Bulldog Boulevard and Public Input

In an ideal world, citizens would only be notified of projects and meetings that they are interested in. Unfortunately, even with the technology available today, it is still hard to know beforehand who will be interested in which project. So we, the government of Provo generally, notice on all issues. A negative consequence of the volume of notices is that many citizens don't follow the notices closely, and may not be aware that an issue they care about is being addressed. City officials go to great lengths to make it as easy as possible to stay informed with the current efforts of the City. We publish blogs (like the one you're reading), we tweet, we write newsletters (tons of newsletters, with different scopes, and even give you an easy way to sign up for the ones you want), we host a public input web forum where we both ask for input on specific questions and welcome thoughts on any topic you'd like, we are on Facebook, we sponsor neighborhood meetings, we meet regularly with the press, we post silly (and hopefully informative) videos, we hold town hall meetings and open houses, and, yes, we still publish notices in the newspaper.

Despite our good faith efforts, sadly we routinely hear from people very late in the public process who are upset at the direction of a project and who are upset that they didn't learn of the project sooner. Please know that we are doing our best and are always open to suggestions for improvement.

Most recently this occurred after an open house on the Bulldog Blvd Design. We are fairly late in the process, the traffic and environmental impact studies have been conducted. State and County money has been secured. But this is another opportunity to spread the word of the coming improvements and get the public's input on design. A resident attended the open house and did not like the overall project, who sent out an email alerting fellow residents of the project. The Council has received many emails protesting the project in the last couple of days, many from people who are just hearing of the project and only have what information was in the email. Once word got out that opposing emails were being received, we've received a number of letters from supporters of the project.

Rather than respond to each concerned resident individually, I'm going to put my thoughts here.

I first heard about this project while serving on Provo's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. My first reaction was also one of alarm. I knew of the lack of good east-west corridors in Provo. This road is near my house, but I tried to avoid it when possible because it is such a stressful street to be on. My initial reaction was that reducing an automobile lane in each direction would make things worse. But as I listened to the traffic engineer, what he said made sense. This road is problematic. It has the highest rate of accidents in the STATE, more than 7 times the average. This road is threatening the life, health, and safety of all users, predominately automobile drivers and passengers. The engineer explained that even projecting far into the future, the traffic on this road doesn't warrant three lanes in each direction. Then he said something that surprised me but made sense as I thought about it and applied it to my own experiences. This street isn't stressful because it is over-crowded. It is stressful because of the poor design. The third traffic lane isn't helpful, it's causing much of the conflict and problems. How many times have I turned right onto the road and then needed to change three lanes in two blocks to make a left-hand turn? How many times have I seen drivers shoot out of a parking lot and cross many lanes of traffic to get where they are going?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember bike lanes being discussed in that first meeting. The point was that a lane of traffic would be removed in each direction and that the resulting capacity would still be more than enough for the demand and it would be significantly safer. It wasn't until later that I saw the beautiful renderings of the landscaping and bicycle lanes that would fill the vacated space, funded by the State and County who are happy to see this unsafe corridor fixed.

The conversation seems to be about whether an automobile lane should be sacrificed to make room for trees and bikes. Even the Project Newsletter states, "the project plans to convert one travel lane in each direction to bicycle lanes." But I see this as a fix of a bad design where overcapacity was significantly harming the safety of the road. The additions of trees and bike lanes is the best use of the freed-up space, particularly when the State and County are so happy to pick up the tab.

I am confident that this project will improve the safety and experience of all users of this street and will be a beautiful addition to our street network. To those who are concerned about the loss of a lane, I hope that with further research you will agree that this project is a "common sense" solution. Though the Council will not directly vote on this project, I am thrilled to be held accountable for my support of this project. I am confident that the vast majority of the community, if not everyone, will be happy with the results of this project.

Council Meetings - 15 May 2018

Budget, budget, budget, Miss Provo, Vote-by-Mail, and siting the new Sewer Treatment Plant.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business



1. A discussion on Council priorities. (18-004)
   The Council had a discussion in January regarding Council priorities and how best to achieve them. With the Council entering budget season, Council Leadership would like to have a discussion about how best to use funds to achieve these priorities. The priorities are important to keep in mind during the budget season, but this discussion is a periodic check up to see how we are progressing on our priorities and to see if we need to make any changes to the direction that we are heading on them. Discussion only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. Council Staff have revised the text on the one-page explainers for the five priorities that we kept from the nine we set two years ago. We briefly talked about how we are pushing these priorities forward. We talked about making sure each priority was assigned to a committee, but we didn't get to the point were each priority was assigned because we talked about the need to have Administrative buy-in and it was evident that they were not ready to make that commitment.
2. A presentation on the Sewer Treatment Siting Study (18-052)
   Public Works contracted with four consultants to do a site evaluation for the location of the new sewer plant. This presentation will give an update on their findings. Four sites, including the current site, have been evaluated for our future Sewer Treatment Plant. The study found the best site is adjacent to the airport, south of the Lakeview Parkway. Presentation only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. I feel good about the recommendation (to put the new sewer treatment plant next to the airport) and am glad that we have a solid back up plan (to build the new treatment plant next to the current plant).
3. A presentation on the review of the 2017 Vote-By-Mail Process and an update on the 2018 Election (18-060)
   At a Board of Canvassers meeting on September 5, 2017, Bryan Thompson offered to meet with the council following the 2017 election to review the county’s experience with vote-by-mail and share any lessons learned. Additionally, Mr. Thompson will provide an update on Utah County’s plan for the 2018 election. Originally, Utah County planned to conduct the 2018 election using a combination of absentee voting and traditional voting machines; however, on April 13, 2018, Utah County reversed their decision and announced they would conduct a vote-by-mail election. I don't know about you but I was underwhelmed with our Vote-by-Mail experience last year. It's not directly a part of the planned presentation, but I am interested in exploring the new option that the State Legislature gave us to use Ranked Choice Voting in future municipal elections. Presentation only. This was basically a recap of how the process went last year and what will be different this fall. There won't be too much change, but the hope is that both the primary and the general elections will be more like last year's general election rather than last year's primary election.
4. An update on the deer harvesting program (18-061)
   On July 19, 2016, the Municipal Council authorized an urban deer control program to reduce the impact of deer on the upper east bench. Prior to this, there had been numerous complaints from residents about property damage and nuisance caused by the deer coming out of the mountains. Camille Williams will share the most recent statistical data related to the program. I am very interested to hear the statistics. It would also be good to hear the residents perception of the current state of the urban deer problem. Unfortunately, the differences between the weather from winter to winter can confound the data and perceptions. A motion to continue the program for another year and request the Administration to add any funding necessary to the budget to continue the program for the next year was approved 7:0. We have completed the second of three winters covered in the program. If I understood correctly, we still haven't tallied up the complaints and crashes from this past winter, but calls were up for the year before. The number of deer killed or relocated are about 1/5 of the number of calls (mostly due to collisions with automobiles). I support completing the third year of the program, but I hope to have a strong case how this program is providing value to our residents which justifies what we are spending.
5. A discussion regarding the supplemental budget requests and the variance in tax revenues. (18-005)
   Each year, there are a number of supplemental requests that pass through finance and have to be prioritized in the event there are extra funds at the end of a fiscal year. Finance will present the list plus justification for the approved projects and give an update on the variances between this fiscal year and last fiscal year. The list seems to only include the supplemental requests that are proposed to be funded. I am also interested to see the requests that aren't in the budget. Presentation only. I was mistaken, the list included all supplemental requests and a column showed the few items that were added to the proposed budget. During the discussion we learned that many other of the items will be funded out of savings from the current budget and possibly the future budget. I have asked that we be given an estimate of which items will be funded before our budget retreat next week.
6. A discussion on options for funding on Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   This was initially discussed at the May 1 work meeting. Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. A public survey was conducted to gauge public opinion and help with Council’s discussion. It was my first year on the Council when the Miss Provo coordination was shifted to our office and the funding was increased. Each year I have argued against using tax-payer money to sponsor the program. Discussion only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. Our discussion went long and needed to be continued to our next meeting. The Administration is not eager to take back the responsibility of managing the float. Some councilors feel that there is no point in having a float if we don't sponsor Miss Provo. I agree with the majority of the survey respondents, I think we should still participate in local parades with a Provo City float, but not continue to sponsor Miss Provo.



Closed Meeting



7. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. A closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


1. A presentation of the Mayor's Award of Excellence
   Presentation only. The Mayor bestowed two awards, one to Gary Bushman and one to Josh Ihrig, both for their efforts on the implementation of the Provo 360 project. Mr. Bushman delayed his retirement in order to see the project launched and Mr. Ihrig was the "pig" of the project (See this video if you want to know what that means). Congrats to both.
2. A presentation of the May 2018 Employee of the Month
   Presentation only. This item was added at the last minute. Victoria Young, a fairly new member of the Energy Department was selected for this recognition. She originally reached out to the Department to see if they had any internships. When they told her that no positions were open, she offered to intern for free. She soon proved her value and moved into a paid internship which quickly lead to a permanent position, and now to being recognized as the employee of the month.
   

   Public Comment

   • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
   • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
   • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
   
   
   

   Action Agenda

   
   
3. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council regarding the implementation of a New Water Reclamation Facility. (18-051)
   This resolution is being submitted for Council’s approval on the City’s financing plan for a new water reclamation plant, which needs to be submitted to the State by June 1 in order to meet the requirements of the City’s water quality regulation variance. The State gave us a series of deadlines when it granted us a temporary variance for our waste water treatment. June 1st is the first deadline and we need to pass a resolution declaring our intention on how to proceed. We will be declaring our intention to build a new facility with a phased implementation. Approved 7:0. There was no discussion, it was as explained.
4. **CONTINUED to a future Planning Commission meeting** The Community Development Department requests a Code Amendment to Chapter 14.20 (SC3 Zone) to establish an open space requirement for the residential portion of mixed-use developments within this zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180113)
   This was publicly noticed to be heard at the May 15 Council meeting but was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard by Council at this time.
5. **CONTINUED to a future Planning Commission Meeting** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The project initiating this proposed change is in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood, but the proposed amendment would have a citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
   This was publicly noticed to be heard at the May 15 Council meeting but was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard by Council at this time.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-005)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget This is a tentative adoption only and signals to the public that this is the version of the proposed budget that we will be working from. The budget is technically three budgets, as the RDA and Storm Water District are technically separate entities from the City. Approved 7:0. And now the serious fun begins.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-062)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget Approved 7:0.



Storm Water Special Service District



8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget Approved 7:0.

Adjournment