
   • 487 specialist hours spent harvesting the deer
   • 30 deer captured
   • 28 deer successfully transferred
   • At least 74 officer hours spent capturing and transferring the deer (not including volunteer hours)
   • 1 significant injury to an officer handling a live deer
   The full report is here.
6. A presentation from Utah Transit Authority regarding development near the proposed BRT line in Provo
   Item continued to a future Work Meeting.
7. A discussion on an update regarding the city-wide Economic Development Strategic Plan
   Discussion only.
   It's been about a year since Economic Development updated the Council at a meeting. We do receive weekly updates by email. We talked about the changing and fickle nature of retail.
8. A discussion on a proposed ordinance regarding camping on public property
   Council Member George Stewart moved that this item be heard at the February 21, 2017 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.
   The proposed ordinance was initiated by one of our police officers, Officer Nisonger (who was recognized as our employee of the month for November). This ordinance gives officers a tool to deal with people camping on public property. A story was shared where recently a woman set up camp in a park. Our police interacted with her almost daily for nearly three months before she decided to move on. The officers could do little more than cite her each day for trespassing. This ordinance would allow police to actually remove the camp. There are a number of provisions to protect both the public as well as the personal property of the campers, taken from ordinances from around the country that have stood up to court challenges and have been negotiated between advocates for various groups. 
9. A discussion on mission statements for all Council Committees
• Mission statement and scope of Policy Governance Committee, Neighborhood Program Review Committee, and Rules Committee approved by unanimous consent.
• Discussion on the Budget & Audit Committee continued to a future meeting.
Last year we stipulated that each Council committees should have a mission statement. Now there is only one Committee without an approved mission statement.
10. A discussion on a Budget Committee request for a Water Division review
    Item continued to the February 21, 2017 Work Meeting.
11. A discussion about whether the Council would like to fund both a new attorney and another zoning officer in the upcoming budget year
    Discussion only.
    During the last budget cycle, the Council directed that two new zoning enforcement officers be hired. Zoning has suggested that the legal office is the bottleneck and adding more bandwidth there would be more effective than the second Officer. In the meeting, we discussed if we would like to fund both zoning officers as well as moving a part-time attorney position to full time. We had a hearty discussion on how this would be paid for.
12. Closed Meeting
    A closed session was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 7^th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

3. A presentation by the Rotary Club about their efforts installing benches in Provo City Parks along the Provo River Trail
   Presentation only.
4. A discussion and update on the BRT project
   Discussion only.
   We received a construction update on Provo-Orem TRIP, both the BRT portion and the University Parkway expansion portion. A majority of the time on the item revolved around questions regarding UTA's adherence to the Lease Agreement and Interlocal agreement. UTA discussed the timeline of various agreements. The Council attorney looked carefully at the questions that had been raised. A concerned citizen reiterated her concerns. I invite anyone who is interested in this topic to watch the video for this item. The item starts at about the 15:45 mark. It lasts almost two hours if you listen to all of the public comments. Very briefly, my take on it is that the federal government, through FTA, is funding half of the BRT portion. They are rightly concerned that the money is only used for the purposes granted. As a federal taxpayer, I am glad that they are watchful how the money is spent. Just like with any government grant, the funds have to be accounted for and only spent within the guidelines. UTA is the grantee, so they are responsible for ensuring that the money is spent properly. The executive committee, set up by the interlocal agreement, still directs the broader TRIP project, and the agreements are still in force. The technical committee still meets for items that don't need the chief executives of the 6 groups, who have more than just a transportation project to worry about. There will be many details, communications, and actions that must be executed in this project that won't even need to be seen by the technical committee because they are just implementing what has already been agreed upon.

Public Comment
All of the public comment was in regards to the BRT project, but the majority were not about the agreements, but about concerns with how the changes to 700 N will affect the thousands of pedestrians that cross it each day. The residents are asking for street features which will keep them safe.


5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various Boards and Commissions.
   Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   

   Appointee's Name	Board	Ending
   Liz Maxfield	Arts Council	June 30, 2019
   Eliot Wilcox	Arts Council	June 30, 2019
   Paul Greenwood	Energy Board	December 31, 2020
   Dave Anderson	Planning Commission	June 30, 2019
   Deon Turley	TMAC	June 30, 2019
   David Harding	Library Board	December 31, 2017

6. A resolution of intent to expand the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   We have now signaled our intent to expand the permit area. I also expressed my opinion that the permit program, as currently structured, is not self-sustaining, and is only as good as the enforcement. I am looking forward to the coming "Parking Czar" position and hope that changes will be made to these programs to improve their effectiveness and lower their subsidy.
7. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for a Provo Agriculture Commission.
   Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I'm excited to work with the Provo Agriculture Commission to support existing and future agriculture in Provo. One amendment was made removing a "Whereas" from the resolution. "WHEREAS, agriculture contributes more in revenue than it requires in city 20 expenditures, while residential land usually contributes less in revenue than it requires; " I was the only one of the six Councilors in attendance to vote against its removal. While it doesn't tell the whole story, I think it is important for the public and local leaders to understand that how we grow affects our financial stability in the future. Developers tell me often, "We'll build all of this infrastructure and then just give it to the City." The thing is that it is easy to pay for the creation of infrastructure when such improvements significantly increase the value of the land. It is hard to maintain and eventually replace worn infrastructure when our property taxes don't come close to covering the cost. 
8. Consideration of a motion to rescind an action relative to the Metropolitan Water District taken on December 6, 2016, and an ordinance amending portions of Provo City Code regarding the Provo City Metropolitan Water District.
• Motion to rescind passed 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
• Motion to approve passed 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
Back in December, we made some changes and appointments to the Metropolitan Water District Board, not realizing how different the rules that apply to the District Board are from the rules for other boards and commissions in the City. With these actions, we undid our mistakes, updated our code to align with State statute, and are beginning the process to fill the expired positions. If you are interested in serving on this board, please fill out this form.
9. A resolution appropriating $118,326 in the General Fund to fund the purchase of equipment and operational needs for the Fire Department and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017
   Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   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.
10. A resolution appointing individuals to the Compensation Commission used to evaluate the compensation of the Mayor and Municipal Council Members.
    Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    Appointee’s Name      Board                                                                          Ending
    Dave Acheson           Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
    Ray Christensen       Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
    Kevin Garver            Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
11. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council stating their opposition to House Bill 164 which limits the ability for a municipality to transfer funds from an Enterprise Fund to the General Fund.
    Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    See my open letter.
12. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for House Bill 134 to require the testing of medium and light-duty diesel vehicles in Utah County.
    Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    Diesel vehicles are eight times more likely to fail emissions testing and failing diesel vehicles are eight times more polluting than gasoline vehicles. Yet owners of gasoline vehicles are required to test their vehicles for emissions compliance but not diesel owners. Air quality has a major impact on our quality of life here in Utah Valley. I would far prefer that our County follow the lead of other "non-attainment" counties and require diesel testing. But if, for whatever reason, the County refuses to do so, I support the State requiring the testing.