What's Up? - 20 April 2017

Between the proposed development at 4800 N, new requirements for minimum unit size Downtown, and the potential sale of Bounous Park, there is a lot of interest from members of our community to lobby members of the Council.

Two of these three issues were discussed by the Council in our meetings last Tuesday. Below are my thoughts on all of the items addressed by the Council.

Black text comes from the agendas
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents.

I refer to comments by other councilors in this newsletter. I do this from memory and they might characterize their comments differently. I have tried to represent their comments as correctly as I can.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartments units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   
   The proposal changed again after more discussions with neighbors and going before the Planning Commission again. This item was discussed again in the evening meeting as agenda item 12. Please see that item below for a report on our action.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A substitute motion for Planning staff to bring this ordinance text back to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated was Approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting but that discussion was also continued in conjunction with this motion.In our discussion, Councilor Van Buren advocated for allowing for more flexibility in placement of homes by not requiring a hard 20' rear setback, but rather allowing some portion of the home get as close as 15'. The problem was that the definition of this "average" set back was not well defined. We chose to continue this item for two weeks to allow Community Development the chance to better define that option.
3. A discussion on a joint resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.See my description of this item 6 in the evening meeting.
4. A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
   Discussion only.
   We had a good presentation about the history and the current usage of the Ice Sheet. This news article did a good job describing this presentation as well as our discussion afterward.
5. A presentation from the Water Division
   Discussion only. The Water Division staff will give a presentation on Water Rights at the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting and a concluding presentation at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting.
   Part 4. The focus of this session was on water quality and the testing that is involved.
6. A presentation on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem within half mile of the BRT line.
   Presentation only.
   The initial phase of this study is complete and looked at the experience of other cities who have installed BRT systems. We looked ahead at the rest of the studied and were asked if there were specific questions that we would like answered. Councilor Santiago would like to know what specific types of businesses flourish along BRT lines. We will be able to use this information to help attract such businesses to maximize the benefits of this investment.  
7. A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
   Discussion only. Several council members expressed interest in seeing this appendix continue through the General Plan Amendment process. The Joaquin Neighborhood Chairs intend to gather additional feedback from council members, property owners, and residents of the Joaquin Neighborhood and to continue the process towards formal codification.
   Here is a link to the plan. It was developed by a BYU class, in consultation with leaders from the Joaquin Neighborhood. If I remember right, there are around 70 pages, with a lot of good research and recommendations. I would quibble with a few of their suggestions and conclusions, but overall I believe there is good information that should be incorporated with the Neighborhood Master Plan. The Neighborhood would like to review and perhaps make some modifications before they recommend it. It will need to go through the appropriate process before it can be properly adopted.
8. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   A motion to adopt this document as the intent of the Council regarding zoning compliance was Approved 7:0.These strategies were presented to the Council in our 21 March Work Meeting. I believe the only difference now is that the document has been presented to the Utah Central Association of Realtors and the Utah Apartment Association who have indicated their comfort with the document.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Rylee Snelson!
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack! (You may come across this name later in the report as well)
3. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Matt Dunlap!
4. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats George Hutchings!
   
   Public Comment
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.
   This is what I wrote after her introduction to the Council: Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
6. A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
   Continued indefinitely 7:0.
   I have full confidence in the way that the CDBG and HOME programs are implemented in Provo. They have been important tools in addressing poverty and urban blight. It would be difficult to replace these funds and continue the work if these federal funds are cut or discontinued.
   In our Council Meeting, Councilor Van Buren brought up some concerns with how the overall programs are run across the nation. I realized that while I know enough about how the funds are used locally to support the programs locally, I don't know enough about the programs nationally to make an informed decision about recommending the overall programs. 
7. A resolution appropriating $800,000 in the Water CIP Fund and $350,000 in the Wastewater CIP Fund for construction of Stadium Avenue applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0.A $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. 
8. A resolution appropriating $48,089 in the General Fund, Streets Division for snow removal overtime and costs associated with snow removal applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0.
   We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K.
9. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
   Approved 7:0.
   I appreciate the professionalism and care with which our waste-water team tackles their job. It appears that all is in order, other than our system is aging, and we have not set aside enough money for replacement and upgrades.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    A motion to continue this item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0.
    Some neighbors have indicated that the proposal is getting close to what they'd be willing to accept. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is getting close to being outside of what they are willing to pursue. I am very interested to see if the parties can find a mutually agreeable plan or if their desires are just incompatible.
    I worry that we may find future proposals better aligned with the current zoning, but less desirable to both the neighbors and the City as a whole.
    I did not feel comfortable voting to approve a change that has not been vetted by the neighbors. It will also be very helpful to have the Planning Commission weigh in on the latest changes. We asked the applicant and neighborhood chair to set up another neighborhood meeting to discuss the most recent changes.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
    A motion to approve a 500-square foot minimum and 800-square foot average was Approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing.
    It's not too unusual for me to be on the losing side of votes. But there are only a handful of times in the past year-plus that I've been on the Council where I really struggle with our decision afterwards and really feel like we've made a mistake. The last time I remember feeling like this was when we removed solar net metering without grandfathering existing customers.
    I believe the Council was trying to address a specific concern, but decided to use a sledge hammer to drive in the finishing nail.
    This item wins the award for the most chaotic during my short tenure on the Council. There weren't many people in the room, but all semblance of "decorum" went out the window.
    This ordinance protects the City from the potential proposals that were causing the immediate concerns. But I believe it also negatively impacts some proposals which will be helpful to the community, and will have unintended consequences which will work against the precise outcomes that we are trying to achieve.
    I am hopeful, now that we have addressed the immediate concern, that the Council can revisit the issue and craft some less blunt requirements.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    During the April 18, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council voted (7:0) to continue this item to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting. The Council requested that Planning staff bring this ordinance text back with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated.
    As discussed in item 2 in the afternoon meeting, this item is continued for two weeks.

What's Up? - 14 April 2017

There are a lot of important issues facing the Council right now, and many of them are on the agenda for next Tuesday. These include the proposed PEG development on 4800 N and University Ave, the Ice Sheet, development along the BRT route, parking and walking in Joaquin, zoning compliance, minimum unit sizes.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartments units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   
   
   *Note that this illustration is one revision old
   This item was discussed in the 21 Mar 2017 Council Work Meeting. Changes had been made since it was presented at a neighborhood meeting and voted on by the Planning Commission (a 3-3 tie). We requested that the proposal, which had been modified to try to address concerns raised by the Neighborhood and Planning Commission, be taken back to the Neighborhood and Planning Commission. The applicant has completed that tour and will be presenting it again at this work meeting and is asking the Council to decide on it in the later Council Meeting. The central question, in my mind, is, would this development be too intense for this location of the City.
   The neighbors I am hearing are saying that they are not against multi-family housing at this location and would support this type of project if it was north of 4800 N, but (paraphrasing in my own words) development at this location should not exceed MDR (medium-density residential) in character. The overall density of the project is just under the MDR limits, but that is because the density of the single-family detached lots in the back is being averaged with the density of the HDR (high-density residential) apartments in front.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   This item was continued on the 11th because of some discrepancies between the drafts. Perhaps the biggest question remaining is if we want to have a hard minimum of 20 ft for the rear setback, or if we are willing to allow a minimum average setback of 20 ft and a hard minimum of 15 ft. After discussing it here, we will be voting on it as item 14 in the evening meeting.
3. A discussion on a joint resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs
   CDBG and HOME are federal programs which give local communities money to fight poverty and urban blight. I appreciate the local aspect of these programs, allowing us to focus the money where we feel it will make the biggest impact. Last year CDBG money supported the Community Action Services and Food Bank, the Center for Women and Children in Crisis, the Downtown Facade Renovation program, the Egress Window program, House of Hope, RAH, Victim Services, Project Read, and many more.
   The federal government has proposed cutting or eliminating these funds in the upcoming budget. We are considering a joint resolution with Orem City to communicate our support of these programs to our Congressional Delegation.
4. A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
   Round 2. Here is what I wrote about our last discussion: After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale, and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over, then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A presentation from the Water Division
   Part 4. 
6. A presentation from Zions Bank Public Finance on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem.
   From looking at the support document, this looks more like an introduction to a study that is just starting, rather than a report on what the study found.
7. A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
   This appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan was produced by the Provo City Lab, a class of students at Brigham Young University who received assistance and guidance from the Joaquin Neighborhood Board and the Planning Division of Provo’s Community Development Department. Input from the residents of Joaquin directed and augmented the research of the Provo City Lab.
   This appendix will serve as a reference point for future development projects within the Joaquin Neighborhood and offer recommendations on their implementation in order to preserve a vibrant sense of community, promote walkability, improve livability, support beautification, and allow for future growth and development.
   The appendix is nearly 70 pages long with "Current Status," "Case Studies," and "Recommendations" on a number of topics which affect the livability of the neighborhood.
8. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   These strategies were presented to the Council in our 21 March Work Meeting. I believe the only difference now is that the document has been presented to the Utah Central Association of Realtors and the Utah Apartment Association who have indicated their comfort with the document.
9. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

3. A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
   Congrats Rylee Snelson!
4. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
   Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack!
5. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
   Congrats Matt Dunlap!
6. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
   Congrats George Hutchings!
   
   Public Comment
7. A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
   This is what I wrote after her introduction to the Council: Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
8. A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
   See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.
9. A resolution appropriating $800,000 in the Water CIP Fund and $350,000 in the Wastewater CIP Fund for construction of Stadium Avenue applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   A $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. 
10. A resolution appropriating $48,089 in the General Fund, Streets Division for snow removal overtime and costs associated with snow removal applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
    We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K.
11. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
    In 2012 the state of Utah implemented a general permit for wastewater collection systems in order to “develop programs for the prevention, control, and abatement of new or existing pollution of the waters of the state.” Provo City submitted a Notice of Intent at that time stating that we will comply with the requirements of the general permit. Compliance requires review and adoption of the program documents by the City Council. The Municipal Wastewater Planning Program SelfAssessment Report for Provo 2016 fulfills the annual reporting requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, gives Provo City points on the Utah Wastewater Project Priority List/System, and gives operators completing these forms continuing education credits for each form returned. 
    I appreciate the professionalism and care with which our waste-water team tackles their job. It appears that all is in order, other than our system is aging, and we have not set aside enough money for replacement and upgrades.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    See my description of item 1 in the afternoon meeting.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
    When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created, they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions. At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average.The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
    Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
    The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit? I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800, but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the[starting point for our deliberations].
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.

What's Up? - 13 April 2017

Springbreak delayed our meetings by a week which means we will have Council Meeting Tuesdays in back-to-back weeks. I'm posting this meeting report today and hope to be able to post the meeting preview tomorrow.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction to the future City Recorder
   Presentation only.
   Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
2. A request for a resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   This item was voted on in the later meeting. See item 5 in the Council Meeting below.
3. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   Discussion only. The DAPR Committee will review feedback gathered during this Work Meeting with the DAPR noticing subcommittee at an upcoming meeting.(DAPR stands for the Development Approval Process Review) Overall I felt that the Council was receptive to the recommendations. We spent much of the time talking about parts of the proposal that raised concerns. One Councilor wants to make sure that hearing land use issues first in Work Sessions remains the default practice. If I understood it correctly, there was another concern that the Council may feel some pressure to vote unanimously in the first Council Meeting so that the item can be passed without an added two-week delay. We will discuss this feedback in the DAPR Committee and will consider changes.
4. A discussion on the Ice Sheet Authority
   Discussion only. This item may be scheduled for a future Work Meeting and the Council may discuss during a closed strategy session as needed.After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion for a 600 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size Failed 3:4, with Council Members David Sewell, David Knecht, David Harding, and Gary Winterton opposing.
   The original motion for a 500 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size was approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing. This item was already scheduled to be heard at the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.We were voting on which option to prepare for the Council Meeting later that night. What we selected in the Work Meeting became the implied motion which is our starting point in the Council Meeting.When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions.At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average. The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
   Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
   The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit?I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800 but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the implied motion for later that night.See item 7 in the meeting below to see how it turned out.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   See the description of item 8 in the later Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on budget appropriations for Public Works
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled to be heard at the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K. The other part is basically a $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. We'll vote on this next week.
8. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only.
   This was part 3. The main point of this discussion was that there are times during the peak of summer when we use water faster than we can source it. At these times we depend on our storage capacity. They fill overnight while demand is low and then drain during the day when demand outstrips supply. Our storage capacity and interconnectivity is something that we need to carefully manage.
   
   Notice the significant increase in money going into the Water Capital Improvement fund starting in about 2012. That is what it looks like when the City gets serious about properly maintaining and properly investing in infrastructure. It hasn't been painless, but it is the prudent thing to do.
9. A presentation on the Airport Master Plan
   Presentation only.
   Our current master plan is about 17 years old and has served us well. The process of updating the master plan has just begun and soon the public will be asked to weigh in. We have outgrown our one gate terminal and have not been able to accommodate requests for expanded service. The airport is looking for ways to fund a new terminal which will likely start out with four gates. This will become better defined through the master plan process.
10. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 21st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

Public Comment


2. A report from the Elected Officials Compensation Commission
   Presentation only.
   The Commission recommends raising the mayoral compensation from $109,500 to $120,000. It recommends raising the council compensation from $12,485 to $18,000. The mayoral compensation was last adjusted in 2013. If I heard right, the last time the council compensation was adjusted was in 2007 and it was a "cost of living adjustment". The Commission based its recommendations on the compensation of comparably sized cities around the State and also noted that the responsibilities of the Mayor and Council are greater than most cities because we run a power department and an airport.
   It doesn't surprise me that the council compensation lags behind other cities, even though we are asked to do more. Our Councilors are very concerned about the frugal use of public money. My guess is that even now many will not want to accept more money from the City. Of all the areas to "cut" during the budget process, a pay increase for ourselves will be the easiest.
   No Councilor runs for the money, but it can help take the edge off of the lost income caused by the time off work. The problem is that there is a large swath of our community who cannot take hundreds of hours off of their "day job" without some compensation. If Council members aren't compensated reasonably then Council service may become the domain of retirees and the independently wealthy. I believe that we should accept the Commission's recommendation to open the service opportunity to more people. I will suggest that any Councilor who is uncomfortable with the increase can donate it to the Provo City Foundation, or another charity.
3. An ordinance granting MCIMetro a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.The only change they asked for was a 10-year contract rather than our default 5-year. Our code allows for contracts between 5 and 15 years.
4. A resolution on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   Approved 7:0.It will be used to engineer parts of the Provo River Trail which will then be built with RAP money.
5. A resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   Approved 7:0.This is a great opportunity to address one of the difficult, unpleasant parts of the Provo River Trail. Our General Fund Balance has been increasing over the years and would be over the 25% State limit at the end of this fiscal year without some appropriations. With this appropriation, along with previous appropriations, and contemplated appropriations, the general fund balance will be under 22%. This is a significant amount of money, and can't be taken lightly. This money could be used elsewhere or it could be used to reduce taxes. But this could also be an opportunity to significantly improve one of the most beloved public facilities in the City. This is an investment in the future. A gift to future generations. We will use RAP money, already earmarked for River Trail improvements to realign the Trail. Will not have enough RAP money to fully develop the rest of the area, but hopeful it will eventually be used in a creative and special way.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A substitute motion to continue the item at the April 18, 2017 Work and Council Meetings was Approved 5:2, opposed by Council Members Gary Winterton and Kay Van Buren.
   There were some discrepancies between the version of the proposed ordinance we have previously received and the one that was presented during the meeting. The item was not urgent so we continued it until next week.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion to continue the item to the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council Members Kay Van Buren, David Knecht, and George Stewart.The discussion was pretty much the same as in the Work Meeting (see item 5 in the above meeting). I believe there is a consensus around 800 sqft/unit being the minimum average, but some disagreement about what the hard minimum should be. But since the final decision will likely be more restrictive than what had been noticed, there was a desire to postpone final action until the public could be notified that we are considering something greater than the 400/600 recommended by the planning commission and noticed to the public.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Approved 6:1, opposed by Council Member Kay Van Buren.There were three main parts to this proposal: code clean up, changing the name of the preliminary plan to a concept plan, and moving the checklist of what is needed in an application outside the code. Moving it out of the code means that it could be changed without Council approval. Everyone was good with the code clean up. I personally don't like the changing the name until the substantive changes are ready to be made but the administration wanted the name changed now so that it can be put into the new Provo360 platform. There wasn't enough support on the Council to even warrant a discussion on moving the checklist.

Let's do this!

After careful consideration and family deliberation, I have decided that, win or lose, standing for re-election is the right thing to do.

I have learned so much in the past year and a half. I feel that has been a significant investment and that I am even better prepared now to do the work of the people.

I have tried to be open and transparent. This blog chronicles almost every issue I've faced and vote I've taken, often including my thoughts, and feelings, and reasoning. I will be participating in debates and campaign events in the coming months, but I hope to have earned your vote through the way I've represented you and the interests of Provo since taking office.

I welcome all the support that I can get so that I can keep my primary focus on the work of the Council. Send me an email at DaveOfProvo@gmail.com if you are interested in helping out. I imagine it'll be a couple months before the campaign gets going.

I am hopeful that voters of District 5 will have several good candidates to choose from this cycle. I have heard of one other person who is interested in running. Please encourage good potential candidates to consider running, or throw your own hat in if you feel you could represent our neighbors well.

What's Up? - 6 April 2017

Today I'm hanging out at the Utah League of Cities and Towns Conference. I participated as a panelist in the session this morning talking about active transportation. It was helpful to see how other communities are trying to address this issue. A county health official on the panel made an interesting point that our #1 killers use to be communicable diseases, but now it is chronic diseases. The best way to prevent chronic diseases is through healthy lifestyles. We have done such a good job engineering convenience into our lives that we have effectively engineered activity out of our lives. We have designed our communities and lives so that people have to actively seek exercise rather than allowing it to be an organic part of our lives.

Anyway, the rest of the conferences has been good so far. The quiet evening in the hotel room made for a great time to get ready for this coming Tuesday's meetings. Below is my preview of the Work and Council Meetings.

As always, instructions for accessing all of the documents can be found here. This is especially helpful if the documents are updated (which breaks the links). The black text below comes from the agendas. I wrote the blue text, dark blue tonight, light blue previously. The brown text comes from the support documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:00 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction to the future City Recorder
   Janene Weiss is retiring at the end of the year. ONBASE will be replacing SIRE as our document workflow system as Provo 360 is implemented. ONBASE will be administered by the City Recorder in the future. After an extensive search, Amanda Ercanbrack is being recommended to take over as City Recorder at the start of 2018. The plan is for her to shadow Ms. Weiss for the rest of the year to learn the Recorder's duties while heading up the transition to ONBASE.
2. A request for a resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   I am thrilled for this item. I love the Provo River Trail, but there are a few sections that are difficult or dangerous to navigate. With this acquisition, Provo City will be able to eliminate one of these sections and turn it into one of the best stretches of the trail. The KOA campground has come up for sale. It lies between a park and the river and is adjacent to Geneva Road. The park will be able to be expanded and the trail will be able to follow the river rather than the current alignment which is narrow and has sharp turns as it goes around the campground.
3. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   This is a very wonky item, but it happens to be one that has been most rewarding to work on. It is not often when all sides will benefit. And simply from improvements to the process. The public will get more thorough and longer-lead noticing of land use issues coming before the Council. Developers will routinely experience a (40%) shorter to (80%) much shorter turn around time between Planning Commission recommendations and City Council decisions. The public will get two opportunities to address the Council on controversial proposals. The Council will get a couple weeks to consider public input at the first hearing. The Planning Commission will be basing their recommendations on proposed language that is closer to the form that the Council will consider. I am seeing very little downside to these changes and immense upside.  How is this possible? Check out the details here. I appreciate the work and contributions of everyone on the DAPR Committee, especially the leadership of the Chair, Dave Sewell.
4. A discussion on the Ice Sheet Authority
   On March 23, 2017 the City was served with a Notice of Termination. . .from the Utah County Commission Chair, William C. Lee, which stated that the County would like to exercise its dissolution rights under section 15(c) of the 5th Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between Utah County, Utah and Provo City, Utah
   These news articles summarize all the he-said-she-said.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   This is the second consecutive Work Meeting where we have discussed this item. My rant after the last discussion still serves as a good reflection of my thinking on it: It is clear to me that the Council will be reinstating some sort of minimum dwelling unit size. This is an example of what I personally feel has been one of the Provo Municipal Council's biggest weaknesses over the years. I've been paying attention long enough that I remember with the DT1 and DT2 zones were put into place. I remember the discussion on the role of minimum dwelling unit size in the zoning code. Later, I was in the room when the Council decided to remove the minimum dwelling unit provisions. Remove, mind you, not reduce, not tweak, but remove. It was at the request of the applicant for the very first development to be proposed after the new zones were in place. If I remember correctly, it was a proposal for developing land that had been acquired by Provo's Redevelopment Agency. So you had an associated agency also advocating for the change so that they could maximize the return on the investment (of tax-payers money). I was disappointed at the time. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I didn't feel that the Council explored the request deeply enough. "Why were these provisions put in in the first place?" "Has our thinking/vision changed so much since this zone was created?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" Perhaps these questions were asked outside of the Work Meeting and Council Meeting, but from what I saw, the only question that seemed to matter was, "What do we need to do to make this development happen?" Here we are a few years later ready to reinstate a minimum. So I have to ask, "Why was the minimum previously removed?" "Has our thinking/vision changes so much since then?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I want the reasoning to be sufficiently developed that the next time a developer dangles a pretty proposal in front of the Council that we won't continue oscillating back and forth. I'm all for being nimble and flexible, but I don't think that large shifts in public policy, accommodating the desires of the latest petitioner, is good governance.
   Right now the question is what structure with the minimums have, and how high will they be set.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   This item appears to be identical to item 12 in the last Work Meeting. I thought we decided to wait until we had a recommendation from the DAPR (Development Approval Process Review) Committee. I missed the last DAPR Committee meeting while I was battling Strep Throat, but I didn't think they voted this item. I'll be interested to find out.
7. A discussion on budget appropriations for Public Works
   This request covers the Stadium Ave reconstruction and the City's over-budget spending on road salt for our above-normal winter weather this year. I have noticed that the City is generally over-conservative in putting together the budget projections each year. Our revenues are generally better than projected and our expenditure's are generally lower than projected. This allows the City to appropriate more money during the year as things come up without necessarily running a deficit (i.e. reducing the fund balance). You might have noticed that there are multiple discussions on appropriations going on right now.
8. A presentation from the Water Division
   Round 3. 
   During the February 21st, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council moved that the Public Works department provide presentations on the Water Division over the next several months. The Council and the Budget Committee provided Public Works with a list of three high-level questions and a longer list of detailed questions. Dave Decker and the Public Works department have discretion to address the questions how they see fit.
   The first two presentations occurred during the work meetings on March 7th and March 21st. This upcoming presentation will be the third in the series and will focus on the financial picture of the water utility and rate structure/increases planned in the coming fiscal year and in coming years. 
9. A presentation on the Airport Master Plan
   In light of the Westside Planning Committee’s forthcoming recommendations, various Council members have expressed interest in understanding more about present and future plans for the Provo Airport.  
   Steve Gleason, Provo Airport Manager, will advise the Council on what is likely to happen in the near future and what the long term plans for the airport are.  
10. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

Public Comment

2. A report from the Elected Officials Compensation Commission
   The Staff Memo does a great job outlining the process (except that I believe it happens every four years, rather than every year). This Commission reviews the research conducted by the HR department and recommends the compensation level for the Mayor and Council Members starting at the beginning of the following year.
3. An ordinance granting MCIMetro a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   It's been a few months since we've seen one of these, but they are completely routine and use a boilerplate contract.
4. A resolution on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   This was item 6 in the last Work Meeting.
5. A resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   This is item 2 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   This is item 9 in the last Work Meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   This is item 5 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   This is item 6 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).

What's Up? - 1 April 2017

Happy Spring Break, everyone. Because of the holiday, our first Tuesday meetings in April have been pushed off to the second Tuesday. We will have our regularly scheduled meetings on the third Tuesday. I'm a little slow getting this report out, but I figured that I had a little extra breathing room with the extra week between meetings.

There were no notable surprises in these meetings, just an uneventful continuation of processes in doing the work of the City. But isn't that what we want from our City government, particularly the Council? Boring, predictable, with no surprises?

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding property management and parking issues
   Presentation only.
   Parking has been an issue around Startup Crossing ever since it opened. It is hoped that the opening of the BRT line will have a significant impact on the number of cars the tenants bring with them. But that is still more than a year away. Representatives of the company that manages Startup Crossing came to talk with us about why parking is such an issue and what they are doing about it. The most notable is that an adjacent plot of ground is going to be graveled to allow for off-street parking.
2. A discussion regarding Vote by Mail
Presentation only.The report focuses on the Vote by Mail process and the safeguards that are used to prevent voter fraud. I personally feel that VBM is at least as safe as voting at polling stations.

3. A presentation of the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Project Report
   Presentation only.
   The City's 5-year CIP is 180 pages long. It can be considered very dry and boring. Or it can be exciting to see all of the projects that are planned. If you really want to see what the City is up to, where your tax-dollars are going, I recommend reviewing the CIP.
4. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only.
   This is round 2. Continuing with our conservation efforts, Provo should have sufficient water rights well into the future. One challenge that we face, though, is that water is spread across the whole year. Provo's water demand is highest in the summer when resources can be stretched the thinnest. We don't have the storage capacity to "bank" the water when it's not needed for when it is. One promising technique to address this is "artificial groundwater recharge".
5. A discussion regarding a resolution to appropriate funds for the abatement of asbestos and the demolition of the former Utah County Security Center
   Presentation only.
   The total comes to about $725,000. We appropriated this amount in our evening meeting. See item 5 below.
6. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   The Zoning Compliance Committee will invite Peter Christensen, Utah Central Association of Realtors, to provide input on the recommendations before the April 11, 2017 Work Meeting.
   Many ideas were submitted on how we can improve zoning compliance. The committee sorted and consolidated the submissions into seven goals:
   1. Enhanced enforcement efforts reduce financial incentives for violators and result in greater compliance.
   2. Enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses leads to greater compliance by landlords.
   3. Increased regulation and enforcement of zoning disclosures and verifications leads to decline in over occupancy/illegal rental market.
   4. Adequate staffing and training of code enforcement personnel allows for timely and efficient enforcement efforts.
   5. Increased communication with, and education of, residents leads to reduction in violations and better cooperation in enforcement efforts.
   6. Engagement with stakeholders increases awareness, cooperation, and compliance.
   7. Clarifying current zoning laws and advancing new ones results in a code that is clear and provides the tools enforcement officers need.
   Please see the Zoning Compliance Strategic Plan - Council Zoning Committee Recommendations for the accompanying action steps.
7. A discussion on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   Presentation only.
   This one is very straight forward. See the last "What's Up?" for a description.
8. A discussion regarding a resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Towne Centre Mall.
   Presentation only.
   [T]he Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of Provo Towne Center Mall requires the [Redevelopment] Agency to approve of any change in the ownership of the mall. I don't believe this change will affect anything other than giving the current owner access to more capital.
9. A discussion on a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.080 regarding yard requirements in the One-Family Residential Zone, specifically eliminating the combined front/rear yard requirement. City-Wide Impact.
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   The proposal is to change the setback requirements (how far a home is away from the front and back of the property) in R1 zones and to better specify how those setbacks are measured. The proposed changes make sense to me.
10. A discussion on a proposed amendment to the Provo City Code Sections 14.21A.090, 14.21B.080 and 14.23 to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the Downtown One, Downtown Two, and ITOD Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    Staff was directed to prepare two versions of the ordinance: one utilizing the previously codified standard, the other reflecting the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Discussion of this item will continue at the April 11, 2017 Work and Council Meetings.
    It is clear to me that the Council will be reinstating some sort of minimum dwelling unit size. This is an example of what I personally feel has been one of the Provo Municipal Council's biggest weaknesses over the years. I've been paying attention long enough that I remember with the DT1 and DT2 zones were put into place. I remember the discussion on the role of minimum dwelling unit size in the zoning code. Later, I was in the room when the Council decided to remove the minimum dwelling unit provisions. Remove, mind you, not reduce, not tweak, but remove. It was at the request of the applicant for the very first development to be proposed after the new zones were in place. If I remember correctly, it was a proposal for developing land that had been acquired by Provo's Redevelopment Agency. So you had an associated agency also advocating for the change so that they could maximize the return on the investment (of tax-payers money). I was disappointed at the time. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I didn't feel that the Council explored the request deeply enough. "Why were these provisions put in in the first place?" "Has our thinking/vision changed so much since this zone was created?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" Perhaps these questions were asked outside of the Work Meeting and Council Meeting, but from what I saw, the only question that seemed to matter was, "What do we need to do to make this development happen?" Here we are a few years later ready to reinstate a minimum. So I have to ask, "Why was the minimum previously removed?" "Has our thinking/vision changes so much since then?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I want the reasoning to be sufficiently developed that the next time a developer dangles a pretty proposal in front of the Council that we won't continue oscillating back and forth. I'm all for being nimble and flexible, but I don't think that large shifts in public policy, accommodating the desires of the latest petitioner, is good governance.
    Right now the question is what structure with the minimums have, and how high will they be set.
11. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 14.50(22) of the Provo City Code to allow an apartment complex buffered by 10,000 square foot single family lots located at 31 West 4800 North. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    Motion for the Council to request that, following a meeting of the neighborhood with the developer, the Planning Commission hear this item on April 12, 2017 and that this item be scheduled for Work and Council Meeting on April 18, 2017. Approved 7:0.
    The proposed development has been met with some resident opposition. The proposal has been changed in response to that feedback and concerns on the Planning Commission. One of my biggest concerns was that the proposed changes had not been heard by the neighborhood or the Planning Commission. We were guessing as to whether the changes truly addressed the concerns. I am very pleased that proposal will go back to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. I would like to see this process always followed.
12. A request for an ordinance text amendment to Provo City Code Chapters 14.02, 14.31, 15.01, 15.03, and 15.04 to consolidate development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines found in the various chapters of the Provo City Code. City-Wide Impact.
    This item was moved to the agenda for the Development Approval Process Review Committee Meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
    The proposed changes help prepare for the coming adoption of Provo 360, and new software platform for unifying workflow across the City. But it was also beginning the shift away from preliminary project approval to conceptual approval. This would be a significant shift and we felt that the DAPR committee should make a recommendation on it, rather than just discuss it a few times, like we have.
13. A discussion regarding a request for a zone change from A1.1 to R1.8 for 22.5 acres of property located at approximately 890 South 1600 West, in order to facilitate Final Subdivision Approval for 70 lots of at least 8,000 square feet. Sunset Neighborhood.
    Discussion only.
    This is related to the Scott's Corner proposed development that we heard last fall and helped kick off the Westside Planning Committee. The project has continued to evolve, and the applicant feels that they have addressed the most pressing neighborhood concerns.
14. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 21st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

Public Comment


3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court.
   Approved 7:0.
   The Temporary Justice Court Judges appointed were:
   • Judge Sherlynn Fenstermaker (Springville City Justice Court)
   • Judge Scott Cullimore (Utah County Justice Court)
   • Judge Reed Parkin (Orem City Justice Court)
   • Judge Morgan Cummings (Lehi City Justice Court)
   • Judge Steven Ridge (Utah County Justice Court)
4. A resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Town Centre Mall.
   Approved 7:0.
   See Item 8 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
5. A resolution appropriating $725,000 in the General Fund to pay for the cost of asbestos abatement and demolition of the former Utah County Security Center, generally located at 1776 Buckley Lane.
   Approved 7:0.
   The history on this, in a nutshell: Years ago the County decided to build a new jail. The County planned to sell the jail to a private prison company. The nearby residents were not thrilled with the idea and plead with the City to do something. Since the County owned it, there wasn't much the City could do besides buying it. Just about anything sounded better than a private jail to the neighbors, they plead with the City to buy it. The money came from funds the City was planning to use for a park. The plan was for the City to sell the land for development that would repay the park fund. Once the imminent threat of the private jail was gone, the neighbors were less interested in seeing the development go in that would reimburse the City. The neighbors have since fought to limit the intensity of the development. The amount that they City is selling the land for will mostly be used to pay for the asbestos abatement and demolition of the old jail. The amount left over will not fully pay back the park fund. An interesting wrinkle over the last couple of years is that a Provo-based "maker" group has proposed to rehab the old jail and use it for a makerspace. The City did not choose to accept their proposal. I believe the group has filed in court to take possession of the property from the City through eminent domain.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
   The ordinance making provision for use of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was Approved 6:1, Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   The ratio for South Campus went from 0.7/bed to 0.8/bed + 0.2/unit. The ratio for Downtown and ITOD zones went from 0.75/unit (one bedroom) and 1.13/unit (multiple bedroom) to 1.13/unit and 1.69/unit, but the Planning Commission can lower the ratios if the proposed development includes a parking mitigation plan. They can lower it down to 1/unit and 1.5/unit if the Commission feels that the plan warrants it.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 22.5 acres of real property, generally located at 890 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Sunset Neighborhood.
   Approved 7:0.See Item 13 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
8. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule to add a Meter Reading Fee for customers who elect not to have an AMI Meter.
   Approved as amended 7:0.
   After deliberation, a majority of the Council voted to amend the ordinance to reduce the fee from $25/month down to $10/month. We hope that the number of customers opting out of the smart meters will be very few.
9. A resolution appropriating up to $70,980 in the City Recorder’s Office for the funding of Elections for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   The Vote-by-Mail resolution was Approved 6:1, Council Member George Stewart opposed.
   I voted against selecting the vote-by-mail option, but the majority of the Council voted for it. Once that method was selected, I voted for the appropriation. "Vote by Mail" was already available, but it wasn't the default, people had to take an extra step to have a mail-in ballot sent to them. Voting in person will still be available, but it no longer will be the default. Extra effort will be necessary as the number of polling locations will be greatly reduced. The administration's "Provo Pulse" opinion polling showed overwhelming support for VBM. The Council's "Open City Hall" showed a 60/40 split favoring VBM. But of the comments submitted, it was as close to 50/50 as it could get.
10. An ordinance amending the Official Neighborhood Map.
    Approved 7:0.
    Three different Neighborhood boundary adjustments were made. The Downtown Neighborhood proposal was removed from this batch so more thought and discussion can go into it.