What's Up? - 10 February 2017

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

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

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

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

COUNCIL MEETING

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

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

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


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

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

6. A resolution of intent to expand the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   We have now signaled our intent to expand the permit area. I also expressed my opinion that the permit program, as currently structured, is not self-sustaining, and is only as good as the enforcement. I am looking forward to the coming "Parking Czar" position and hope that changes will be made to these programs to improve their effectiveness and lower their subsidy.
7. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for a Provo Agriculture Commission.
   Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I'm excited to work with the Provo Agriculture Commission to support existing and future agriculture in Provo. One amendment was made removing a "Whereas" from the resolution. "WHEREAS, agriculture contributes more in revenue than it requires in city 20 expenditures, while residential land usually contributes less in revenue than it requires; " I was the only one of the six Councilors in attendance to vote against its removal. While it doesn't tell the whole story, I think it is important for the public and local leaders to understand that how we grow affects our financial stability in the future. Developers tell me often, "We'll build all of this infrastructure and then just give it to the City." The thing is that it is easy to pay for the creation of infrastructure when such improvements significantly increase the value of the land. It is hard to maintain and eventually replace worn infrastructure when our property taxes don't come close to covering the cost. 
8. Consideration of a motion to rescind an action relative to the Metropolitan Water District taken on December 6, 2016, and an ordinance amending portions of Provo City Code regarding the Provo City Metropolitan Water District.
• Motion to rescind passed 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
• Motion to approve passed 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
Back in December, we made some changes and appointments to the Metropolitan Water District Board, not realizing how different the rules that apply to the District Board are from the rules for other boards and commissions in the City. With these actions, we undid our mistakes, updated our code to align with State statute, and are beginning the process to fill the expired positions. If you are interested in serving on this board, please fill out this form.
9. A resolution appropriating $118,326 in the General Fund to fund the purchase of equipment and operational needs for the Fire Department and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017
   Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   There are three components to the proposed appropriation: dispatch software, department operations software, and personal firefighting gear. At the last budget cycle, I was appalled at how underfunded our 911 center was. I'm hoping this new software will help ease the stress and demand on our dispatch personnel. The operations software was already approved, but delays in the implementation pushed it into a new fiscal year. The firefighting equipment purchase would be taking advantage of a warranty replacement of some gear to get all of the gear updated.
10. A resolution appointing individuals to the Compensation Commission used to evaluate the compensation of the Mayor and Municipal Council Members.
    Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    Appointee’s Name      Board                                                                          Ending
    Dave Acheson           Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
    Ray Christensen       Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
    Kevin Garver            Elected Officials Compensation Commission        June 2017
11. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council stating their opposition to House Bill 164 which limits the ability for a municipality to transfer funds from an Enterprise Fund to the General Fund.
    Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    See my open letter.
12. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for House Bill 134 to require the testing of medium and light-duty diesel vehicles in Utah County.
    Approved as amended 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    Diesel vehicles are eight times more likely to fail emissions testing and failing diesel vehicles are eight times more polluting than gasoline vehicles. Yet owners of gasoline vehicles are required to test their vehicles for emissions compliance but not diesel owners. Air quality has a major impact on our quality of life here in Utah Valley. I would far prefer that our County follow the lead of other "non-attainment" counties and require diesel testing. But if, for whatever reason, the County refuses to do so, I support the State requiring the testing.

What's Up? - 6 February 2017

Here is my meeting report from 17 January, followed by my meeting preview for tomorrow's meetings.

Much of what Councilors deal with aren't on the official agendas. Here is a list of some of the things I've been working on since the last "What's Up":

• West Side Planning Committee - the committee approved a list of proposed policy recommendations to be released for public comment. There is a Stakeholders Meeting, open to all stakeholders (anyone who has any interest in the area) February 16th. You may also submit your comments using the Provo Open City Hall interface.
• Brewery - some residents are upset that the Council has not taken up the issue of changing Provo code to allow for a brewpub. I explained my decision here.
• Development Approval Process Review Committee - The administration is working on implementing the identified ways to streamline development approval. The Committee is balancing speed of approval with opportunity for the community to learn about and weigh in on proposals. The Committee is also evaluating how well initial concerns have been addressed so far.
• Rules Committee - After studying and recommending a number of changes to the rules governing how the Council operates, this committee is looking at how the minutes of official meetings are kept. We are trying to find practices which balance efficiency with the ability to capture and communicate effectively the work that takes place in our meetings.
• Attending Neighborhood Meetings - I strive to hit at least one meeting per quarter for each neighborhood in District 5.
• Developments in southwest Provo - Several development proposals are in different stages in this area of Provo. As requested, I'm meeting with the applicants to better understand their intentions and to communicate where the Council and Committee are at in our efforts to develop a plan for growth in southwest Provo.
• Trash receptacle regulations.
• Bedbugs
• Vision 2050
• Road repair
• Liability for incidents at Provo owned facilities
• Parking
• Solar
• Clean air

As before, my reports pull and quote from a number of sources including Support Documents (link), Council Meeting Summary (link), and Council Chair Dave Sewell's email newsletter. Comments in blue are my own.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, January 17^th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on incentivizing quality infill
   Presentation only.
   The discussion mostly focused on the questions of what is quality infill and how do we get it. Here are some images from the presentations:
   
   
2. An introduction to the new budget format
   Presentation only.
   With the ongoing implementation of Provo City's new "Provo 360" software platform, changes will be made to the format of the budget. These changes should increase the visibility and clarity of how the funds are proposed to be used.
3. An overview of the latest Capital Improvement Projects report
   Presentation only.
   The Capital Improvement Projects Report shows in detail the projects and items for each department and illustrates what happened with the funds for these projects throughout the preceding fiscal year (in this case, FY 2016). This shows the status of completed or ongoing projects, expenditures, funds which were carried over to the current fiscal year, as well as projections for future needs. Mr. Grabau explained that this document is primarily aimed at accountability based on the budget.
4. A review of the Engineering Department's Consolidated Fee Schedule
   Presentation only.
   The City periodically recalculates the full costs of providing services in order to provide a basis for setting the associated service charge or fee. This calculation of costs incorporates direct and indirect costs including operations and maintenance, overhead costs, and charges for use of capital facilities, thereby setting fees at a level that is related to the cost of producing the good or service unless otherwise restricted by law.
   A Council intern began the process of reviewing the Engineering Department's Consolidated Fee Schedule by comparing our fees to neighboring comparable cities and estimating the actual cost of providing service. We discussed the early findings and now the project will be taken up by the Engineering Department. Where were a couple of services that I suggested that they consider changing the fee structure. Some cities charge more for street cuts into new roads than into roads that are nearing the point that they need to be refinished. I think we should consider something similar. Another fee charges less per area for large projects than small projects. This makes sense because a large project doesn't cost twice as much to inspect as a project half it's size. But the way this fee is implemented some medium-small projects would incur fees substantially more than medium-large projects.
5. A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   Approved 5:2. Opposed by Council Members Kim Santiago and Kay Van Buren.
   Most of the discussion centered around using Robert's Rules of Order as a "gap filler" to cover situations not explicitly covered in our Council Rules Handbook.
6. A discussion on forming a zoning committee
   Motion to approve the formation of and mission statement (“To review recommendations from citizens and the Administration pertaining to zoning enforcement and compliance, and to advise the Council on how to move forward with those recommendations.”) for the ad hoc Zoning Compliance Committee, with Kim Santiago (Chair), David Knecht, and George Stewart as Committee Members. Approved 7:0.
   I appreciate the work that Council and other Committee members will invest in this issue and am looking forward to their recommendations. This is one of the priorities that the Council set last year, and I feel that we are finally getting to the point were meaningful changes are going to be implemented.
7. A discussion on Council Priorities and Goals for 2017
   Approved as amended 7:0. Amendment removed “2016” from title.
   We had a good discussion about the goals that we set last year, the progress that has been made, and the work that is left. We talked about whether it was best to set goals yearly, biennially, or to have a running list where items get added and checked off when the situation calls for it. We talked about dropping some goals, we talked about adding others. We discussed whether fewer goals would be better. In the end, we decided to stick with the nine we selected last year. The one change we made was to drop the "year" from the title. These are now our goals, not our 2016 or 2017 goals, just our goals.
8. A discussion on Long Term City Goals
   Discussion only.
   We continued our discussion on goals by asking if we should set a few long-term goals that might take longer for the City to achieve than the terms of the current Council and Mayor. There was some question as to where these goals would fit in between the Council Goals we just affirmed and the Vision 2050 document that we are currently updating. Since the Council's discussion on items 7 and 8, I've been thinking about proposing clean air, parking, and addressing aging City Center as possible goals that we should focus on.
9. A discussion on 2017 Council Assignments for Boards, Committees, and Liaisons
   Changes made, further changes pending staff research. Approved 7:0.
   We reviewed the committee assignments from last year and only made a couple of changes. There were a few assignments about which we had lingering questions. These will be resolved after further research.
10. An update from the Council Budget & Audit Committee
    Discussion only.
    Ms. Santiago discussed the Budget and Audit Committee's request to conduct a thorough review of the Water Department. This is, in part, prompted by the 5-year plan of raising water rates that we are half way through. There was some push-back from the administration, worrying how much staff time and effort would be expended to facilitate this review. Mr. Strachan will draft some additional materials to guide the review: a mission statement and scoping document, including an upper bound on the time commitment required from staff. If the Council and Committee come across issues, they will raise them with Public Works and Administration in order to help identify ways to improve things, but he reiterated that this proposed review is [an] attempt to gain understanding, not to find issues. Mr. Strachan will draft a proposal to a future Work Meeting.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 17^th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the Provo Bicycle Committee's Silver Recognition from the League of American Cyclists.
   Presentation only.
2. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2016, to Officer Tyler Nisonger, Police Department.
   Presentation only.
   Public Comment
3. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   Motion was to direct the Parking Committee to bring a proposal back for expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Area. Approved 7:0.
   A parking program is already in place in the area, but as new streets have been built and populated, they are not automatically added but need to follow the rigorous process required to create or modify a parking permit area.
4. An ordinance codifying a process for determining Council member compensation.
   Approved as amended 7:0.An ordinance was approved that put into place a process for reviewing salaries for the Mayor and members of the City Council and making recommendations for updates. An Elected Official Compensation Commission will be formed with three Provo residents appointed by the Mayor, three Provo residents appointed by the Council, and one additional Provo resident selected by the other six members of the Commission. They will be appointed in February 2017 and will report to the Council with their recommendations in April. Council will vote on those recommendations, with any changes taking effect in January 2018.
5. An ordinance amending and enacting new Provo City Code provisions regarding distributed generation (including solar generation) by residential customers of Provo City Power.
   Approved as amended 7:0.
   We enacted new code to implement the Solar and Energy Committee's recommendations from the last meeting. I have to commend Brian Jones, Council Attorney, for the great job that he did in converting the recommendations into proposed code changes.
6. A resolution authorizing a Section 108 program application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of funding the infrastructure necessary for the expansion of Duncan Aviation.
   Approved 7:0.Passed three resolutions (this one and the next two) regarding infrastructure necessary for the expansion of Duncan Aviation. One was to authorize a Section 108 program application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide funding. The second was for an appropriation of $300,000 in the Airport Fund for design work. The third declared intent to reimburse certain expenditures through the proceeds of bonds.
7. A resolution appropriating $300,000 in the Airport Fund for design work applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0
8. A resolution of the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah, declaring official intent with respect to certain expenditures to be reimbursed from proceeds of an obligation to be issued by the City; and providing for related matters.
   Approved 7:0.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A presentation by BYU MPA students regarding a project in the Franklin and Franklin South Neighborhoods
   BYU Masters of Public Administration students studied our Franklin and Franklin South Neighborhoods for economic revitalization, specifically with an eye toward making the area more attractive to millennials. 
2. A presentation from the Utah Ombudsman's Office regarding eminent domain proceedings
   I assume this presentation is to better inform the Council about how the eminent domain process plays out and what resources residents have once the use of eminent domain has been authorized. I thought this pamphlet was very helpful.
3. A discussion on the West Side Sewer Line planning
   Some changes to the sewer infrastructure plan have been proposed for the western portion of Provo.
4. A discussion regarding a proposed resolution expressing opposition to House Bill 164 and support for municipalities with respect to Enterprise Funds transfers
   House Bill 164 would significantly raise property taxes in Provo. My open letter, as well as background information, can be found here.
5. A report on the progress of the Urban Deer Program
   Last year the Council approved an Urban Deer Control Plan. Highlights of the implementation so far include:
   • 32 deer harvested, with the meat donated to needy and interested citizens
   • 487 specialist hours spent harvesting the deer
   • 30 deer captured
   • 28 deer successfully transferred
   • At least 74 officer hours spent capturing and transferring the deer (not including volunteer hours)
   • 1 significant injury to an officer handling a live deer
   The full report is here.
6. A presentation from Utah Transit Authority regarding development near the proposed BRT line in Provo
   This presentation will focus on the potential impacts that the BRT will have on the areas immediately surrounding the line, and particularly the stops. What are some things that we can do to get the most public benefit out of this project?
7. A discussion on an update regarding the city-wide Economic Development Strategic Plan
   Up until 2012 Provo City did not have an economic development strategic plan. In 2011 the Municipal Council appropriated $100,000 for such a study. The work commenced and through an extensive community outreach effort a plan was development. In June of 2013 the Municipal Council adopted the City Wide Economic Development Strategic plan as an advisory document. The shelf life as intended for the plan was five years. It has now been almost five years since the plan was completed. The economic development staff felt there would be value in having a conversation with the Municipal Council in the form of an update since the plan was adopted and what the future might look like.
8. A discussion on a proposed ordinance regarding camping on public property
   Within the last year 2015-2016 there has been a noticeable and documented increase in the number of calls for service/citizen complaints concerning individuals “camping” on public property. Specific nuisance areas include downtown Center Street, 350 N Freedom Blvd (Smith’s Grocery), 400 E 600 S, bird refuge, and East Bay Golf Course [etc.]
   Adaptation and enforcement of this ordinance will allow the Provo Police Officer to cite individuals who are in violation and remove the campsites in a timely matter. The ultimate goal being a REDUCTION in citizen complaints and negative effects on local businesses.
9. A discussion on mission statements for all Council Committees
   Last year we stipulated that each Council committees should have a mission statement. There are only three committees remaining that lack a mission statement.
10. A discussion on a Budget Committee request for a Water Division review
    This is a continuation of item 10 from the last Work Meeting (see above).
11. A discussion about whether the Council would like to fund both a new attorney and another zoning officer in the upcoming budget year
    In our efforts to improve zoning compliance, needs have been identified for not only a new zoning officer but also for an additional attorney to handle the case load.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

3. A presentation by the Rotary Club about their efforts installing benches in Provo City Parks along the Provo River Trail
4. A discussion and update on the BRT project
   There will be a presentation from UTA near the beginning of Tuesday night’s meeting concerning the status of the BRT project.  Additionally, a group of citizens has asked some questions about the BRT Lease Agreements, the related Interlocal Agreement, the BRT Executive Committee, and related letters and documents involving UTA and FTA.  Council attorney Brian Jones will be doing a presentation to address some of these issues.  Because of litigation involving the city and UTA, and because of the nature of some of the questions, he will not address them point-by-point.  However, the presentation is intended to provide helpful information related to these concerns.  There will be no public comment on this item because there is no decision the Council needs to make.  The item was intended to be informational and had originally been scheduled for Work Meeting but was moved to the public meeting so that more interested citizens could attend or watch.
   
   Public Comment
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various Boards and Commissions.
• Liz Maxfield, Arts Council until June 30, 2019
• Eliot Wilcox, Arts Council until June 30, 2019
• Paul Greenwood, Energy Board until December 31, 2020
• Dave Anderson, Planning Commission until June 30, 2019
• Deon Turley, TMAC until June 30, 2019
• David Harding, Library Board until December 31, 2017
6. A resolution of intent to expand the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   Since our last meeting (see item 3 above) the Parking Committee has reviewed the request and we will consider their recommendation.
7. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for a Provo Agriculture Commission.
   This resolution would document our support of the creation of a Provo Agriculture Commission.
8. Consideration of a motion to rescind an action relative to the Metropolitan Water District taken on December 6, 2016, and an ordinance amending portions of Provo City Code regarding the Provo City Metropolitan Water District.
   In December, the Council made a mistake when it attempted to expand the size of the water board from 5 to 7 and appoint some new members.  Neither Public Works nor Council staff knew that the Metropolitan Water Board operates under some very different requirements spelled out in State Code than other city boards.  For example, the Council does not have the authority to change the size of the board.  The Council soon found out about the mistake and held the ordinance without allowing it to go into effect.  This Tuesday we will rescind the previous action and pass an ordinance change that brings City Code into compliance with State Code.
9. A resolution appropriating $118,326 in the General Fund to fund the purchase of equipment and operational needs for the Fire Department and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017
   I wrote this back when this item was heard in the December 5th Work Meeting: "There are three components to the proposed appropriation: dispatch software, department operations software, and personal firefighting gear. At the last budget cycle, I was appalled at how underfunded our 911 center was. I'm hoping this new software will help ease the stress and demand on our dispatch personnel. The operations software was already approved but delays in the implementation pushed it into a new fiscal year. The firefighting equipment purchase would be taking advantage of a warranty replacement of some gear to get all of the gear updated."
10. A resolution appointing individuals to the Compensation Commission used to evaluate the compensation of the Municipal Council Members.
    We will be appointing members to the Compensation Commission that we created in our last meeting. (See item 4 above.)
11. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council stating their opposition to House Bill 164 which limits the ability for a municipality to transfer funds from an Enterprise Fund to the General Fund.
    If you haven't already, see my blog post about this.
12. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their support for House Bill 134 to require the testing of medium and light-duty diesel vehicles in Utah County.
    If you can handle the "whereas" language, the resolution explains this item very well.

An Open Letter Regarding HB 164

Senator Curt Branble
Senator Deidre Henderson
Representative Dean Sanpei
Representative Keith Grover
Representative Keven Stratton
Representative Margaret Dayton
Representative Norm Thurston

6 Feb 2017

Dear Senators and Representatives,

The Provo Municipal Council is in the midst of a multi-year effort to better align our fees and other revenue with the costs of providing the related services. Having services paid for by the people receiving the services is a good general principle of governance. I believe I understand the motivation behind House Bill 164 - Municipal Enterprise Fund Amendments, which, as currently proposed, would limit the ability of cities to transfer money from enterprise funds to our general funds. It follows this principle to limit the use of the money collected in power bills to power related costs.

But there are other principles of good governance which must be balanced. One such principle is that the more local government is, the more responsive and accountable it can be. The circumstances in Provo are different than in Salt Lake or in Fairfield. There should be a compelling reason to restrict the freedom of local communities to govern themselves and to tailor the revenues and expenditures of their own communities to meet their own needs.

Provo is home to some excellent institutions. We love having them as part of our community. They are a part of our identity. We enjoy playing host to both the institutions and the many residents of other cities who frequent them. These institutions and their patrons benefit from the general services that the City provides -- parks, streets, public safety. They add to the cost of providing these services but may not directly pay for these services through property taxes. While this is not unique to Provo, I do not know of another city in the State where roughly half of the land is tax-exempt.

Roughly 19% of our general fund revenue comes from enterprise fund transfers. Our utility rates are still competitive, below the average in the area. Provo residents benefit from the sacrifices of earlier generations who invested in creating publicly owned utilities. Our residents are in essence our shareholders. The dividends that are paid out to shareholders in corporate utilities are returned to our residents in the form of lower property taxes, possible because of our ability to transfer money from our enterprise funds to our general fund.

If HB 164 is passed, our utility rates will go down, and our property taxes will have to go up to maintain the same levels of service that the City currently provides. Because so much of our property and so many of our service generators are tax exempt, the magnitude of the property tax burden is multiplied on those who do pay property taxes.

In the case of Provo, the principles of government being as local as possible and of having services paid for by the people receiving the services are both best by not passing HB 164.

Thank you for reading and for your service to the people of Utah.

Sincerely,
David Harding
Provo City Council -- District 5

What is in the best interest of the community?

That is the standard that I use when making any decision as a member of the City Council. Of course, the answer is not always apparent (law of unintended consequences, anyone?), and different people have different opinions as to what is the right answer, but before I vote or choose where to put my effort, this is the question I try to answer.

There has been some recent frustration bubbling up with Council members unwillingness to consider changes to City ordinance which would allow a microbrewery to sell alcoholic beverages in the City, or even to engage much in a discussion about it. In one comment, someone wondered why Councilmembers wouldn’t just do what’s best for the community. So I wanted to respond a little bit about what goes into my decision process about what is in the best interest of Provo. But before we do, let me address a couple other thoughts that have been expressed along with this frustration.

The Public Has Spoken!

I am grateful to the administrators and members of Provo Forward, Our Provo, and the new New Provo Developments. They have been a valuable resource to me before I joined the Council and continue to be now that I’m on the Council. As much as I enjoy frequenting them to hear the opinions and ideas of others and sharing a few of my own, it is a mistake to think that members of these groups are samples representative of the residents of Provo. Even if one of these groups (or the people who speak up in the groups) come to a consensus, that does not mean that it is the consensus, or even majority view, of the residents (or voters) in Provo.

But the Poll Proves It!

Speaking of gauging the majority view, I’m sure everyone here recognizes that the wording of a survey question will affect the outcome. If you word a survey question like, “Are you open-minded enough to want a brewery in the City, or are you a religious bigot wanting for force your morals onto everyone else?” I hope you wouldn’t interpret the lack of negative responses to mean that everyone in the City is for it. Before you point out that none of the poll questions in the groups were framed that way, consider that the hostile environment can be set before the poll question is asked. These groups, at times, have been quite hostile to differing opinions. It can be intimidating (and painful) to speak up when the rest of the posting members are aggressively promoting the opposite view. Note that before and while these polls were active, posts and comments were made similar to the fictitious poll question I wrote above. In the last “New Provo Developments” brewery poll, members were asked if Councilors should discuss the proposal. 46 votes were in favor, and 5 were against. This is out of 27,000 or so group members. Provo, by the way, has roughly 116,000 residents.

Moral Legislation!

Speaking of politicians forcing their morals on the public...I grew up in SLC, so I’m familiar with the arc of some of the political issues that happenings there over the past 25 years. It has surprised me how many issues now facing Provo have parallels with what happened in Salt Lake over the past few decades (take Trax and BRT, for example). For years Salt Lake had more lax laws regarding smoking on public property than many comparable cities around the Country. Anytime proposals were made to restrict smoking on the city or state level, howls would go up about government officials forcing their morals on others. It finally took an ex-Mormon and smoker by the name of Rocky Andersen to push through smoking prohibitions in public parks. No one could question his motives. It went from a moral issue to a public health issue.

So let’s get to some considerations when determining what’s in the best interest of the community.

Everyone Else is Doing It!

That is not an argument that I put much weight behind. Provo is a special place. We have a pretty good thing going. We are listed high on many national measures for quality of life. So I’m not too anxious to be like everyone else. That’s not to say that we can’t look to other places and learn from the things that they have tried. But on its own, “other people are doing it” doesn’t sway me much when weighing out what's in the best interest of the community.

I Don’t Understand It, So Change It!

When we don’t understand something, it is human nature to assume that it has no reason. “Well that’s a silly law, the people who put that into place must not have been thinking.” I try to approach existing laws with enough humility to assume that even if I don’t understand the reasoning, the people who enacted the law thought carefully about it and had a good reason. This is not to say that mistakes weren’t made in the past or that as the community and circumstances change we shouldn’t update our laws. But it does mean that it is incumbent on me to study and try to understand the intent of the law before I go about changing it willy-nilly. This can take a lot of time and effort. Which gets to the heart of the matter.

Just Do It Already!

Not only do I consider the community’s best interest when voting, but I also have to make this calculation when deciding where to put my effort and spend my time. Even if something, by itself, is in the best interest of the community, it may not be in our best interest to pursue if it displaces something of greater importance. You all know this already, it’s called opportunity costs, but it is easy to lose sight of.

Some people are passionate about allowing a brewery in Provo. For some, it feels like the most important thing. Others are very concerned about BRT. They may feel that it is the most urgent issue. Some are exasperated that I’m not jumping at the chance to wade through the fine print of contracts and GRAMAed email of other officials. For others, BRT isn’t even an afterthought and what they care about is how West Provo is or isn’t going to develop. For others, the Council’s position on rooftop solar is the only issue that matters to them. Some people are leaving Provo because of the impacts of zoning non-compliance (mostly over occupancy) on things like parking and noise. They can’t understand why the City can’t resolve the issue and enforce the law. Others are on the opposite side, wondering why the heavy hand of the government is persecuting people for living the way they want. I hear from people all the time who are passionate about issues. Many of them are frustrated when they don’t get the response from Councilors that they think their issue deserves.

When I first took office about a year ago, I had so many great ideas for tweaks to make the City a better place. By attending meetings and talking with City employees and residents, I ran my “to do” list up to 72, before I stopped adding. You can imagine my disappointment when the Council chose to select only 9 issues as priorities. Nine should be easy to accomplish, right? I was told that we could add more as we check some of them off the list. Guess how many we added? None. Take a look at the priorities that we set last year. Now, not everything that we accomplished last year was on this list, and we made a lot of progress on some of these issues, but consider how much work there is to do. I don't consider even one of these priorities as "checked off". My point is that there are so many important things to be done in the City, more than can be accomplished. We have to prioritize where we put our time. We have to chose which issues to engage in. Some of the more active members of the Council are already putting in 20-25 hours a week. Some of us are also trying to hold down full-time jobs. We are looking for ways to be more efficient and more effective. I often question if I’m putting my time where it matters most. These are difficult questions. I have made this blog a priority, I think communication and transparency are critical, but I sometimes wonder if the blog is worth the time investment. Could I have tackled another issue or two last year if I didn’t preview each meeting and file a meeting report afterward? There are many things that I regret not getting around to as a Council member, many ideas never floated, emails marked for responses that never happen, meetings not attended. At times I think that being on the City Council of Provo should be a full time job. But that would prevent many people, including myself, from serving.

Back to the Brewery!

Alright, with that background information, let’s consider the brewery request. If I remember what I was told, the brewery can operate in Provo -- they can brew beverages-- but they can’t sell their brews here. I do not know the details of why not. We obviously have bars in Provo, we have a state liquor store, and some types of alcohol are sold in grocery stores. And other places, including in Utah County, allow for brewpubs. Again, I’m not clear what prevents this in Provo. I have been asked if I would sponsor the item to be on a Work Meeting agenda. I ask myself, is it in the best interest of the community to sponsor this item? Is it in the best interest of the community for me to spend time on this? Is this going to improve the quality of life here? What’s the likelihood of it passing? What are the potential Pros? More vibrant downtown? Improved convention center draw? A business that some residents want? What are the potential Cons? Abuse of alcohol is the costliest of any drug in the US, with costs to the economy estimated at 2.5% of our GDP ( Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ, February 2001). Would this change to our code make any difference in the public health in Provo? Should I spend my time trying to learn more? What issue that I’m currently working on should it displace? How does it compare with say improving zoning compliance? Visioning for the Future? Plans for West Side Development? What impact would it have on the time and efforts of others? Other Councilors? City staff? Community Development generally works on the ordinance language for items like this. What else are they working on? The plan was to write a Neighborhood Master Plan for each of our 34 neighborhoods, it seems like we wanted to be a third or so done by now. We have completed three. We just approved a text amendment drafted by Community Development that will allow “The Mix at the Rivers Edge” to add the residential component of their project to the old zone that governs the current Plumtree Plaza. Community Development said that they would have preferred to propose a new Mixed Use zone, but instead just made modifications to the current SC3 zone, because of time constraints and their workload. I feel the City needs a Mixed Use zone, I asked them to try to work the creation of such into their priorities. Should work on the proposed brewery text amendment be a higher priority than the creation of the SC3 zone?

All this and much more have gone through my mind in just trying to decide if I want to take a closer look. After a rough appraisal of all of these questions, I decided that it is not in the best interest of the community for me to spend my time looking further into whether or not the Council should schedule a Work Meeting discussion on this item. I do not know enough to decide whether allowing brewpubs would have a net positive or net negative effect on our community. I have decided that there are more important things for me to work on. Speaking of which, I’ll now see if I can finish up the report for the 17 January meetings, and work on the proposed policies for Westside development for the subcommittee that I chair. If anyone is interested in that issue (which was the number 2 response of another Facebook group poll) check out our work here.

I wonder how many people made it this far. I realize the irony of writing such an essay about prioritizing the use of time spent serving the City. But hopefully you can see how a simple, "I have other priorities to work on" wouldn't tell the whole story.

What's Up? - 17 January 2017

Well, publishing this post just a couple of hours before our next meetings is not ideal, but was the best I could manage this week. First up is the meeting reports from the Work Meeting and Council Meeting of January 3rd. Below that is the meeting preview for today's meetings.

I've pulled from multiple sources to give you a broad review and preview. I hope you find it helpful. The text in PURPLE was drawn from the meeting summary on the Council Blog. GREEN comes from the document packet. Click here for instructions on how to access the packet. BROWN comes from other sources (individually identified). As always, BLUE are my own words.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:15 PM, Tuesday, January 3rd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the programs and goals of the Utah Lake Commission
   Presentation only.
   The thing that surprised me most in this presentation is how involved they are in developing recreational activities on the Lake. Check out their website, if you are interested.
2. A presentation on Falls at Kelshaw Lane/Scott's Corner Project
   Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to recommend that the Council consider this application through the normal procedure. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Roll Call Vote: The motion Passed 7:0Discussed the project formerly known as Scott's Corner and how the developer had addressed some of the safety concerns. Council approved a motion to consider this land-use application through the normal application process.
   In September we declined to rezone the property to accommodate this development and created the Westside Planning Committee. Community Development took that as a signal that the Council was not going to entertain rezone applications until the planning effort was concluded. They have been advising applicants not to proceed. The applicant felt like the project had been improved to address the Council's stated concerns and wanted to see if the Council would make an exception for this project as it had come before the Council before the Westside Planning Committee was formed. I voted to signal that we would consider this project, but I made it clear that I would only vote for the actual rezone if the project materially complies with the policies recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Council. These policies are still being developed, so there is some risk being taken by the applicant if they choose to proceed.
3. A discussion on Mayoral and Council compensation
   Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to select Alternative 2 and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to be approved before the Council at the January 17, 2017 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Roll Call Vote: The motion Passed 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   Council approved a proposal to create a process for independent review and recommendation of Council compensation by including it in the existing mayoral compensation review process, with the same structure and similar timing as already established. Staff will prepare an ordinance to be considered at the next Council meeting, with the goal of appointing the Elected Officials Compensation Commission in February 2017, work completed by the end of April 2017, and any compensation changes to take effect in January 2018.
   In his newsletter, my colleague David Sewell wrote this: "A process was established in City Code 4.04.120 to provide for a Mayoral Compensation Commission to recommend adjustments to the Mayor’s salary every four years. This proposal would include Council members in that process so that the compensation of all elected officials is reviewed by the same independent body in the same way and at the same time (every four years) as is done for the Mayor. In our Council-Mayor form of government, the Mayor is a full-time position. Serving on the Council is a part-time position, but many Council members work 20 or more hours a week. The Mayor’s salary was adjusted four years ago to $109,500. Council member salaries were last adjusted in 2006 to $12,000."
4. A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to continue further discussion of this item to the next work session on January 17, 2017 in which 30 minutes will be allocated for discussion. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Roll Call Vote: The motion Passed 7:0I feel these changes will help the Council to be more efficient and effective in our meetings.
5. A presentation on zoning in the Provost Neighborhood
   Presentation only.
   "Hannah Petersen, Provost Neighborhood Vice-Chair, presented statistics regarding zoning violations in her neighborhood as well as some recommendations for improving zoning compliance in Provo. Community Development also presented some potential options for improving zoning compliance. Further discussion and formation of a committee to address the issue will take place at the January 17 work meeting."
   For years Ms. Petersen has been working with others in her neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods to address zoning violations and their negative impacts on the community. The efforts of these residents have been very helpful to the Council and Administration in identifying problems with our ordinances and our enforcement. We were very impressed with the changes that they recommended and are incorporating them into the changes that we are considering as we try to better address these challenges.
6. An update on the Council Priority concerning zoning enforcement, and a discussion on what to do about zoning in the future
   Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to discuss this item, forming a committee, and mission statement at the Work Meeting on January 17, 2017. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Roll Call Vote: The motion Passed 7:0
   Possible changes, as presented by Community Development:
   • Pool of money to fund civil cases/dedicated attorney
   • More liberal requesting of tax returns
   • More liberal requesting of bank statements
   • Post rental information on the back of the main door
   • Good Neighbor Task Force
   • Immediate suspension of license for certain violations
   • Immediate suspension of license if contact information is not current
   • Administrative warrants
   • Require that the property owner have a contract with each tenant/resident
   • Email owner and/or manager if any type of police visits w/a cc to BYU Off-Campus Housing
   • Police deliver Notices for certain cases
   • Clarify the definition of "family"
   • Change the definition of visitor (shorten the time frame)
   • Have a form for property owners/managers to update information every year
   • Make it easier for the public to see who has a RDL
   • Uniforms for zoning officers
   • Real Estate agents to disclose occupancy and legal use at time of closing
   • Zone Verifications available for free
   • Have RDL applicants/property owners sign a statement that they will obey the laws
7. A discussion on a resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of seeking funding for the infrastructure necessary for the expansion of Duncan Aviation.
   Presentation & discussion only. This item will be heard by the Council on the January 17, 2017 Council Meeting.
   In the preview to this meeting, I wrote of my concern that the primary funding vehicle that was being proposed was not the one that the Council had asked for. After some discussion and more careful review of the minutes it was apparent that I was wrong and this proposal is in line with the direction agreed upon the last time we discussed this project. 
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 3rd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

3. Recognition of Louise Jorgensen, Council Executive Assistant, as she retires.
   Presentation only.
   Public Comment
   
4. The election of Municipal Council officers; chair and vice-chair. Nomination of David Sewell as Council Chair (7:0) and David Knecht as Council Vice-Chair (7:0)
5. A resolution acknowledging the election of the chair and vice-chair of the Provo Municipal Council for calendar year 2017.
   Approved 7:0.
6. The election of Redevelopment Agency of Provo officers; chair and vice-chair. Nomination of George Stewart for RDA Chair (7:0) and Dave Harding as RDA Vice Chair (7:0)
7. A resolution appointing the chair and vice-chair of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for calendar year 2017.
   Approved 7:0.
   David Sewell was elected 2017 Council Chair and David Knecht was elected 2017 Council Vice Chair. Leadership for the Redevelopment Agency remains the same this year as George Stewart was elected again as Chair and David Harding as Vice Chair.
   I'm grateful for the time and effort that Ms. Santiago and Mr. Sewell put into leading the Council in 2016. We were able to accomplish many things. I grateful to Mr. Sewell and Mr. Knecht for being willing to serve this year, and look forward to achieving great things with them in 2017. I enjoyed serving with Mr. Stewart on the RDA Executive Board, look forward to continuing our work this year and appreciate the support of the other Board/Council members.
8. A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3240 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.
   Approved 4:2. Kay Van Buren and David Knecht opposed; David Sewell abstained.Council originally heard this item at the December 6 Council meeting and voted to continue it in order to request additional information. The information was received and reviewed before the January 3 meeting and is available on the Council's blog. Council invited public comments and asked additional questions of City staff involved in the project. The resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings in order to acquire right of way for phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway project passed.
   Authorizing eminent domain is like getting a root canal, it is extremely painful and should only be done to head off greater problems for the public down the line. It is hard to summarize something that I've already talked and written so much about. For me, this vote was about reaffirming the plan, study, and work that past Councils did. I still hope that negotiated settlements will be found with every property owner, so that eminent domain will not be used.
9. An update from the Solar & Energy Committee. Motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the Solar and Energy Committee Recommendations.
   Approved 7:0.
   Don Butler, Vice Chair of the Solar & Energy Committee, presented the recommendations approved by the committee. Council staff has been directed to prepare an ordinance adopting the committee's recommendations and bring it to a future Council meeting:
   Net metering rate of $0.06742kWh, with credits wiped out at a prescribed time each year.
   Grandfathering of existing customers (as of 10/4/2016) to receive the current published net metering rate.
   Starting March 31, 2017, increase the customer service charge gradually to the recommended base rate over the next four years and decrease the energy rate to remain revenue neutral.
   Re-evaluate solar rates in three years.
   Examine ways to make the utility bills more transparent.
   I am impressed with the recommendations that came from this Joint Commission. They exceeded my expectations. I believe enacting these policies will be a strong interim step to put us on the right path as we learn more and the shape of the energy landscape settles over the next few years.
10. A public hearing on a resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
    Motion to Continue the Item to the March 7, 2017 Council Meeting. Approved 7:0.
    The effort to craft the Southeast Neighborhoods Master Plan has been going for years. It has been before the Council previously but was sent back for more work. There has been a feeling that we should pass the Plan because there will always be things that can be improved, as well as opportunities to make those improvements. Then feedback was received from a resident shortly before our meeting. It made several good suggestions and asked some good questions. Community Development suggested that the Council could make any changes as we saw fit. During the meeting, I said something along the lines of, '
    I don't like the idea of the Council making changes in the final hour without them getting vetted by the public process and Planning Commission. 
    I don't like the idea of putting the Plan in place, even for five years, if there are significant deficiencies or things that we wouldn't want to see happen. 
    I don't like the idea of sending it back for more work and restarting the public process'.
      Even though there was a lot of momentum behind the plan, the Council ultimately decided to hold off approving it until the feedback could be properly considered. If substantive changes are made, I am torn over whether I should push for it to go back out for public comment and before the Planning Commission again.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow for increased signage opportunities in the DT1, DT2, ITOD, Gateway, and West Gateway zones.
    Approved 7:0.
    I see these as mostly tweaks to the signage regulations created for the Downtown zones.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, January 17th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on incentivizing quality infill
   This item was originally scheduled for the Council’s Development Approval Process Review Retreat on January 12, 2017. However, due to insufficient time, the Council postponed the item to the January 17th, 2017 Work Meeting. The item is time-sensitive because it could affect the work of the Council West Side Planning Committee.
   I think the best way to incentivize quality infill in Provo is to require high standards for green-field development in Provo.
2. An introduction to the new budget format
   As the City begins using the new Provo 360 system this year, the Finance Department will be updating the budget format to reflect the various functions of each department. For example, the Council budget will be divided into legislative and administrative categories. John Borget and Dustin Grabau will be presenting on these changes so that Council members will know what to expect when they see future budgets.
   I'm excited to see this presentation. The Mayor has tried to temper expectations, but, from what I've seen, the City will be far better served by the new Provo 360 system and the level of information that it will provide to be used in things like budgets. From the description, these changes sound like they are a step in the direction of priority based budgeting.
3. An overview of the latest Capital Improvement Projects report
   The actual report is not part of our document packet, so there isn't much to comment on until after the meeting.
4. A review of the Engineering Department's Consolidated Fee Schedule
   The Engineering Department conducted an extensive fee review internally five years ago. Since then, costs to perform the same services have changed. The fee schedule has not been updated to reflect the changes in most of the fees. Therefore, to better capture the actual direct costs, Council staff conducted a fee review to assess and update office and field time and material costs.
   After looking over the documents, my thoughts are that the way we structure asphalt inspection fees doesn't make sense, that we might consider getting closer to full cost recovery, and that we might consider charging more for asphalt cuts on more recently paved roads like other municipalities.
5. A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   During the Work Meeting on December 6th, 2016, the Council unanimously approved Phase 1 of proposed changes to Chapter IV of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook (regarding formatting). The Council continued the discussion of Phase 2 (regarding content changes) to the January 3rd, 2017 Work Meeting. Due to insufficient time at that meeting, the item was continued to the January 17, 2017 Work Meeting for further discussion.
   I've addressed this item many times because it has been continued twice so far. I support these changes. If you are interested in learning about the proposed changes to the Council's policies and procedures, I recommend reading this document.
6. A discussion on forming a zoning committee
   At the January 3rd, 2017 Work Meeting, Hannah Petersen—the Provost Neighborhood Vice-Chair—and Gary McGinn—the Community Development director—presented several recommendations for improving zoning enforcement and compliance in the City. The Council discussed forming a small committee that would consider and prioritize the zoning recommendations that had been presented. Council members decided to create the Zoning Committee at the next work meeting on January 17th, 2017.
   See items 5 and 6 in the 3 Jan Work Meeting report above.
7. A discussion on Council Priorities and Goals for 2017
   At the beginning of 2016, the Council identified nine priorities to pursue throughout the year. Council staff will provide an update on the progress of those original nine priorities, and Council will discuss what to do moving forward.
   The document packet contains a status review of our 2016 priorities. It is pretty sobering to see how much work remains to be done. I feel like we've made good progress on many of our priorities, but it would be good to check off a few priorities.
8. A discussion on Long Term City Goals
   Identify goals that the Council will pursue that will require years to accomplish.
   I actually would prefer to have "Active Priorities" and "Prospective Priorities." As I experienced last year, priorities can often take multiple years, or at least don't neatly fit into calendar years. Rather than goal setting once a year, I think it would be good to continually evaluate and communicate what we are actively pursuing. When there are priorities that we want to work on, but can't get started either because we are working on higher priorities, or there are prerequisites, we could list them as "Prospective Priorities." And we would choose from our Prospective Priorities when we accomplish an Active Priority. For example, we "General Plan Update" as one of our priorities last year. Once we started working on it, we felt that we needed to update the Vision 2030 document first. We are now nearing completion of the vision update and will be able to get back to work on the General Plan update. We could have move "General Plan Update" from our active list to the prospective list.
9. A discussion on 2017 Council Assignments for Boards, Committees, and Liaisons
   Current Council member assignments are listed in the document 2016 Council Boards and Committees Assignments. The Council will review those assignments and make any changes during the January 17, 2017 Work Meeting.
   Much of the work of the Council is accomplished in these committees.
10. An update from the Council Budget & Audit Committee
    The Council Budget & Audit Committee met on January 4th and discussed the Solar & Energy Committee’s recommendations to the Council. Members of the Budget & Audit Committee supported the recommendations, and they wanted to relay that support to the Council. In addition, the Committee discussed how to move forward in gaining a better understanding of the City’s budget. Members agreed that focusing on one area of the budget at a time would likely be the most effective way to proceed. The Committee is interested in first reviewing the Water Fund.
    I'm glad that the Budget & Audit Committee is supporting the recommendations of the Solar & Energy Committee. There are some significant structural changes to the structure of energy billing for our residents. I hope the public will appreciate the reasons behind these recommendations.
11. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 17th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the Provo Bicycle Committee's Silver Recognition from the League of American Cyclists.
   Read more.
2. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2016, to Officer Tyler Nisonger, Police Department.
   Officer Nisonger is my neighbor, so it is fun to see him earn this honor. It seems like it has only been 5 or so years since he was last recognized, so he must be doing some exceptional work.
   Public Comment
    
3. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   The purpose of this public hearing is for the Council to “determine the level of public interest in the proposed (expansion) and may thereafter vote to direct that a study of the proposed permit parking area be undertaken.”
   A permit parking area already exists. There is a request to expand the area to include a recently created street which is experiencing the parking problems that the rest of the area experienced before the permit parking area was created.
4. An ordinance codifying a process for determining Council member compensation.
   It is proposed to create a process for independent review and recommendation of council compensation by including that process in the existing mayoral compensation review process and renaming the commission the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, with the same structure and similar timing as already established. Said commission would be appointed in February 2017, and then complete its work and make recommendations in time for the first regular Council meeting on April 11, 2017, with any changes to council member and mayoral compensation to take effect in January 2018 when new terms of office commence.
   What an awkward item! I support making this process as independent as possible.
5. An ordinance amending and enacting new Provo City Code provisions regarding distributed generation (including solar generation) by residential customers of Provo City Power.
   This item would implement the recommendations that were developed by the Solar and Energy Committee. See item 9 in the above Council Meeting report, or better yet, the item 9 from the Council Meeting preview.
6. A resolution authorizing a Section 108 program application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of funding the infrastructure necessary for the expansion of Duncan Aviation.
   The Redevelopment Agency Board [will] conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering the merits of utilizing a Section 108 Loan for to fund infrastructure improvements necessary for Duncan Aviation’s expansion.
   The purposes of this proposal are to "pursue economic development initiatives" and "Job Creation and Diversification."
7. A resolution appropriating $300,000 in the Airport Fund for design work applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   This item is related the previous item, as well as, item 7 in the Work Meeting report above.
8. A resolution of the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah, declaring official intent with respect to certain expenditures to be reimbursed from proceeds of an obligation to be issued by the City; and providing for related matters.
   This item is also related to item 6. We are committing to reimburse ourselves with future tax increments generated by the airport expansion project. Other taxing entities (like the County and School District) are also committing to reimburse the City.

What's Up? - 2 January 2017

Well, I finally finished it. The meeting reports for December 6th are below, along with the previews for Tuesday's meetings. Enjoy. Oh, and I wish you all a wonderful year in 2017!

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee
   Report only.
   Don Jarvis, the Mayor's Environmental Adviser and Chair of the Mayor's Sustainability Committee, presented information on the newly formed Provo Agricultural Commission and the Utah Valley Clean Air Task Force, and weighed in on the Lakeview Parkway. We spent a lot of time on the first couple of issues and rushed the end. The handout also listed accomplishments of the Sustainability Committee.
2. Rules Committee Policy Evaluation: A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   Motion to approve Phase 1 (Formatting): Approved 7:0.
   Motion to continue discussion of Phase 2 at the January 3, 2017 Work Meeting: Approved 7:0.
   This represents many months of work by the Council Rules Committee. The recommendations for chapter 4 of our handbook were separated into two phases: formatting and content. The first phase was passed. The second phase was continued to allow more time to discuss and consider. The most discussed proposal centers on the ability to limit Council discussion. I am hopeful that we will implement these changes and that they will improve the flow of our meetings.
3. A discussion on recommendations of potential committee members for the Impact Fee process and review
   Motion to create the the Impact Fee Committee with the following membership:
   • Council Member Gary Winterton
   • Council Member Kay Van Buren
   • Deann Huish
   • Chris Gamvroulas
   • Monte Kingston
   • Paul Smith
   • Craig Call
   • Dave Decker
   • Gary McGinn (or Bill Peperone or other assignee)
   • Travis Ball
   • Doug Robins
   • The support staff, who do not constitute formal committee members as listed above, will be Brian Jones and a member of Council Staff.
   Approved as Amended 7:0.
   Motion to approve Committee Purpose as stated herewith: “To review the City’s impact fees, the consultant’s report, and make recommendations to the Budget Committee and the Council.” Approved 7:0.
   We felt that this committee make up represented a good cross section of stake holders, including those who will directly pay the impact fees and those tasked with extending the services to the new development.
4. A discussion on sections of the proposed Vision 2050
   • Section 7 - Public and Non-Profit Partnerships
   • Section 8 - Safety
   • Section 10 - Diversity and Unity
   • Section 11 - Governance
   Motion to amend Section 9.1.1 to include “where cost-effective and appropriate.” Approved 4:2, Council Member David Sewell abstained. Opposed by Council Members Gary Winterton and David Harding.
   Motion to place revised Vision 2050 document on Open City Hall to request public feedback. Approved 7:0.
   Most of the work was not captured in the two motions. We went through a dozen or so Councilor-suggested edits and gave suggestions to Bill Peperone of our Community Development Department who will come back with another draft. Objective 9.1.1 says, "Reduce reliance on automobiles by encouraging alternative modes of transportation;" The suggestion was to remove the reference to automobiles and add the phrase "where cost-effective and appropriate." I was able to beat back the first part of it, but not the second. It felt strange to vote against "cost-effective and appropriate" but my argument is that nearly every objective in the vision could say, "as cost-effective and appropriate", but it would be very redundant. I think everyone understands that none of these objectives should be carried out unless they are deemed "cost-effective and appropriate".
5. A discussion on a proposal to create an Arts Council
   Presentation only.
   We met with three dynamic art lovers who will be the nucleus of the new Arts Council.
6. A discussion on an appropriation for Fire Department equipment and software
   Presentation only.
   From the last "What's Up": "There are three components to the proposed appropriation: dispatch software, department operations software, and personal firefighting gear. At the last budget cycle I was appalled at how underfunded our 911 center was. I'm hoping this new software will help ease the stress and demand on our dispatch personnel. The operations software was already approved but delays in the implementation pushed it into a new fiscal year. The firefighting equipment purchase would be taking advantage of a warranty replacement of some gear to get all of the gear updated."
   By paying for the difference between the gear under warranty and the newest model, the gear will be forward compatible with the replacement equipment in the future. We asked the Administration to bring forward an appropriation proposal.
7. A discussion regarding Provo City's Driveway Standard
   Presentation only.
   Why do we have a Driveway Standard? What are we trying to accomplish? Is our Standard getting us the outcomes we want? Is there a better way to do it? What is the best practices in other cities? Community Development wanted to know if we would be interested in these answers and if they should look into them.
8. A discussion on a request for an amendment to the Provo City Major Street Plan for the extension of 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
   Presentation only.
   We saw this later, as agenda item 10 in the Council Meeting (described below).
9. A discussion on an ordinance text amendments to Chapter 14.20, Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone, to allow for mixed-use redevelopment of the Plum Tree Shopping Center, located at 2230 North University Parkway. City-Wide Impact.
   Presentation only.
   We saw this later, as agenda item 12 in the Council Meeting (described below).
10. A discussion on a request for amendments to the Provo City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14.38) to increase signage allowances in the DT1, DT2, ITOD, Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. Downtown, Dixon, Franklin, Franklin South, and East Bay Neighborhoods.
    Motion to hear this item on the January 3, 2017 Council Meeting. Approved 7:0.
    From the last "What's Up": "In response to current businesses, Provo Economic Development is proposing some 'modest' changes to our sign regulations in Downtown (and Center Street to the freeway) zones. It mostly affects non-ground-floor businesses and businesses who share a common entrance."
11. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. A special Citizen Recognition for Sally Breeden presented by the Mayor.
   Presentation only.
2. A Presentation of Handel's Messiah - Amy Norton, Wasatch Chorale
   Presentation only.
3. Provology Graduation
   Presentation only.
4. An audit report from Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose, & Erickson and a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
   Report only.The professionalism and quality of Budget Team and the value and safeguards provided to the residents of Provo is remarkable. Want some evidence?
   Public Comment
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.28 (Metropolitan Water District) to change the number of board members and rules for removal.
   Approved as Amended 7:0.
6. A resolution appointing individuals to the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo.
   Approved 7:0.
   I've spent far more time on this item since we passed it than I did before. There appears to be some discrepancies between the ordinance that we passed and state statue, so we will likely need to fix this soon.
7. A resolution adopting the 2017 Council regular meeting schedule.
   Approved 7:0.
   Get these into your calendar now, you won't want to miss a single meeting!
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 2.50.010 (Municipal Council Rules) regarding the procedure to adopt, suspend, or repeal Council rules.
   Approved 7:0.
   This makes it so the Council must have a 2/3s majority (5 votes) to suspend a rule during a meeting rather than the simple majority (4 votes) that it takes now.
9. A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3240 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.
   Continued to January 3, 2017 Council Meeting to allow legal staff review the legal arguments made by Mr. McCoard’s attorney, to allow staff to gather information on the archeological claims, provide information on road route options and why that specific route was chosen, and provide information on land values and how to account for business use. Approved 4:3. Council Members Gary Winterton, George Stewart, and David Harding opposed.
   This item by itself took more than four hours of our meeting time. I was prepared to vote for the continuance, but just seconds before the vote, Mr. Stewart stated that he wanted to approve it now because he didn't see the four week delay changing the outcome. That struck me as true, so as the vote was being called I switched by vote to oppose the continuance. There were many questions raised, but nothing new that hadn't been studied and decided on over the past five or so years. The route has been carefully studied, it is the best alignment for the City. We need to secure the alignment before development happens, or we will end up in another situation like we have with a disconnect between 820 North and 620 North at Geneva Road. I believe everyone wishes that the road alignment had been considered before the developments went in that are there now.
   As I stated in the "West Provo" blog post, authorizing eminent domain does not guarantee that it will be used. So far, in the previous phase of the Parkway, eminent domain has not been used, even where it was authorized, and, last I heard, all but two of the properties had reached negotiated resolutions. I don't want to minimize the anxiety and hassle caused to the property owners who have been approached by the City to secure the corridor, but I have confidence that our Public Works will negotiate in good faith, and believe that eminent domain will not be used.
10. A resolution amending the Major and Local Street Plan to extend 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
    Approved 7:0.
    Speaking of 620 N, we amended the Major and Local Street Plan to complete the 820/620 corridor all the way out to the Lakeview Parkway. This will be an important connection for many commuters, including those headed to and from the new PHS campus.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.4 acres of real property, generally located at 54 West 4200 North from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    Approved 7:0.
    From a previous "What's Up": "The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences."
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20 (SC3 - Regional Shopping Center Zone), to allow Mixed-Use development within the zone. City-wide Impact.
    Approved 7:0.
    From the previous "What's Up": "I am excited about this development, but I was a little worried about how changes to the SC3 zone might unintentionally affect other properties in Provo with this zoning designation. In reading through the material I was encouraged that the staff also had this concern and had put considerable thought into how the proposed changes might affect the Provo Towne Centre and Riverwoods properties."
    Community Development wants to create a new "Mixed Use" zone for developments like this, but didn't feel it had time to create a new zone, so it made these modifications to the existing zone. I encouraged them to push forward quickly to get the new zone written.
13. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
    Continued to January 3, 2017 Council Meeting. Approved 7:0.

What's Coming Up?

Text in GREEN comes from the document packet. Click here for instructions on how to access the packet.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:15 PM, Tuesday, January 3rd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the programs and goals of the Utah Lake Commission
   In November 2016, members of the Provo City Council expressed interest in learning about the mission, programs, and goals of the Utah Lake Commission.
   I believe the Provo City Council helped found the Utah Lake Commission.
2. A presentation on Falls at Kelshaw Lane/Scott's Corner Project
   An earlier version of this project, known as Scott’s Corner, was presented at the August 16, 2016 Work Meeting. The original plans involved building a development on the corner of 890 South and widening 1600 West. At the time, Council members expressed concerns over the original plans, specifically regarding safety issues and the lack of a southwest master plan. Alan Price, the applicant, has brought back a revised version of the plans in effort to address some of the safety concerns posed by the Council. The new plans include a new section that will provide a full-sized, fully-improved public roadway leading up to 600 South and Sunset Elementary School. Mr. Price says that the new section is being referred to as “The Falls on Kelshaw Lane” because his company wants to build a new waterfall/water-feature on the corner where the project would attach to 600 South. In addition, the family that sold the land has the last name of ‘Kelshaw’, and the developers would like to name the road—leading back to the south into the project—after them.
   I believe the Westside Planning Committee is getting close to recommending policy to the Council. As long as these proposals generally conform to the direction of the Southwest Area Master Plan that is being written, I am willing to consider rezoning property while it is being written.
3. A discussion on Mayoral and Council compensation
   It is proposed to create a process for independent review and recommendation of council compensation by including that process in the existing mayoral compensation review process and renaming the commission the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, with the same structure and similar timing as already established. Said commission would be appointed in February 2017 and complete its work by end of April 2017, with any changes to council member and mayoral compensation to take effect in January 2018 when new terms of office commence.
   I feel that the less hands-on the Council is in setting its own compensation, the better.
4. A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   During the last Work Meeting on December 6th, 2016, the Provo City Council discussed possible changes to Chapter IV of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook. The Council unanimously approved Phase 1 of the proposed changes (regarding formatting). The Council continued the discussion of Phase 2 (regarding content changes) to the January 3rd, 2017 Work Meeting.This was agenda item 2 from the previous Work Meeting (see notes above).
   
   Break
5. A presentation on zoning in the Provost Neighborhood
   This fall, Hannah Petersen—the Provost Neighborhood Chair—came to a Council Leadership Meeting and presented various statistics regarding zoning violations in her neighborhood. Based on her presentation, the Provost Neighborhood has experienced a particularly high number of over-occupancy cases, which concerns homeowners and permanent residents who want to preserve the quality of their neighborhood. Ms. Petersen has various recommendations that could improve zoning compliance, both in the Provost Neighborhood and in the overall city. 
6. An update on the Council Priority concerning zoning enforcement, and a discussion on what to do about zoning in the future.
   At the September 6th, 2016 Work Meeting, Mayor Curtis briefly updated the Council about the Administration’s analysis of zoning enforcement. He mentioned that employees had been brainstorming a wide-array of options that they would hone down over the next several months. Since the September 6th, 2016 Work Meeting, City employees and community members have compiled their findings regarding ways the City could change and improve zoning compliance. Gary McGinn—the director of Community Development—will present some of these suggestions. In addition, Carrie Walls—Provo’s Zoning Administrator— will provide actual recent numbers that show the current status of zoning compliance in the City. 
7. A discussion on a resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of seeking funding for the infrastructure necessary for the expansion of Duncan Aviation.
   Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering the merits of utilizing a Section 108 Loan for to fund infrastructure improvements necessary for Duncan Aviation’s expansion
   The last time we heard this issue was July 19th. At that time, based on the information presented to us, we stated our preference that Section 108 funding not be used, but rather borrow the money from CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds. I'll be interested to hear why this is not what they are recommending now.
8. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 3rd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

3. Recognition of Louise Jorgensen, Council Executive Assistant, as she retires.
   After almost ten years working in the Council Office, Louise Jorgensen is retiring. One of the many roles that she has served in over the years is Neighborhood Program Coordinator. It was in this role that I first met Louise, as I became involved in my neighborhood. I would have thought twice about getting involved if I knew where I would end up, but Louise has been there every step of the way facilitating the work that gets done by the Council and by the Neighborhoods. She will be missed.
   Public Comment
   
4. The election of Municipal Council officers; chair and vice-chair.
   Provo City Code Section 2.50 outlines the rules for government organization, including rules pertaining to the Municipal Council. Chapter 2.50.020 indicates that at the first Municipal Council meeting, the Council shall elect members to serve as Chair and Vicechair. Council members will make proposals as to these officer positions, and the selection must be approved by a majority vote.
   No debate will take place on the proposals, only votes. The discussion on leadership has to take place before the meeting.
5. A resolution acknowledging the election of the chair and vice-chair of the Provo Municipal Council for calendar year 2017.
6. The election of Redevelopment Agency of Provo officers; chair and vice-chair.
   The purpose of this discussion is to establish officer positions for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo (RDA). Section 2.1 of the RDA bylaws states: Officers…The positions of Chair and First Vice Chair and any other Vice-Chair shall be appointed annually at the beginning of each calendar year by majority vote of the Board…” Council Members will make proposals as to these officer positions and the selection must be approved by a majority vote.
7. A resolution appointing the chair and vice-chair of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for calendar year 2017.
8. A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3240 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.
   This is a request for Council to authorize City administration and staff to utilize Eminent Domain if necessary to secure property for the Lakeview Parkway and Trail, Phase I Project. This Project has received construction funding through Mountainland Association of Governments and this action is necessary to secure right-of-way prior to construction beginning on the project.
   Currently we are in various stages of negotiation for right-ofway with different owners of property within the project boundaries. Construction of the project is time sensitive and this Council action is necessary to keep the Project on schedule. 
   I discussed this item in my report of the last Council Meeting above (agenda item #9). I believe that the proposed alignment is in the best interest of the City. The only question for me is what is the best way to secure that alignment. As I've said many times before, authorizing eminent domain does not necessarily mean that it will be used. Everyone is hopeful that negotiations will be successful.
9. An update from the Solar & Energy Committee.
   During the November 1st, 2016 Council Meeting, the City Council approved the creation of a joint commission that would explore the answer to the following question: “What is the best way to protect the long term health of Provo Power/City while at the same time appropriately supporting our citizens’ desire for alternative energy sources?” The Council tasked the joint commission, known as the Solar & Energy Committee, to report back to the Council by January 3rd, 2017, or by January 17, 2017 at the latest. Since the November 1st, 2016 Council Meeting, the members of the Solar & Energy Committee have met multiple times. They have prepared five recommendations for the Council to now consider.
   I am pleased that this committee was able to reach consensus on these recommendations within the allotted time, and I am generally pleased with the recommendations. I have several questions to ask so I can better understand the recommendations, but I believe I will be able to support them. These are so important, I'm going to reprint them here:
   1. Net Metering Rate – Excess energy produced by solar panels above that used by the customer and placed on the grid will be compensated at a rate set by the Council. The suggested rate after the last cost of service study is $0.06742/kWh. Based on current net metering agreements, credits will be wiped out at a prescribed time each year.
   2. Grandfather Existing Customers – All customers that have signed a net metering agreement by [October 4, 2016] will be grandfathered and compensated at the current published rate. Grandfathering clause is non-transferable subject to the same policy that customer service uses with respect to deposits.
   3. Change Residential Rate - Starting March 31, 2017, increase the customer service charge gradually to the recommended base rate based on the Cost of Service Study over the next 4 years and decrease the energy rate to remain revenue neutral.
   4. Re-evaluate Solar Rates – In three (3) years, the rates for solar customers should be reevaluated based on existing data from AMI meters to determine what kind of rate to select – time-of-use rate, demand rate, etc.
   5. Examine ways to make the utility bills more transparent
10. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
    This was continued from last meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "Two years in the making, the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan is ready for a vote by the City Council. I recommend interested parties read the plan."
11. A discussion on a request for amendments to the Provo City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14.38) to increase signage allowances in the DT1, DT2, ITOD, Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. Downtown, Dixon, Franklin, Franklin South, and East Bay Neighborhoods.
    See agenda item 10 in the December 6th Work Meeting Report above.