What's Up? - 23 May 2017

The meetings last Tuesday lasted almost 12 hours. It's days like those that make me question my sanity for running again.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, May 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Discuss the feasibility review of a new city center and public safety complex
   Presentation only. The majority of council members were in favor of the direction the Administration proposed to continue looking into the feasibility review and coming back to the Council with more information, including a proposal for public outreach and a commission to study the issue.
   Our City Complex is aging and the maintenance is getting more expensive every year. So we will need to decide if we want to sink some significant money into it to renovate it, or invest significant money into the creation of a new complex. It doesn't help that we have long outgrown the current building. The committee has recommended that we look at rebuilding at the current site. I am hopeful that we will continue to look into the possibility of joining the County and State complex on the southeast corner of Center and University. I am also hopeful that we will be wise with our resources in both the short and long terms. If we do build a new city hall and a new public safety complex, I hope we will not be talking about tearing it down in 40 years. I hope that we will build something long lasting, something worth saving.
   
   The first 140 or so pages of the meeting documents are related to this item. Feel free to dig in as much as you would like.
2. A discussion regarding the proposed FY 2018 Tentative Budget
   Discussion only. Council members were invited to submit specific questions to Council staff for distribution to Department Directors in advance of the Council’s Budget Retreat on June 8, 2017 and Public Works Budget Retreat on May 24, 2017.
   This was another in a long line of opportunities for Councilors to be briefed and to ask questions about the budget. We are preparing for a couple of retreats to dig deeply.
3. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only. This was the final installment of the Water Division’s presentations to the Council. Public Works Director Dave Decker indicated that it would be helpful to present one or two more sessions to the Council addressing issues for Stormwater and Wastewater, respectively. The Administration proposed that together with Council Leadership they evaluate the effectiveness of these presentations and whether this would be beneficial to continue with other departments.
   In this presentation, we focused on the final step of the water system: delivery to homes and businesses. We looked at the hardware used to prevent contaminations from entering the system from customers, as well as new wireless meters. We looked at how the Division delivers water at pressures within an appropriate range.
   This was the last of six presentations by the Water Division. They represented a significant investment in time, but I felt that it was a valuable use of our time to more fully understand the issues surrounding this most basic of all city services.
4. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
   A motion to direct Public Works staff to include in updates to the Consolidated Fee Schedule rate increases in the compost pickup for residents from $2.00 to $3.00 per load, and for non-residents from $5.00 to $6.00 per load was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   A substitute motion to adopt option 1 for Sanitation rate increases and for Public Works to return to the Council in July 2017 with a recommendation for long-term rate changes was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   The second vote was the significant one. We need to implement a rate increase along with the budget this year. Because of the time that it would take to implement a new rate structure, we are limited to just adjusting the rates. I am hopeful that when the Sanitation Division returns in July that we will be able to adopt a more rational structure. I would like to see a simple fee that covers all sanitation service, but at the very least, I hope we will eliminate the "Triple Play Penalty"
   If you are interested in the wonky details, I'll post some excerpts from some email I sent discussing the topic. If you aren't, just skip down to item 5.
   As requested, I am sending you my preference on the sanitation fee increase proposals that you presented on Tuesday, and I would like to suggest another option as well.
   I support Option 4 with the uniform price for all three cans. I support Option 2 in the interim until Option 4 can be implemented.
   I also suggest another option, which I'll call Option 5. Perhaps Option 5 could be used in the interim, or could be considered longer term if Option 4 does not have enough political support at this time.
   Option 5
   
   

   Black Can	$16.25
   Blue Can	$3.75
   Green Can*	$4.75
   Triple Play Discount	$1.00

   *only charged March - November
   
   I switched the cost of the blue and green cans. Because the yard waste operation costs the City more, the green can is now a dollar more than the blue can. The $2 black can discount for recycling is gone. Instead, the cost of the blue and green cans was taken down a dollar each. And now instead of a Triple Play penalty (see next paragraph) there is a $1 per month Triple Play discount.
   
   With our currently our rate structure and with Option 2, if you have a single black can, adding a green can costs $18.75 per year, adding a blue can costs $45 per year. It is odd that the blue can costs so much more than the green can since the yard waste operation costs the City more than the household recycling operation. This is mainly due to the black can discount applying all year even though the fee for the green can is not applied over the winter when the can is not picked up. Now for the Triple Play penalty: if you have a black and a blue can, adding a green can costs $42.75 per year. If you have a black and a green can, adding a blue can costs $69 per year.
   With Option 5, adding a blue can to a black can still costs $45 more a year. Adding a green can to a black can costs $42.75 more a year. Adding a blue can to black and green cans costs $36 more per year. Adding a green can to black and blue cans costs $33.75 more per year. I think this makes far more sense.
   
   Here is a head to head comparison, using the annual total:
   
   

   	Current	Option 2	Option 5
   1 Black	$174	$195	$195
   2 Black	$348	$390	$390
   Black and Blue	$219	$240	$240
   Black and Green	$192.75	$213.75	$237.75
   Black Blue Green	$261.75	$282.75	$273.75

5. Steven Sweetwood requests a Zone Change from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone for 0.279 acres of property located at 801 West 500 South. Franklin Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   So far I've only heard positive things about and support for this proposal.
   
6. Ken Menlove requests Street Vacation of 1780 South running west from Industrial Parkway to facilitate development of self-storage units on 4.79 acres of land in the Planned Industrial Commercial Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There are many good reasons to return and land, and no good reason not to. The street was built by the developer and given to the City. Now the development going in doesn't want the street.
   
   
7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A motion to amend the proposed draft of the ordinance from an average depth of 105 feet to an average depth of 113 feet was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting and the draft ordinance and materials were updated to reflect the change.
   With this motion we changed the implied (default) motion that we would be considering in the later meeting. One hundred and thirteen feet was selected because that is the depth that an R1.10 zoned lot of minimum width would need to be before the additional provisions would take place. See more discussion in item 9 of the evening meeting.
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 16th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for April 2017.
   Presentation only.Public Comment
2. A resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
3. A resolution approving the HOME Investment and Partnerships (HOME) Program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I felt strongly that we should have seen items 2 and 3 in a Work Meeting before hand. The presentations in the Council Meeting were very helpful, but having the opportunity to really consider, explore, ruminate, and discuss big items is important. Much of the federal funding will be used outside of Provo next year. For a long time, we have said that we would like to see subsidized housing spread more evenly across the County. These proposals will definitely move us in that direction. I can't help questioning if we could put some of our funding into programs like a land trust here in Provo. I was very tempted to ask that we continue the item, but I wasn't sure that it would make a difference at this point.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay zone. City-wide Impact.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   This is really a book-keeping ordinance that should be passed either way, but the timing is necessary if we were going to approve item 6.
5. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow Retail Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres of real property, generally located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue, from Agriculture (A1.5) to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved as amended 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   Items 5 and 6 were heard and discussed together. Once we decided that we wanted to accommodate the proposal, both the zoning and the General Plan needed to be updated. See the last What's Up? for more details on the proposal.
   
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 4:2, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Members Kay Van Buren and David Sewell opposed.
   This item was much more difficult to decide on than the last. Some people liked it, some people thought it went too far, a few others wondered if it didn't go far enough. The developer and neighbors met many times and went through many iterations. The process definitely was not truncated, the applicant circled around after every significant change to present again to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. After split votes and significant neighborhood opinion against the proposal, the last proposal received a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation and was nearing a 50/50 split amongst neighbors.
   
8. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   A motion to send this petition to the Parking Committee was Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   At this point, the Council was anxious to move quickly through the meeting and not spend extra time on items where there was already support. We were all willing to move this issue onto the next step. I wonder if it would make more sense to wait until our incoming Parking Manager is in place and can provide input.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I would have preferred to simplify the requirements and have a simple 20' setback for both front and back yards, but in the end, the modified committee recommendation functionally provides what I was looking for in the regulations, so I voted for it.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral compensation.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    As discussed many times before, this ordinance increases the mayoral salary up to $120,000, which is on par with mayoral compensation in comparable cities.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council members' compensation.
    Approved 5:1, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    I would have preferred by far to approve this ordinance earlier in the evening when more people were in attendance. It had been many years since any adjustment had been made. This would raise the compensation to $18,000 which brings us into line with comparable cities. I am hopeful that the new compensation will make it so that fewer people will find it financially prohibitive to serve on the Council.
12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
13. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
14. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    We had two weeks to look over the proposed tentative budgets and happily adopted them as a starting point for our discussions that will be ongoing over the next month.

Who's In?

Our representative democracy works best when voters have options to choose from when electing their representatives. In order to have choices at the ballot box, people have to be willing to run. The filing period for Provo municipal races opens in 10 days and only stays open for 7 days. Please consider who you would like to represent you and encourage them to run. Consider running yourself.

There are three City Council seats on November's ballot, along with the Mayor's seat. I've heard of several people interested in the Mayor's seat, being vacated by Mayor Curtis, and a few for the City Wide District seat, currently held by David Sewell, who is standing for reelection. So far I haven't heard any interest in District 2. It is currently held by Kim Santiago and she has indicated that she isn't running again. I also haven't seen any announcements, other than my own, for District 5.

Two years ago, three of us filed to run for the District 5 seat. Within a couple of weeks, the two other candidates had withdrawn. Fortunately, a member of our community stepped up as a write-in candidate, so I wasn't unopposed for too long.

We need multiple good candidates to provide a real choice to our neighbors. As I said a couple years ago, "Having an opponent also gives the campaign a sense of urgency and brings it more sharply into focus...I believe that healthy discussion and debate leads to better ideas and broader and deeper understanding...and, in the end, a better representative will be elected, whoever that may be."

What's Up? - 15 May 2017

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

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Discuss the feasibility review of a new city center and public safety complex
   
   Our current City Center, which holds our city hall and city offices, is 45 years old and is roughly one-third the size of what a 2013 study found that we need. There are also life-safety issues. Any earthquake large enough to need an emergency response center would likely collapse our center and bury everyone in it. The Administration is exploring options, and will present what they have found so far.
2. A discussion regarding the proposed FY 2018 Tentative Budget
   Two weeks ago the budget proposal was finalized. We have now had some time to review it. We will be discussing it in this meeting as well as at a morning long budget retreat in June.
3. A presentation from the Water Division
   This is the sixth, and I believe last, in a series of presentations to help the Council better understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Water Division.
4. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
   I believe we are in year four of a five year utility rate increase plan. This year calls for a 10% increase in our sanitation rates (trash, household recycling, yard waste). Various proposals are being made on how to best structure our rates and rate increases.
5. Steven Sweetwood requests a Zone Change from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone for 0.279 acres of property located at 801 West 500 South. Franklin Neighborhood.
   The subject property is a vacated portion of former 800 West right-of-way between the Southern Pacific Railroad and 500 South. Mr. Sweetwood has previously received approval for the development of a used car sales lot and office. When he became aware that the neighborhood plan recommended the LDR Zone as the future zoning for the property and surrounding area he made the decision to pursue the development of townhomes on the property. The property is bordered to the east and west by single family homes and to the south across the railroad by former commercial manufacturing facilities.
   The neighborhood chair is supportive, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends it.
6. Ken Menlove requests Street Vacation of 1780 South running west from Industrial Parkway to facilitate development of self-storage units on 4.79 acres of land in the Planned Industrial Commercial Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   
   Seems reasonable to me. I haven't heard any concerns from the public. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends it.
7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   We continued this again at our last Council meeting. You can read about it here (item 5 in the evening meeting). Since then a subcommittee has met to work out a proposal for the rest of the Council.
8. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 16th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for April 2017.
   
   Public Comment
2. A resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
3. A resolution approving the HOME Investment and Partnerships (HOME) Program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   I'm surprised at these two items. It appears that we are being asked to approve these two proposals, without discussing them previously, like in a Work meeting. Take a look at the documents for the CDBG proposal. Or the HOME proposal. That's a lot of material to absorb without having a good opportunity to ask questions before being asked to consider passing it in a Council meeting.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay zone. City-wide Impact.
   See item 7 (and 9) in the Work meeting on May 2nd.
5. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow Retail Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See item 8 (and 9) in the Work meeting on May 2nd.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres of real property, generally located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue, from Agriculture (A1.5) to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See item 9 in the Work meeting on May 2nd. It has a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   This issue was continued in our April 11th Council meeting. Since then another set of revisions were made to the proposal, and it went back through the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. I believe the major change was for the four-unit mansion houses on the north side of 4750 N have been replaced by single family residences. I personally believe that the owners on the south side of that street would be better served by the mansion houses. The area is nearing a point when redevelopment could occur and the owners might find more value in smoothing the transition between the apartments to the north and the single family homes further south. But, if that is what the owners along 4750 N want, and they have found a compromise with the applicant, I won't stand in the way.
   Previous incarnations of this proposal had a split Planning Commission vote, and a 3-2 vote against recommendtion. This time it found a unanimous recommendation.
8. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   The purpose is to inform Council of the proposed parking area that the Council Office received a petition in February 2017. The residents of the area have brought the proposal forward on their own and the public hearing solely for the purpose of establishing public interest. If Council is interested in moving this item forward, they must make a motion to direct a study that the proposed parking permit area being undertaken. The Parking Committee is the body that reviews the application/petition. After they have a recommendation, they will submit a report and will review the report in a public hearing. A third public hearing is held thereafter to formalize the parking permit area. 
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   See item 7 in the earlier meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral compensation.
    See the next item's description.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council members' compensation.
    This is what I wrote after the Elected Officials Compensation Commission reported their recommendations at the 21 March Council Meeting.
    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.
12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    See the item 14's description.
13. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    See the next item's description.
14. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Last Council meeting we continued these items because we had not had the opportunity to look over them yet.

Citizen's Budget

It's budget time! Council Staff has created a budget overview with helpful explanations of terms and programs. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in how Provo is governed.

What's Up? - May 6th, 2017

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on homelessness in Provo
   Presentation only. Due to the complexity of the topic, the Council has invited the presenters to return and present additional information at the June 20, 2017 Work Meeting.
   This was an important presentation and discussion. Here are some things that I learned:
   • Primary Providers of Homeless Services in Utah County
   • Center for Women & Children in Crisis
   • Community Action Services
   • Food & Care Coalition
   • Golden Spike Outreach
   • LDS Transient Services
   • Mountainland Community Health Center at East Bay
   • Provo City & Utah County Housing Authorities
   • Utah County Substance Abuse (House of Hope)
   • Wasatch Mental Health
   • The various services work together even though they are competing for the same money.
   • It is more costly to society to deal with the consequences of homelessness (ER visits, court costs, etc.) than it is to house the homeless.
   • Provo has about 20% of the population in the County, yet we are host to about 75% of the homeless beds (emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing) in the County.
   • Many people are given vouchers for housing, but can't find a place to use them
   • The County and the City are struggling with housing affordability. Much of the housing costs more than many of the residents can comfortably afford. The average 2 bedroom apartment rents for well more than what is considered affordable for the average renter.
   • We have a plan. See the link in the description of item 4. 
   • We will continue this conversation later in June when we will focus on affordable housing.
2. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only. This presentation is part of a series which the Water Division has shared with the Council. 
   This was part 5 in the series. If I understood correction, there will only be one more installment.
   This presentation was all about water rights. Because of the wisdom of past Provo leaders, our City is in a fairly comfortable position in regards to water rights. Because of conservation, our water is stretching further than expected. Other communities around us require developers to bring additional water rights with them when they develop, these are often purchased on the open market and raise the cost of development. Provo could consider doing something similar, or charge developers to access the water rights that we already have. One way to look at this is that our current practice has been "giving" water away to developers. Another way to look at it is that our good water situation allows us not to charge developers for it, making Provo a more attractive place to develop and that this practice can help offset the higher land prices found in Provo, which can help keep our housing more affordable.
3. A presentation and discussion of the Westside Planning Committee's recommendations
   A substitute motion to adopt the recommendations document as a policy statement and to direct Community Development to make recommendations as to how to incorporate this document into the General Plan was Approved 7:0.
   I had the opportunity to present the Westside Planning Committee's recommended policies to the Council. The Council was very supportive of the recommendations. The biggest question was how to best memorialize the policies so that they aren't forgotten over the next few years. The recommendations are now official Council Policy, will be incorporated into the Southwest Area Master Plan, and we are looking to Community Development for recommendations on how to further incorporate the document into the General Plan.
4. A discussion on a resolution approving the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled at the May 2, 2017 Council Meeting, which commenced a 30-day public comment period on the amendment, after which this item is scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting for formal action. 
   The "substantial" amendment was just a few lines in a 196-page document, basically adding Lehi City's contact info. But this item gave me a chance to refamiliarize myself with this plan which lays out how the community is organized to address poverty and homelessness in the area. Anyone with interest in this issue should read through the Plan.
5. A discussion on a resolution to place 40 Acres, at the Mouth of Provo Canyon, on the Surplus Property List.
   Presentation only. Several Council members expressed interest in a site visit and Tara Riddle, Property Management Coordinator, will work with Council staff to arrange the site visit. 
   In my estimation, the Council received this proposal with varying levels of concern and uneasiness. What are the potential advantages of selling this land? What are the potential disadvantages? From our questions and discussions, it seemed the potential downsides were far greater than the potential upsides.
6. An update on the status of the Buckley Draw property
   Presentation only.
   The contrast between this item and the last one was stark. My read of the Council was that we are all in favor of the direction this effort is headed.
7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Section 14.49.020(3) to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone. City-Wide Impact.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending the General Plan regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow retail commercial, professional office, and residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
9. A discussion on a zone change from A1.5 to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and LDR Low Density Residential with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay for four acres of land located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
   Items 7, 8, and 9 are related. Item 7 just updates a section of code that wasn't updated when the LDR, MDR, and HDR zones were created. Item 8 would update this stretch along University Ave from agricultural to residential. Item 9 would actually rezone the land to accommodate the proposed development and would overlay a specific development plan to tailor the uses on the zones for the proposed development.
   I personally like the style of the townhouses. I think they will look good in this part of the City, but I think they would fit even better in other parts of town. I am interested to hear what the neighbors think of the proposal.
   
10. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 2, 2017 Council Meeting.
    We were running behind so we moved through this quickly. Community Development offered a quick explanation of their adjusted proposal and how it addressed what we asked of them when we continued this item two weeks ago. The Council didn't discuss it at all, which I believe lead to the unfocused and drawn out discussion on this item in the evening meeting (see item 5 below).
11. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
    Discussion only. This item will be continued at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting. This issue is time-sensitive as it impacts the budget cycle for fiscal year 2018.
    Sanitation fees need to go up to cover the increased costs of disposing of our solid waste, household recycling, and yard waste. The question is how should we structure our fees. With our currently our rate structure, adding a green can costs $18.75 per year, adding a blue can costs $45 per year (assuming that you only have one black can). The silly thing is that the yard waste operation costs the City more than the household recycling operation. Another silly quirk is that "bundling" cans cost residents even more money. If you have a black and a blue can, adding a green can costs $42.75 per year. If you have a black and a green can, adding a blue can costs $69 per year. Sanitation proposed a few different options and asked the Council to give them feedback and suggest other options. One interesting option was to charge all residents one base fee for a can of each color. Because of the economies of scale, the fee would be about the same as for one black can and one colored can. Residents could opt out of having the colored cans, but their sanitation fee would not decrease.
12. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 2nd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation for Provology graduation
   Presentation only.
   Congrats
2. A presentation by the Covey Center of "Anne of Green Gables"
   Presentation only.
   I saw this production in a previous season and really enjoyed it.
3. A presentation by Their Story is Our Story regarding the Refugee Crisis
   Presentation only.My description won't do it justice. Check out their website.
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan Development to include the City of Lehi as a member of the Utah Valley HOME for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019 consortium.
   Public hearing only, which commenced a 30-day public comment period on the amendment, after which this item is scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting for formal action.
   See item 1 in the earlier meeting.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A motion to continue the item, form a committee of three (3) Council members to make one proposal, and bring this proposal to a future work meeting was approved 4:3, with Council Members David Harding, Kay Van Buren, and Gary Winterton opposing.
   I feel that we should have discussed this more in our Work Meeting, but we were low on time. Instead, we had a long, drawn out discussion in the Council Meeting that didn't feel very focused or effective. The proposal would do two things. First, it would fix the way that front setbacks are calculated to account for various property line and sidewalk configurations. I don't believe this is controversial and should be applied City-wide. Second, it would eliminate the 50' combined front and rear set back rule. Currently, front and rear setbacks must be at least 20', but the combination of the two must be at least 50'. As was pointed out in the meeting by one resident, the 50' rule is a proxy for a lot coverage requirement. Provo has a requirement that no more than 40% of a lot can be covered by the house and auxiliary buildings. The 50' rule is redundant and not helpful. Houses can be within 20' of the rear property line, or they can be with 20' of the front property line, so the 50' rule doesn't offer any additional protection to neighbors across the back fence, and doesn't guarantee anymore additional front yard space either.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   This happened last year as well. State law requires the Administration to present the proposed budget in the first meeting of May. The State statute directs the Council to review, consider, and tentatively adopt a tentative budget at least 10 days before the final adoption. Since we received the budget shortly before our first meeting began, I felt that I did not have the opportunity to comply with the State statute. The Administration met their requirement. But I feel that I would not have met my requirement if we had tentatively adopted the budget. We will be able to tentatively adopt the budget in two weeks and will meet the letter and spirit of the statute.
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   Same story as item 6.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   Same story as item 6.

What's Up? - 1 May 2017

Happy May Day everyone!

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

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on homelessness in Provo
The presenters will include the following individuals:
• Robert Vernon, Executive Director of the Provo Housing Authority
• Brent Crane, Executive Director of the Food and Care Coalition
• Karen McCandless, Executive Director of Community Action and Food Bank (Tentatively presenting)
The February passage of the camping ordinance triggered an important discussion about homelessness in our community. Based on past discussion with community service providers, mostly related to the panhandling ordinance, my understanding was that Provo and Utah County has a small but robust network of services to care for the homeless and near-homeless in our community. My understanding was that anyone wanting help and willing to follow the rules of the organizations would receive it. My understanding was that anyone sleeping outside was choosing to do so.
In the wake of the new camping ordinance, I read a solidly reported article which interviewed leaders from several of these poor and homeless service organizations. I looked all over to find the article so that I could link to it, but I didn't find it. These interviews caused me to revise my understanding of our homeless situation. I still believe that we have a robust network of services to care for the homeless and near-homeless, but I now believe that the network is not fully funded and is stretched beyond its capacity to deliver the services to everyone looking for help.
I believe that the community has a moral obligation to help our poor and needy. I believe that the local government has a role to play in coordinating and assisting in this effort. But I also believe that nobody's long-term best interests are served, not the needy and not the community, if the public abdicates its responsibility and expects the local government to take care of it all.
Homelessness is a complex problem. You do not need to become an expert or try to fix it all on your own. Our community already has a good overall plan and many programs in place to address the short-term needs and build the long-term self-reliance. But the community needs to give more of its time and money to support these programs. The local government can to its part, but we should not look to it to solve the problem for us. That would be a fool's errand.
[Take a look at item 4, for more on the community plan.]
2. A presentation from the Water Division
   This upcoming presentation will be the fifth in the series of Water Division presentations and will focus on water rights. One of the presenters will be John Maybe, a water rights attorney with whom the Public Works Department contracts. He will be discussing water rights in general, as well as water rights relevant to Provo.
   After Mr. Maybe’s presentation, Gary Calder, Water Resources Division Director, will talk more about Provo’s water rights.
   If you want to get a feel for what goes into one of these presentations check out these minutes from a past presentation.
3. A presentation and discussion of the Westside Planning Committee's recommendations
   At the end of February, the Westside Planning Committee unanimously recommended seven policies (and 34 subpolicies) to the Municipal Council.
   1. Preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage and support agriculture for as long as farmers choose to farm
   2. Preserve and Create Quality Usable Open Space
   3. Encourage Sustainable Residential Development Patterns
   4. Promote Development of Commercial Amenities and Employment Opportunities in Appropriate Locations
   5. Create a Robust Transportation Network
   6. Require Proper Integration and Sequencing of Development
   7. Restrict Development in Wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas
   I will be presenting the work of the Committee to the Council.
4. A discussion on a resolution approving the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan
   Under the HOME Program, local governments are able to join together to form a consortium to receive HOME funding for Affordable Housing. In July of 2016 the cities of Provo, Orem, Lehi and Utah County entered into an Interlocal Agreement to form the Utah Valley HOME Consortium (HOME) to receive funding under the HOME Investment and Partnerships Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and authorized by Title KK of the Cranston-González National Affordable Act (Act).
   A Substantial Amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan is necessary to reflect that the City of Lehi joined the Utah Valley HOME Consortium for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018 & 2019.
   I need to ask for clarification, but it looks like only a few lines were changed, basically to add some contact information for the administrator in Lehi.
   I believe that it was a coincident that this item is on the same agenda as our homeless discussion, but the Five-Year Consolidated Plan lays out the coordinated plan of the community to assist the homeless and near-homeless. It's a 196-page document, but here is one paragraph:
   The vision of the Mountainland Region Continuum of Care (CoC) is to provide decent, safe and affordable housing and effective support services to homeless, chronic homeless families and individuals including—initial stabilization, transitional housing, permanent housing, access to mainstream resources and independence from governmental assistance. United Way of Utah County (United Way) leads the CoC, of which Provo City is a member, represented by the RDA. The CoC is an organized body of local jurisdictions, government agencies, local nonprofit organizations, faith-based service and housing organizations, and other agencies and partners seeking to maximize resources and avoid duplication of services while providing consistent and unified planning in Utah County.
5. A discussion on a resolution to place 40 Acres, at the Mouth of Provo Canyon, on the Surplus Property List.
   This property is located at the mouth of Provo Canyon. It has steep terrain and has been used for recreational/trail purposes in the past. A departmental review was held by all city departments and there was no compelling reason for the City to continue to own the property.
   We have received an offer on the property for $1,500,000.00 subject to various terms and conditions including the ability of the purchaser to get an approved subdivision plat.
   This is the first I've heard of this proposal. I'm interested in learning a whole lot more about it.
6. An update on the status of the Buckley Draw property
   The property known as the “Buckley Draw” was included in the jail property purchase from Utah County in 1995.
   The property contains 17.21 acres, however, not all of it is developable due to slope and retention basin.
   We are working with a developer on a preliminary plan and will then be requesting a zone change from Public Facility (PF) and Agricultural Zone (A11) to single family. 
7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Section 14.49.020(3) to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone. City-Wide Impact.
   I am unclear of the purpose of the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone (SDP) and how it differs from, say, the PRO zones. It appears that when it was created it was allowed to overlay residential, commercial, and industrial zones. the LDR, MDR, and HDR residential zones have since been created. I believe this request allows the SDP overlay to apply to these new residential zones as well. I look forward to learning more about the SDP zone.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending the General Plan regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow retail commercial, professional office, and residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See description in item 9.
9. A discussion on a zone change from A1.5 to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and LDR Low Density Residential with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay for four acres of land located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   It looks like items 7 and 8, along with this item, are being driven by a single proposal. It covers about 4 acres of land on the northeast corner of 3700 N and University. This proposal changes the plan for this area from only business offices to "small scale retail" on the corner, leaves business offices along University Ave. and now envisions townhouses behind.
   
10. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    This item was continued at our last Work Meeting because the method for determining the "average" setback was not defined. The proposal for tomorrow gets rid of the problematic "average" and would allow for up to 100 sq ft of the house to extend beyond the 20' limit, up to a 15' setback, as long as the extension is a single story.
11. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
    Present options and receive direction for implementing proposed Sanitation rate increase as part of 5 year Public Works utility rate plan. Give an update on composting, now having completed about a year of the current program.
    Even before I joined the Council I was advocating for a change in fee structure for garbage, recycling, and yard waste. Our current structure doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, if I have a black can and decide to add a blue can, it will cost me $45/year. If I have a black and a green can, and decide to add a blue can, it will cost me $69/year. Can you imagine a business making that offer? "The more services you bundle the more you save the more you pay for each one!"
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 2nd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation for Provology graduation
2. A presentation by the Covey Center of "Anne of Green Gables"
3. A presentation by Their Story is Our Story regarding the Refugee Crisis
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan Development to include the City of Lehi as a member of the Utah Valley HOME for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019 consortium.
   See item 4 in the afternoon meeting above.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   See item 10 in the afternoon meeting above.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   Adopting a tentative budget is not the same as adopting the official budget; rather, it is acknowledging that the budget officer provided the governing body with a budget to consider—the tentative budget.
   Moving forward, the Municipal Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Storm Water Special Service District will hold additional public hearings regarding the proposed budgets on June 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017.
   Under Utah Code 10-6- 111, municipal budget officers are required to present a tentative budget to the entity’s governing body at a public hearing. In addition, the Code states that the governing body “shall review, consider, and tentatively adopt each tentative budget.
   If you check the public documents site, you'll see that the proposed budgets aren't there yet. We haven't received them. I believe last year we continued the items a couple of weeks to give us time to review them before tentatively adopting them.
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   See item 6.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 3018.
   See item 6.

Minutes from a recent Water Division Presentation

The past several "What's Up" newsletters have contained a line or two about the Water Division presentations. I wanted to give you all a taste of presentations by reprinting the minutes from just one of the presentations so far. Few members of the public ever crack open the minutes of Council meetings unless they are looking for ammunition to fight against something.

Skim through, or read to whatever level of interest you have. I hope you will be struck by the professionalism of Provo's water team, the level of detail of this presentation, and the amount of work that goes into providing customers with safe and reliable water on-demand. Remember this is just one of the services that Provo provides our residents and businesses. I also hope you a struck by the effort and professionalism our Council Office puts into creating these minutes. Enjoy.

Dave Decker, Public Works Director, presented this item. Mr. Decker introduced several members of the Public Works staff in attendance who are involved with the Water Division and its operations: • Gary Calder, Water and Waste Water Division Director • Jimmy McKnight, Public Works Finance Analyst • Rebecca Andrus, Engineer IV • Shane Jones, Engineer IV • Ryan York, Manager of Water Sources • Matt Hutchings, Manager of Distribution Systems In addition to these key staff members, there are over 30 key employees in the Water division. Mr. Decker introduced the direction of this series of presentations, beginning with the first topic for that day’s discussion, an overview of the Executive Summary of the Water Master Plan which was completed in 2013. Mr. Decker distributed a handout titled “2016 Fact Sheet for Provo City Water System” (see attachment) and gave some additional background information and context to help Council Members understand what these numbers mean. He cited peak day, average day, and minimum day water consumption figures; peak consumption is generally in July, and minimum consumption usually falls in the winter months. The average day consumption for 2016 was 24.7 million gallons; peak day consumption for 2016 was 50 million gallons; minimum day consumption for 2016 was 13.2 million gallons. The total annual consumption in 2016 was 9.01 billion gallons. In the industry, billion gallons is commonly referred to in acre feet. Mr. Decker explained this term and the measurement conversion; as the name suggests, an acre foot refers to an acre of ground with one foot of water sitting on it. The definitions and conversions section of the handout refers to several common abbreviations and measurements: • 1 acre foot = 325,000 gallons • 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons • 1 cfs (cubic feet per second) = 450 gpm (gallons per minute) • 1 MGD (million[s] of gallons per day) = 700 gpm (gallons per minute) Mr. Decker continued, explaining that the annual water consumption for 2016 of 9.01 billion gallons translates to approximately 27,500 acre feet of water. Gary Calder, Water Division Director, suggested an example for better visualization: picture an acre of land, then picture something 27,500 feet tall—nearly the elevation of Mount Everest—and this gives a good idea of how much water Provo uses annually. The 2016 peak day consumption was 50 million gallons of water. On average, 35,000 gallons per minute must be produced to meet this demand. This equals about 120 five-gallon buckets of water per second that Provo has to produce. Mr. Decker and his staff had set up 10 five-gallon buckets as a visual reference; multiply this quantity by 12 to equal the needed supply for water per second. Mr. Decker stated that on an average consumption day, the figure is about 60 to 65 five-gallon buckets per second. Mr. Decker referenced some facts regarding Provo’s water sources. Provo Canyon springs product between 7,000 – 12,000 gallons per minute (variation depending on dry versus wet year). With all 15 current wells operating, Provo’s well production capacity is 32,000 gallons per minute. Provo’s current water storage capacity is 32 million gallons; this will increase by 10 million gallons in 2017 with the completion of two tanks currently under construction: a Columbia Lane reservoir which will hold 6 million gallons, and a new reservoir on Slate Canyon Drive which holds 4 million gallons. Provo City has approximately 2 million linear feet of water lines, which equates 390 miles. There are ten large-capacity booster pump stations, which can move about 27,500 gallons per minute. Most of the water sources are in lower elevation zones of the City, so much of this water movement is to move water to systems at higher elevations such as areas on the east bench of the City. The City also has 33 PRVs, or Pressure-reducing valve. These valves are of various diameters and divide various water zones of the City. The valves are clamped shut and when water is needed, controls on either side of the valve can be adjusted a small amount to allow water through at a desired pressure. Ryan York is the Water Division staff member responsible for maintenance of Provo’s PRVs, eight of which are privately owned. Council Member Kim Santiago asked a few questions to clarify some of the information about the City’s water storage capacity. Mr. Decker clarified that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is not a replacement of the existing Slate Canyon water facility; the intent is to keep both Slate Canyon tanks online. The old Slate Canyon tank holds 5 million gallons of water. The old water storage facility at Slate Canyon (built in 1970) is at an elevation 17 feet below the Main and the Gallery, the two water storage reservoirs near the MTC. In order for these tanks to work in tandem, they should be located at the same elevation (Mr. Decker clarified that the two new reservoirs—on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon Drive—have been constructed at the same elevation, to work in tandem). During the summer, they are unable to fill the old Slate Canyon reservoir entirely—they can only fill it to half its entire capacity. During non-peak times, they can fill that reservoir completely. The Water Division intends to use this reservoir as much as they can for additional storage and to move water to the newly constructed Slate Canyon reservoir upon its completion. They will continue to use the old Slate Canyon reservoir until they see either structural or water quality issues that would make them want to take it offline. The old tank had been constructed above an old landfill, so there have been some issues with compaction which have been addressed, but will not prolong the life of the tank indefinitely, but has lengthened its usability for the time being. The new Slate Canyon tank was designed to be able to have a second tank added alongside it; Public Works intends for this additional tank to be built when use of the old Slate Canyon tank is discontinued. The old Slate Canyon tank is not seismically sound, which is another reason that Public Works intends to eventually discontinue its use. The Gallery is the water storage reservoir located at the MTC with a volleyball court atop of it, built in 1935. While the Gallery was not designed for seismic conditions, since it is buried it has some inherent structural protection. Council Member Kay Van Buren noted that the design of the interior includes beautiful Grecian columns. Gary Calder indicated that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is completed and the Water Division staff offered to give Council a tour of the tank. The reservoir will be put into operation once the Columbia Lane reservoir is up and running too. Mr. Decker outlined the list of seven discussion topics which he sent to the Mayor, and which he would be happy to share with the Council and Leadership for more direction. • Overview of the 2010 Water System Master Plan • Financial review of the Water Utility Fund • Review of financial recommendations for the future • Water Rights • Water Audit and Water Conservation • Water System Operations • Water System Testing and Regulations Water zones within a city are generally broken down by contour elevations. In the western United States, elevation is used to build pressure. The “Existing Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map shows designated water zones in colors coordinating to their corresponding tanks. These tanks are generally located 250 feet uphill from the lowest point in the water zone. Based on current usage, Public Works identified some issues which would necessitate dividing some of the pressure zones, including high pressure amounts and pipe corrosion. The “Future Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map illustrates the Master Plan recommendation to split this zone into two parts, with corresponding tanks on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon marked in yellow. Mr. Decker clarified further that some of the existing water zones in the Foothills area, depicted as the purple zone “Intermediate Zone,” are very simplified. The Master Plan breaks this purple zone into 26 different water zones. He will explain these 26 zones further at a later point, but he wanted to simplify the illustration at this point in the discussion. Mr. Decker distributed copies of the Executive Summary of the Water System Master Plan (see attachment). He gave some background on the Master Plan history, reviewing former Water Master Plans created for the City of Provo: • 1961 Master Plan – Interesting from historical standpoint and very informational. • 1979 Master Plan – Completed by a group in NYC; $11 million improvements recommended • 1989 Master Plan – Public Works had some concerns about this master plan. $1.6 million improvements recommended. Mr. Decker clarified that some significant progress had been made in the interim between the 1979 and 1989 master plans, relative to the suggested $11 million improvements in 1979. Mr. Decker explained that some significant line replacement [of older water lines] had taken place; his reading of a 2002 water rights study, which included minor updates to the master plan, indicated that from about 1980 to 2000, the City replaced 70 miles of water lines in the water system. These earlier master plans recommended addition of two new water tanks in the 1980s, neither of which was built. • 2002 Water Rights Study – This is a very detailed study. There will be a future 60-minute presentation on this. In the back there is one chapter with some recommendations (hydraulic modeling helped to generate these recommendations). • 2010 Water System Master Plan & Executive – This master plan was completed by the same consultant as the 2002 Water Rights Study. In this study they used the trend at that time • 2010 Impact Fee and Rate Study – done in conjunction with the 2010 Water System Master Plan. These historic master plans help to give context and background to some of the concerns of the Public Works Department and Water Division, particularly in looking at the difference from the 1979 Master Plan to the current master plan (2010). Mr. Decker noted some serious gaps: from $11 million recommended improvements in 1979, to $1.6 million recommended improvements in 1989, to the current $60 million recommended improvements of the current master plan. He hoped this overview helped to illustrate the cause for some of their concern. Mr. Decker began a review of the 2010 Water System Master Plan Executive Summary. There were some significant increases to the Water Demand Projections, due to a significant annexation on the west side as well as changes to development patterns as outlined in the 2010 General Plan. Table ES-1 illustrates Projected Water Production Requirements and uses the industry standard measure of acre-feet. Mr. Decker repeated that the current annual demand for Provo is 27,500 acre feet. Mr. Decker emphasized that Provo’s water production is coming in pretty significantly under these demands, even on a peak day, however in the past, Provo has exceeded a consumption level of 50 million gallons in a day. With all water sources functioning at optimum levels, Provo can meet the demand of its water consumption, but there is not much leniency should an issue arise; wells are mechanical systems and may experience failure. During the summer it is common to have anywhere between one and four wells offline; this is not ideal, but simply an illustration of the fact that the systems are not foolproof. Public Works is doing maintenance work on one of the wells right now; it is easier to work on a well in the winter, and Public Works has tried to plan scheduled work in order to accommodate the seasonal needs of the system. Council Member David Harding asked for some clarification on the projected production requirements versus projected usage and actual usage. Mr. Decker explained that during the summer, Provo takes about 5 cfs, or cubic feet per second, from surface water. Provo has surface water rights in Deer Creek Reservoir and Jordanelle Reservoir. Provo has to pay for water treatment in Orem, then the City uses this surface water to supplement the springs. With this surface water, combined with spring production and well water, Provo is able to produce 50,000 gallons per minute to meet demand. Mr. Decker indicated that this is the ideal scenario, but generally not the reality of the water supply and sources; Provo is well below the projected need, but the water sources are maxed out. The usage trend had been showing a steady increase from 1990 to 2000. Consequently, the 2010 Master Plan and study was based on the upwards trend, even though the trend took a dip and had been showing decreases from 2000 to 2010. Mr. Decker noted that some of the decrease may be due to the effects of conservation efforts, but there are likely other factors which would explain the downturn in usage. In particular, one of the largest contributing factors is that BYU moved many green fields to secondary water systems; BYU has water rights with canal systems on the east bench, so they have been proactive in moving many of their fields from culinary systems to secondary water systems with the canal companies. During construction on Stadium Avenue this year, BYU is also installing a secondary 12-inch water line down Stadium Avenue; their goal is to get this across the parking lot across Canyon Road to the intramural fields on University Avenue, so these fields can be transitioned to secondary water. Mr. Decker indicated that these figures are good from a conservation standpoint, but not all the gains can be attributed to conservation efforts; there were some significant changes which also had an impact. Mr. Decker explained some concern in the water rights industry about the disparity between water rights on paper versus wet water. During wet years, for example, this year based on the heavy snow pack, water rights become easy to manage; this year the City’s water will be plentiful and Mr. Decker doesn’t anticipate issues. In dry years or during times of drought, that is when managing water rights becomes more difficult, and senior water rights versus junior water rights come into play. Mr. Decker was not as familiar with BYU’s water rights, but he confirmed that Provo has many senior water rights. One of the biggest water rights on the Provo River is for Provo City through the Morris Decree in the early 1900s. Provo received a healthy majority of the Direct Flow Rights in the Provo River. Provo is also entitled, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water District, to up to 8,000 acre feet of water. Over the last five years, Provo has received between 50-80% of this, with the levels varying to some extent based on the snow pack. Provo purchases this water from the Metropolitan Water District. Based on the water that Provo takes from the spring sources, the City must return an equal amount of water to the Provo River. Because the spring water is good, drinkable water, the City uses this surface water [which for culinary use, would require treatment in the Orem water treatment facility] from Deer Creek to replenish the Provo River. The water to which Provo is entitled but does not use of the 8,000 acre-feet per annum allotment is referred to as ‘carryover water’ and the exact amount per year may vary. Currently, Provo City has 13,000 acre feet of carryover water stored in Deer Creek Reservoir—this is equivalent to about half the annual consumption rate. During wet years, Provo’s water supply in Deer Creek is subject to ‘Pay-per-spill.’ This is one of the most critical water rights issues for Public Works staff at present; Public Works is trying to move water into Jordanelle Reservoir, where Provo has, with the Metropolitan Water District, 10,000 acre feet of water storage (in Mr. Decker’s words, “think empty boxes”). If Provo City can move water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle, the City has rights to store 10,000 acre feet of water there. Provo also has two water storage rights upstream of Jordanelle, called the Lost Lake Water storage rights. Since there is likely risk of spillover in Deer Creek this year, staff is focused on moving some of Provo’s water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle for more secure storage via Lost Lake. If water rights for springs and wells remain stagnant, surface water resources such as Deer Creek and Jordanelle become crucial. Mr. Decker indicated that there are some well rights which are currently undeveloped, but these water rights are not enough to meet the projected growth. Ms. Santiago asked more about well rights and whether these rights are tied to a specific geographic location or just permission to dig wells in general. Mr. Decker explained that well rights are coordinated through the State engineers and generally refer to a cumulative entitlement of water received from wells. Some well rights are specific for a point of diversion and amount, others are consolidated to a massive water right with the State. Wells in certain locations in the City are more productive than others, which introduces further considerations for Public Works when planning future well sites and utilization of those well water rights. Page 3 of the Executive Summary addresses the treatment of Provo’s surface water at the Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. Provo generally takes 5 cfs (cubic feet per second) from surface water, which equates roughly 1000-1500 acre feet of water, through the treatment plant per year; out of 27,500 acrefeet water consumed per year, only about 1000-1500 acre feet comes from surface water, which represents significant cost savings to the City. As far as cost of water, the water belongs to Provo; we are only paying for the treatment of Provo-owned water at a rate of $95/acre foot. Water coming through the treatment plant costs the City approximately $0.30 per thousand gallons. Well water costs approximately $0.12-$0.15 per thousand gallons. Spring water is the cheapest water; not including pumping costs to direct water to the east bench of the City, the cost is approximately $0.02-$0.03 per thousand gallons. The current rate is $1.20 per thousand gallons; Mr. Decker will go into more detail regarding the costs the City needs to recoup through the water utility rates. Mr. Decker referenced a map illustrating where some of our water sources are, including Big Springs, South Fork, and Rock Canyon Springs. Table ES-2 addresses Availability versus Water Rights of the City in a dry year versus an average year. From an annual basis, the City’s water rights are in a good place, well above the annual consumption. Mr. Decker referenced Figure ES-1, “Annual Projected Production Requirement (Dry Year),” which depicts amounts of all the City’s water rights in a graph alongside projections with and without conservation and actual uses. Public Works made some updates to these graphs to reflect historic production through 2016, which graphs can be found in Mr. Decker’s PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Harding asked for clarification as to why the amount for Deer Creek water rights decreased significantly; Rebecca Andrus explained that this decrease represents the exchange water which was diverted to the Provo River based on the amount of water drawn from Big Springs, shown in cyan on the graph and showing a comparable increase in conjunction with the decreased amount from Deer Creek. Mr. Decker also directed staff to create a graph depicting an average year; the Executive Summary showed the water rights for a dry year only, but water rights might shrink based on the snowpack (or lack thereof) during a dry year. In Chapter 3 of the Master Plan, there is a graphic showing the same graph in an average year without water conservation. In an average year without conservation, the projections show that Provo should have enough water, but in a dry year, it shows Provo running out of water. Mr. Decker reiterated that the authors of the Master Plan were being very conservative in the projections and depictions of water rights. Mr. Decker addressed a question from Ms. Santiago regarding water conservation. Rather than restricting water usage, the Master Plan refers to a broader, holistic approach to water conservation, encouraging landscaping changes and xeriscaping to result in less intensive water uses. There was not sufficient time to address the entire presentation, so this discussion was continued to a future work meeting. Mr. Decker will distribute electronic copies of the Master Plan to Council.van