What's Up? - 12 May 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Provology Graduation
   Congrats to the latest batch of Provology Graduates!
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
   I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Bingham, but it is obvious that he had a huge positive impact on our city and in the lives of many who served along side him. Provo's water future is far more secure because of his efforts.
3. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo. (16044) Approved 7:0.
   I was pleased to vote to approve Richard Brimhall to serve on this board.
4. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah. (16-047) Approved 7:0.
   The Council went through an exhaustive (and exhausting) processes to identify Cliff Strachan as the best person to serve as our Executive Director. 
5. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project. (15-110) Continued to April 26th, Approved 5:2. Council Member David Harding and Gary Winterton opposed.
   Much has been written about BRT and the agreements that were approved and signed the week after this meeting. I won't rehash it here. I voted against continuing the item because I felt it best to make our decision that night. Many of the public had taken the time to come down and participate in our meeting. Far fewer attended the week after. Some members of the Council were concerned that some last minute changes were made. I understand that concern, but we had carefully reviewed the vast majority of the agreements and I thought it would be better take the necessary time that evening, even to recess if necessary, in order to review the changes.
6. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033) No Action
   More time was requested.
7. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
   CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. We approved 15% of the CDBG funds to be used for social services. More details can be found here, here, and here. Comment below if the links stop working.
9. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048) Continued to May 3rd. Approved 7:0. 
   Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners.
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.2 acres of real property, generally located at 2470 West 1160 North, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (16-0001R) Replace all references to LDR with R2-PD. Approved 7:0. Remove lots 1 &2 from rezone and have staff make text adjustments to the ordinance. Approved 7:0. Approve Ordinance as amended with Development Agreement to include Site Plan, Elevations, all documents described during meeting and CCNRs. Approved 7:0.
    This project was designed with the 55+ demographic in mind, though it won't be age restricted. Some neighbors expressed concern about any development which doesn't provide only single-family-detached housing. This proposal is for single-family-attached housing in the form of twin homes. Many in the Council have expressed an interest in exploring more diverse housing types scattered about our city. Many of our older residents would like to find homes which better meet their needs (less bedrooms or less yard work) now that their life circumstances have changed, but they also don't want to move away from their neighbors. Having some independent-living type houses throughout our city would allow these senior residents to do just that. This would also free up more large, single-family-detached homes for other families to grow into.
    There was some discomfort about the miss-match between the proposal (twin-homes) and the proposed zoning (LDR which allows for town-homes, with a density up to 15 units/acre). Members on the Council inquired whether there was another zone which better fit the proposal. Community Development staff determined that the R2-PD (twin-homes/duplex) zone would accommodate the proposal, and that the two lots with existing structures, were fine remaining R1.10. The developer was fine with any zoning designation as long as it allowed the proposal to proceed. This is what was approved by the Council.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee ( 15-109)  Report Only
   A lot of good work is being done.
   "Utah County, including Provo City, has some of the best agricultural soil and climate in the state, but the land is rapidly being lost to agriculture due to urban sprawl. To combat this, The Nature Conservancy" is donating $90,000 to Provo City "to protect agricultural land."
   Land in Provo is scarce and rising in value, both monetarily and its value to the community. Our agricultural land has the potential to benefit our community, but I worry that it is not currently being used to its potential. With the ways it is being used now (mostly for alfalfa and grazing), it is hard to justify the effort and money to prevent it from being converted to another use. The problem is, once it is converted to another use, there is no practical way that we'll ever get it back.
2. A discussion regarding Body Cameras (16-052)  Report Only. Administration will come back to a future meeting with an action item.
   Body worn cameras for police are a top topic nationally. Here in the state, we are the largest jurisdiction that is not using these cameras. Of the top ten police forces in the state, all are using cameras or are implementing their use. We were presented with the interim findings of the Department's on-going study of available cameras and on the parameters that they are weighing. The benefits include reduced complaints about officer conduct (presumably because everyone is on better behavior when they know they are being recorded, and the officers are protected against false claims). The concerns usually revolve around privacy. The State Legislature provided some direction on the privacy concerns this year.
3. A discussion on Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing Documents for Brixton Capital (16-053)  Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.
   This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives.
4. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties (16-046) Council Member David Sewell moved this revised ordinance to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting.
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process (16-023) Update Only
6. A discussion on Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee (16-051)  Council Member Gary Winterton moved to (1) create Vision 2050, (2) have adequate public vetting and (3) then ask staff to align it with the General Plan. Seconded by Dave Knecht.
   Added: Gary Winterton added to the motion to have it come back to the committee with a timeline for vetting of the Vision in two weeks with a recommendation of the public process.
   Council Member Dave Harding made a substitute motion: change the 3rd step in the original motion to staff should align the General Plan with Vision 2050. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   Community Development is working with various committees to update Vision 2030 (which will now be called Vision 2050). I lost the battle to merge the documents by having Vision 2050 become Chapter 1 of the General Plan. Instead, we will move ahead with just aligning the documents. I had more success fighting for the time and concerted outreach for robust public vetting. There is a desire to move quickly on accepting the update so that we can get right on the update to the General Plan. It would be very helpful to get the General Plan update completed quickly so that the updated plan can be used in creating the next budget, which process starts soon after we adopt the coming budget. I felt strongly that we needed more than just a 30 day comment period, where we invite the public to give us feedback. I argued for an aggressive outreach campaign, taking the proposed Vision to the people, and working hard to get that feedback and the corresponding buy-in from the community. At our next Work Meeting we should see both the draft of Vision 2050 and a proposed plan for the public vetting. Based on the approved motion, Vision 2050 should be created to capture the community's vision of our future. It should align with the current aspects of our General Plan, and reflect the best thinking of the Council, Administration, and the broader public. The proposed Vision will go through a public vetting process, after which, it needs to be approved by the Council. At that point our city will have an articulated vision to guide the update of the General Plan. The up-to-date Vision and General Plan will then guide future land use decisions by the Council and will guide the preparation and adoption of future budgets. It is hard to over emphasize how much weight these two documents will have on the future direction of our City, and how important it is for the public to be involved in the vetting process.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (15-118)  Council Member George Stewart moved to adopt the ordinance with the change to line 98 making it effective July 1, 2016 and to hear this item at the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. (I believe this passed unanimously.)
   This action raises some of the Community Development fees related to developments. These fees were studied and were found to be below the cost to provide the services and below the average of what surrounding communities were charging. We changed the effective date to correspond to the new budget cycle and to allow time for the development community to be aware and adjust their plans if necessary.
   
8. A discussion regarding the General Plan update regarding the Jail Property (16-050)  Council Member David Sewell moved that Council will support the existing process of the Southeast Neighborhood Planning and that the Council input (from this meeting) will be given to the neighborhood regarding the jail property, the adjacent property and State property as they continue their Neighborhood Planning.. If the result of the Neighborhood Plan is different than that of the current General Plan, consideration should be given to change the General Plan. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Passed 7:0.
   I am in the middle of writing an entire essay on this item and the related issues. I hope to publish it here soon. This is part of the larger discussion that many in the community are having regarding housing. Stay tuned.
9. Administrative Updates    
10. Closed Meeting  A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   In my "What's Up?" post previewing this meeting, I took this item description to mean that the band Foreigner was coming to play at the Covey. Instead the cast gave us a preview of their play production of The Foreigner.
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
   Congratulations Susan Krueger-Barber! This was well deserved!
4. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)  Motion to (1) refer budget to the Budget Committee and (2) receive a report from the Budget Committee and (3) to hear the item on the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.According to Utah State code, a tentative budget is to be "reviewed, considered, and tentatively adopted." I felt uncomfortable with approving the budget, even tentatively, without having the opportunity to "review" or "consider" it. We are still on track to authorize a budget without requiring any special sessions.
5. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)  Approved 7:0.
   We love our Provo River Trail. This is a great use of this grant that is earmarked by the County to our city.
6. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048)  Approved 7:0.
   As stated in a previous "What's Up": "Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners."
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.  As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   As the Storm Water District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
9. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)  Approved 7:0.
   "As stated in a previous "What's Up": Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission."
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)  Approved 7:0.The stated reason for this requirement was for utility easements. These won't be used in this development, so I don't see any harm in reducing the requirement if the utilities issue a waiver.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)  Approved 7:0.
    The Council had a great discussion regarding proposals which fall just outside the parameters one of our current zones, which otherwise fit the proposal very well. Our recent practice, if we felt the proposal would further our city's vision, has been to approve a more intense/less restrictive zone which allows the proposal, even if the zone doesn't fit the proposal all that well, and even if the zone itself doesn't fit with the city's vision. We have been relying on proffered development agreements to hold the developer to the proposal, as the zoning would allow far more than what was being proposed. In this case, the proposal is to form a third lot out of two existing lots, each with an existing single-family-detached home, and allow another single-family-detached home to be built on the third lot. All three lots have more than 6,000 sqft, so an R1.6 zone would appear to be a good fit. Unfortunately, the street frontage of the third lot is barely too narrow for the zone, therefore the LDR zone is proposed. LDR allows for residential up to town homes, which doesn't describe this proposal very well. I don't think anyone on the Council had concerns with this particular proposal, and we passed in unanimously, but I hope that we've started a discussion about how to best deal with proposals that are just outside of the most obvious zone.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)  Denied 7:0. I don't believe the city would be served by reducing the front yard setbacks of solid fencing above 3'.
    

BRT Questions, Answers, and Discussion

I'd like to wrap up this round of the BRT saga. Much of my time over the past month has been spent communicating with residents about the project. Though much of the communication has been with people who disagree with my vote, it has generally been a positive experience, cultivating understanding on both sides. There were a few exceptions, like a new friend who called me a coward, thief, and either corrupt or ignorant, but overall it has also been one of the more rewarding experiences of being on the Council.

I want to share some snippets of conversations I've been having by email. There is no real order to the excerpts, I just skimmed through my inbox and grabbed parts that I thought might be interesting. I'm not using names, as I have not asked permission. I've taken the liberty to fix some of my grammar and edit for length. My words are in blue.

• I wonder why we aren't putting in a train. I understand the costs. Let's put in a more safer, stable and more permanent system.
• I am all for a train. There is a night-and-day difference between riding a regular bus and a lightrail train. The point of BRT is to try to take all of the aspects that make lightrail so appealing, and repackage them into a form that is much less expensive. BRT should feel much more like lightrail than a regular bus...UTA has indicated that they will change this system over to lightrail when there is sufficient population and demand. They note that by putting in dedicated lanes now, the corridor is preserved for rails in the future. As much as I would love to have lightrail now, I think BRT is the right intermediate step.
• I guess the real issue for me is the vision of Provo's future. Will it remain a cute, friendly college town with strong LDS values or will it turn into another SLC.  I really don't want to see it turn into another SLC.
• It's a bit cliche, but the most constant thing in Provo's history is change. Provo now is different than it was at the 20 years ago, which was different than the way it was 20 years before that, and so on. It has always been the heart of the County, and less rural than its satellite communities. It has remained the center through steady growth and development. Even its LDS-ness has shifted over time. In the early decades, Provo was a distance away, both physically and culturally, from the center of Zion. Church leaders in Salt Lake often chastised us for lax observance, including the slow efforts to build the tabernacle. In many ways, the cultures of the two cities have swapped.I love the culture and the uniqueness of our city, I think it is part of what makes us great. Growth and progress have brought us to this point. I think we would destroy what we have if we tried to freeze our community in place. I feel that we instead need to carefully plan how we can maintain our great quality of life even while we grow.Growth will come. Success attracts people. And much of our growth will be from our own children. Even if we could freeze our population size, we would have to give up our role as the business, education, cultural, entertainment, commercial, and government center of the County in order to shield ourselves from the impact of the large County growth.If we are going to double the number of people traveling on our roads, we can't just double the width of our roads. Traffic and congestion is coming, unless we can provide commuters with convenient alternatives. Some of our residents may never ride on a BRT bus, but they will benefit from the service by having roads that are less congested.
• Please help keep us free.  I am grateful you are so open, I really am.  Every new regulation, every new program, every new public benefit is one degree less freedom we all are left with.  The government who has the power to give us everything also has the power to take everything we have from us. As [redacted] said, 'freedom is the fuel which government consumes'.  (This quote was attributed to a locally-elected State official.)
• One of the freedoms that I relish in America is the freedom of self-governance. The concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is truer in local government than any other level. There is always tension and a tug-of-war between different levels of government, but we, as a community, enjoy a fairly broad ability to chose what kind of community we want to be and what we want to become. We have the ability to chose if we want to run our own electric utility, we can chose how we want to set up our transportation infrastructure, we can chose, to some degree, how we want to run our school system. At its best, government is the vehicle by which we exercise this freedom.
• I do have one question; who pays to remove BRT stops should BRT fail?  
• The lease agreement that we are considering spells out UTA's responsibility to pay for the removal of any infrastructure they put in if it is no longer used.
• UTA proposed, in one of their presentations, that folks would ride BRT to the Orem mall, go shopping, and return by bus.  Personally, I want them to shop in Provo…but who goes school shopping for a family of six or seven on the bus when they have a family car?
• I don't think that school-shopping families of six are the intended customers for BRT. They are welcome, but are not who this line is being built for, in my opinion. The #1 intended customer is the commuter. Imagine someone who lives in Provo and works some place north of here. BRT may give them quick access to FrontRunner. Or imagine the reverse. Some one lives north of Provo and has a daily commute into our Downtown, or to BYU, or to the Novell campus. BRT may make it much more convenient for them to take FrontRunner, because it solves the problem of how to get to where they are going once they get off the train. Imagine the impact to our congestion and our air quality if a significant number of people leave their cars at home, or at a FrontRunner station far from Provo. Imagine the financial impact to some families who will be enabled to get by with just one car, because of the option to commute using transit. I believe the second intended customer is the university student. Many BYU and UVU students feel the need to bring a car with them to college. Recent and coming changes will convince more of them that a car is an expensive luxury that they can do without. The new BYU shuttle is helping some students leave their cars at their apartments, but they still need their cars when they are going places other than campus. BRT will make two malls and our wonderful Downtown easily accessible without driving. I'm sure that BRT will be used by some other people, and will help with game-day traffic, but it is not intended to be the be-all, end-all solution to everyone's transportation needs. Even people who will never ride it will benefit from BRT because of the reduction in congestion and the improvement in our air quality that it will bring.
• I don't think the city should be involved in using public funds to create or enhance a public transit system. If we are to have public transit, it should be run like a business. The company could contract with the city to get permission to use roads, perhaps, or build bus stops, but the funding should come from the company, not from the city. If public transit is going to be so good and so profitable, why couldn't a private investor put down capital and get a business loan like everyone else?
• I'm curious why you think transit should be privately run, but roads should be publicly run ("focus funds on fixing roads"). We could sell our roads to the highest bidder and have them pay for the repairs and upkeep and then charge drivers whatever the market demands for usage.
• You also bring up an interesting point regarding the government's role in public transportation vs. public roads. I had to think about that one for a bit. I guess my short answer is that if I felt there was a feasible way to privatize road building and maintenance, I would be in favor of that as well. The reason I don't think it is feasible is primarily due to ownership of land. It would be nearly impossible for a private company to coordinate the purchase and use of so many rights of way. The actual construction and maintenance can obviously be contracted out to the lowest private builder, but the ownership and control of roads is one of the few things that I think is better handled by government. It is also important to note that EVERYONE uses the roads. Everyone pays taxes and everyone benefits. 
  Public transportation is markedly different. First, there are no substantive issues with land. Any minor use by a transit service (for signs and bus stops) is on land that has already been set aside by the government. Second, the demand for public transportation is very low. It is not something for which tax dollars seem appropriate, especially when it would not be hard for a private company to offer an efficient transportation service (e.g., taxis, shuttles, etc.).
  I believe that anything that can be done privately should be done privately. The more government can deregulate and get out of the way, the better. In all of these things, we need more people like you who are willing to present the issues and engage in discourse with your constituents. Thank you for your time.
• Before serving on the Council, I spent a couple of years on the City's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, and studied and thought a lot about transportation policy. You say that "EVERYONE uses the roads" to which I agree, but I would frame it as "everyone has transportation and mobility needs". The people, at least partly through their government, set up transportation systems. Back in settlement times, roads were mostly for pedestrians, but other modes of transportation were also welcome, including horses, carts, and wagons. For a time we had a "Provo Street Railroad" (http://utahrails.net/streetcars/provo-street.php). Right now our transportation system is designed mostly around private automobiles. Other cities rely of public transit to varying degrees. Every system has consequences, both good and bad. Because of our unique geography, our automobile usage has a greater impact on air quality than most places. Building up our transit infrastructure will broaden our transportation options and will diversify our system. Even people who will never ride transit will "use" and benefit from the system, just as someone who doesn't own a car, or even is home-bound, still uses and benefits from our current system. I'm not necessarily arguing for the BRT project here, just that there is a public need for transportation, and that it is wise for community leaders to thoughtfully plan for a transportation system that best meets the needs of the people.
• I'm sure you know, but the UTA has already been much in the news in recent years for their baffling, corrupt, and unethical actions. This is my no means intended to be an attack on ALL of UTA; I'm quite certain that many of them are honest, caring people trying hard to solve real problems. However, as the old proverb warns us, "the fish rots from the head down;" I am very concerned about giving more of our tax money to an organization of which the Office of the Legislative Auditor General so recently warned us is estimated to be approaching a shortfall $1.2 billion against their projections from 2007. Rail maintenance continues to be dangerously underfunded, there are still significant, unanswered questions about the UTA's Farebox Policy, and so on.
• Finally, I think the willingness of UTA to enter into this unprecedented project governance model where they cede their control, is yet another indication that the agency has been sufficiently chastened and is reforming in earnest. Agency culture does not change over night, but I am seeing encouraging signs. Of course, much is in the eyes of the beholder. When the fall out from the Switzerland trip hit the news a few months back, some saw it as a sign of continued corruption at UTA. I saw it as a sign that it is no longer business-as-usual at UTA, that board members didn't follow strict, newly-created policies, and they were swiftly shown the door. I do have confidence in H. David Burton, and look forward to the continued improvement at UTA and the eventual restoration of public trust. 
• "Listen to the people whom you are sworn to represent, please." "The majority of your tax-paying constituents are opposed to BRT.  Please listen to the people you were chosen to represent." "It seems like common sense to me to see that this is not something the people in this town want, or even need."
• Excerpts from "Results of the 2014 Provo Registered Voter Poll 5 June 2014"
  Quin Monson
  The Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy Brigham Young University
  
  "Bus Rapid Transit Provo City’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal has proven to be a controversial issue. However, the 2014 survey confirms that voters in Provo overwhelmingly support BRT, with nearly 79% of respondents indicating that they either somewhat (38%) or strongly (41%) favor BRT.
  
  "Favorability Analysis: Statistical analysis demonstrated that the area of the city in which a respondent lived does not play a significant part in the level of support of BRT, with the notable exception of those neighborhoods directly east of Brigham Young University. Among respondents in precincts 11 and 36, often referred to as the “Tree Streets,” support of BRT was significantly lower, though still above 64% overall. The key difference between this neighborhood and the rest of Provo is the significantly higher rate of “Strong” opposition to BRT, indicating that a minority of residents have intense feelings on the issue, while the neighborhood, taken as a whole, remains supportive of BRT. Our survey questions did not address specific routes for BRT, although these results are likely due to the proposed route on 9th East, to which many residents in this area have voiced opposition."

What's Up? - 2 May 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a recommendation from the Municipal Council Budget Committee on 2016-2017 Budget Preparation Guidelines. (16-041)
   A motion was made to move this item back to the Budget Committee for further discussions between Council and Administration. Approved 7:0.
   Priority-based budgeting is a revolutionary approach and is considered a best practice. Imagine if held a three-day spring festival, the Police Department might provide security, the Fire Department would provide medical services, Parks and Rec might spend funds on the activities, the Mayor's office might cover the publicity, Economic Development could get involved in promoting the City. In traditional budgeting and accounting, the costs of this event might be spread across multiple budgets, and buried and combined with other expenses in various line items within those multiple budgets. It would be difficult for the public as well as decision makers to understand the full cost of the festival, and to evaluate if the benefits justify the price and whether the event should be grown or cut back in future years. In priority-based budgeting systems, this festival would be treated as a separate "program" and money would be proposed and approved for the program which would then be allocated to the various departments working on the festival. Expenses would be assigned to the project and we could see which programs are over, on, or under budget.
   
   You can imagine that priority-based budgeting is a significant departure from the way budgeting and accounting has been done, and would take a significant amount of effort to fully implement.
   
   During this Work Meeting we discussed a recommendation from our Budget Committee, as well as a presentation from the Administration regarding changes to how the budget can be presented this year. There are differences between the two, but I am extremely encouraged by what I see as improvements in our budget system in just the first year of looking at PBB. Much of the conversation is focused on how we can implement the new Provo 360 integrated software platform, so it will facilitate PBB workflow in the future.
2. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (15-118)
   This item was continued to the May 3, 2016 Work Meeting.
   The proposal had not been prepared as directed by the Council so we had to continue the item.
3. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   A motion was made that David Harding continue to work with staff and research this issue of public engagement and specifically on-line interaction. He will update the Council on May 17, 2016 Work Meeting. Approved 7:0.
   Council Intern Soren Schmidt has researched this item during his Spring Semester, and presented his findings to the Council. He found that Provo's government does a relatively good job at making information available to the public, but that we could do better at organizing it in a way that it would be easier to find, navigate, and understand. He highlighted a couple cities nationally who do a good job at this and recommended how we could follow their lead.
4. A discussion on funding for the Miss Provo Pageant (16-045)
   A motion was made to proceed with the request outlined by Mayor John Curtis that $11,000 from the Mayor’s budget be moved to the Council budget and that a line item be added to the Council Budget for $10,000 and that the pageant will not be a large administrative burden. The total fund for the Miss Provo Pageant in the Council office will be $21,000 effective July 1, 2017. Approved 4:3. [Council Members Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed]
   Currently Provo City supports the Miss Provo Pageant with about $11,000 each year. In exchange for this, the organization creates a float for us each year and represents us in a dozen or so parades. Miss Provo attends several other events as asked. The organization came before the Council to ask for more funding to help pay for the scholarships that are awarded. The Administration, who up to this point coordinated with the Pageant, felt like they were running it as they saw best, and that if the Council felt like more support was justified, we should take over the relationship. I felt strongly that the current arrangement was reasonable, and that Provo City was getting some services out of the relationship. I think scholarships are great and I think that community supported institutions are an important part of our community. I did not feel comfortable with the City spending tax-payer money to fund these scholarships. I think it sets a bad precedent. How do we choose which scholarships we fund and which we don't?
5. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Sections 14.41, 15.03.300, 15.03.310, 15.04.120, and 15.06.030 in order to clarify code and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
6. A discussion on a request by Ivory Homes for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.49E.050(6)(a)(iii) and 14.49E.040(6)(b)(ii) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet instead of one five foot and one eight foot setback in single-family residential areas. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on a request by Adam Hall for a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) to facilitate a three-lot subdivision for property located at approximately 1080 West 500 North. North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
8. A discussion on a request by Brian Dabb on an ordinance text amendment to Section 14.34.500 to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in Residential Zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
   See my description for the upcoming Council Meeting agenda.
   This item will be heard at the May 3, 2016 Council Meeting.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

 

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 26, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project. (15-110)
Approved 5:2. Council Member George Stewart and Kay Van Buren opposed.
This issue has sucked up almost all of my civic time over the past three weeks. I've been able to respond to most of the email I have received, but there are a few more I need to get to. Though it has kept me from working on other issues, I have really enjoyed corresponding with citizens across our City and a few from the wider County. We still don't all see eye-to-eye, but I have learned a lot and I feel that there has been an improved level of understanding. Here are a couple of news articles if you want to read more.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee (15-109)
   Information on the committee can be found here.
2. A discussion regarding Body Cameras (16-052)
   This was a hot topic at the legislature this year. I imagine we will be talking about how the City and our Police Department will implement the new changes.
3. A discussion on Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing Documents for Brixton Capital (16-053)
   Brixton Capital recently became the new owner of the Provo Towne Centre Mall. In 1997 when the Mall was built, Provo City, through our Redevelopment Agency, entered into a 25-year TIF agreement with the developer. The agreement required Agency approval for any transfer of TIF interest, which has happened a few times. We are being asked to approve an agreement that would allow a transfer of TIF money to the bank that Brixton wants to borrow money from to update the Mall, should Brixton default on the loan.
4. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties (16-046)
   From the last time this was on our agenda: "This is a fairly straight forward clean up of City code related to the duties of our Executive Director. The most important change adds an explicit duty of facilitating an annual review of priorities and strategies from the General Plan."
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process (16-023)
   This item has been put on the agendas since February, but keeps getting continued. Perhaps this will be the meeting where it is discussed. Here is an excerpt from a previous "What's Up": "Councilman Stewart requested this item and has provided a document for the discussion. The document is an Administrative Directive regarding the Development Review Process. I don't know what the direction of the discussion will be, but I am grateful that the document was brought to my attention because it will help me in my continued efforts on the Development Approval Process  (DAP) Review Committee."
6. A discussion on Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee (16-051)
   There is a proposal to fold Vision 2050 (the update to Vision 2030) into the the General Plan. I support this proposal generally, but I definitely want to see the implementation details.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (15-118)
   We were going to discuss this in the last Work Meeting, but the proposal had not been put together in the way the Council had directed the time before. Here is what I wrote about it previously: "I'm feeling better about adjusting our Community Development fees. They haven't been adjusted for some time, we are below the average for surrounding cities, and the adjusted rates still seem reasonable." I believe the proposed ordinance needs to have the dates updated to reflect the delays that have occurred.
8. A discussion regarding the General Plan update regarding the Jail Property (16-050)
   There are no support documents yet but I believe this is about the property that Provo sold to Ivory Homes. I know there are some neighbors who are unhappy about what is being proposed. I am interested to learn more about it.
9. Council Executive Director's Items and Reports
   I think this is a new section. The Council recently hired a new Executive Director. I'm looking forward to working with Mr. Strachan.
10. Administrative Updates
11. Closed Meeting 

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 3, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   Do you want to know what love is? I hear this juke box hero is as cold as ice.
   ***Update: at the Council Meeting I learned that the Covey Center was presenting "The Foreigner" not "Foreigner" the band. I apologize if I raised the hopes of any Foriegner fans out there.***
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
4. Public Comment
5. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)
   Currently, the only support document is the draft resolution. I can't imagine that I will be able to even begin reviewing the budget between now and our vote. I understand the tentative adoption of a budget is required by ... but why even approve something tentatively before having a chance to look at it? I'll be asking this question.
6. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)
   The grant is funded by the County restaurant tax and is allocated based on population. The Provo River Trail was rated as the most popular part in a recent resident survey. This grant will support the effort to renovate the Trail.
7. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048)
   We discussed this item a bit in our April 19th Council Meeting, but the resolution was not completely ready then. Here is what I wrote last time: "Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners."
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
9. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   As the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget.
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission." Nothing in the Work Meeting changed my opinion.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "If a waiver is obtained from the Utilities, the 8' side-yard set-backs can be reduced to 5'." I didn't see any reason why this should not be allowed.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "Three houses are on two lots and the lots can't be modified in the RC zone. Under a different zone, three lots can be created out ot the two, one for each home. LDR is the only zone that allows single-family detached homes on the lot size of the smallest proposed lot. LDR would allow the three homes to be torn down and replaced with a 7-unit town-home, but the applicant proffered to enter into a development agreement restricting this "subdivision" to three units." I'm not thrilled about rezoning this plot to LDR to accommodate three single-family detached homes. I believe that an R1.6 zone won't work because the lot width is too small at 55'. I will be asking what is the minimum lot width for R1.6.
13. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
    We heard this in our April 19th Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote before that meeting: "The applicant proposes that solid fencing, up to six feet high be allowed in certain portions of front yards across Provo." I don't think this is a good idea, so I'll need to be convinced otherwise if I am going to vote for it.

Bus Ridership

Much of the email that I have received on this evening's vote has mentioned the low ridership of the current buses in Provo.

I wasn't able to find the comment to quote it here, but on November 4th, 2015 (the morning after the general election) a Provo resident posted on Facebook that she was glad that Proposition 1 hadn't passed. She went on to explain that she never rides public transit because it is inconvenient; there are no routes by her house, doesn't go where she wants to go, is too infrequent, and takes moves too slow. I had to scratch my head at this comment, because those are the exact things that Proposition 1 was suppose to address. Similarly, these are some of the reasons that current bus ridership is so low, and highlights some of the advantages of BRT. BRT will be frequent, with buses 5 minutes apart during peak transit times. BRT is rapid, with streamlined boarding and traffic signal prioritization. BRT connects major nodes in the Provo/Orem area and extends the utility of FrontRunner.

The reasons why bus ridership is low, are the reasons why BRT will thrive.

Many of us travel to Salt Lake, even infrequently. My guess is that many more of us have ridden on TRAX than have ridden UTA buses in Salt Lake. BRT will be far more similar in function and feel to lightrail than to standard buses.

I grew up in Salt Lake and lived through the debate prior to the construction of their light rail system. The voices of opposition were loud, and predicted failure. Though I was a youth, I worried that the opponents might be right and the impact TRAX would have if they were. The controversy quickly dissipated once the system opened, and cities in Salt Lake County now compete fiercely to have the next TRAX spur service their communities.

I believe that BRT will have a similar trajectory in our County.

Opposed to BRT?

On Saturday an email was sent requesting that people contact members of Provo's City Council to voice their opposition to BRT. Since then I have received around 60 email on the subject. During my three and a half months on the Council, this is by far the most email I have received on any issue. I am grateful that so many people care enough about our community to get involved. I have carefully read and considered each email. Roughly three quarters of the email I have received are from people who reacted to the email by writing to me in opposition to BRT and a quarter of the authors reacted by writing to me in favor of the project.

I do not know who all received the "Opposed to BRT?" email. Some of the respondents identified themselves as Provo residents, others appear to be from Utah County, but not within the City. Not everyone in the City received the email. I did not receive the email. A few people have identified themselves as precinct chairs (I assume of the Republican Party). I do not know how representative of the general population was the distribution list.

Because some of the email I received contained similar misunderstanding, I became concerned about the content of the original email. This morning someone posted a copy of the email on Facebook so I was able to read it for myself. Unfortunately there is a lot of incorrect information in the email. This makes it difficult to know how much weight to give the letters that I have received.I understand that some people have carefully studied this topic, listening to arguments from people on both sides of the issue, and have decided to oppose the project. I understand that position and respect it. But when the authors repeat back the incorrect information from the email, I have to wonder if they would have written to me if they had been given correct information.

I've been asked what I believe is incorrect in the email, so here are my objections:

'In last Wednesday’s Daily Herald, it was reported that “The total cost including matching funds from local and Federal sources is estimated at $190 million.”
What? $190 million? Remember when it was only $150 million?
Who is going to pay the extra $40 million?
Not the County because they have committed only $65 million and not the Federal Government who have committed only $75 million. So that would appear to mean that PROVO and OREM citziens, who were supposed to “only” pay $10 million, will now have to pay that extra $40 million.'

The BRT portion is still projected to cost $150 million (Note that this portion also includes lots of landscaping (including far more trees than we have now), new bike lanes, and other enhancements.) The "extra" $40 million is for the University Parkway widening project that UDOT was independently planning to do. By combining the two projects, money is saved, and construction hassles are reduced.

By the way, the $10 million of the $150 million that isn't federal or county money is being "paid for" by the street right-of-way leases. The only "matching" that the City is doing is in the value of the rights-of-way being leased. Orem's leases also goes into the $10 million, but the lion's share comes from UDOT street leases. University Ave and University Parkway are UDOT roads and UDOT will be leasing the right-of-way (whether we lease our local roads or not, which leads to the next point.)

'We have one last good chance to stop the proposed Bus Rapid Transit project'

Provo's City Council asked the Council Attorney to look into the probable outcome of not authorizing the agreements. The legal opinion is that the BRT project will likely happen anyway, but will perform worse and we would lose out on some of the negotiated enhancements, and would lose our spot at the negotiation table. The email did not discuss the second agreement that is being voted on on Tuesday. This will form a first-of-its-kind governance model for the project where the six partners have an equal voice in decisions. The six partners are Provo, Orem, Utah County, Moutainlands Association of Governments, UTA, and UDOT. Again, each partner has an equal voice.

Many email writers see the vote on Tuesday as a vote on the BRT project. I see it as a vote on how well the project will be implemented and whether we are going to have a voice in the project.

'In this coming Tuesday’s Provo City Council meeting, the City Council will be voting on whether to lease our city property to the UTA for the next 50 years...which will allow UTA to tear up Downtown Provo and our local neighborhoods so they can build their “down the middle of the road” bus lanes and bus stops.'

The language here is fairly imprecise and inflammatory. I don't want to quibble about word selection, but it gave many the wrong impression. We are not leasing our city property to UTA, we are leasing *some* of our city property, specifically space for exclusive lanes on sections of 900 N, 700 N, and 1860 S, and space for 7 stops. It is not a blanket lease for UTA to do whatever with any and all of our city property. Some people took it to mean this. Again, the way the phrase "tear up" is used is inflammatory. Our downtown will not be torn up. Our neighborhoods will not be torn up. University Ave will be torn up, and rebuilt. 700 N will be reconstructed. 900 E will not be. Road construction is never pleasant, but we have lived through it before and we will live through it again, with or without BRT. Many people who wrote me understood the hyperbole, some did not. The lease is for exclusive lanes on the roads listed above and not University Ave. The degree to which our downtown is "torn up" will not be affected by this agreement.

I started this post during my lunch hour but was not able to finish it in time. I have many more thoughts on the topic and the points that were made, both for and against, in the many email that I have received, but I'll save them for another time. I have some other responsibilities to attend to this evening. This post focuses on what I feel is incorrect information in the original "Opposed to BRT?" email.

Just a quick parting thought: As the original email suggested, many of the email writers told me that they would hold me accountable for my vote on Tuesday. I'm not sure if that was intended as a threat or a warning, but it is something that I welcome. Should I decide to run for reelection, I sincerely hope that voters will consider all of my votes. I want to be held accountable for all of my actions on their behalf. If the voters decide that they would rather someone else represent them, then I'll gladly step aside. In the mean time, I will be studying the issues, weighing the arguments, carefully considering public input, and deciding what I think is in the best interest of our beloved Provo. I believe that is what I was elected to do.

What's Up? - 16 Apr 2016

What Was Up?

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO JOINT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 14, City Council Chambers, 56 North State Street, Orem

1. Discussion/Update – Balance of Housing Distribution
   This was suppose to be a follow up on our discussion of this topic from last quarter, but I don't think anyone prepared anything. We rehashed a few things and reconfirmed our belief that it is in everyone's best interest not to concentrate low income housing and spread it out through out the valley, and agreed to work together to accomplish this.
2. Discussion – Provo/Orem TRIP Lease Agreement
   This was a quick discussion, acknowledging that the agreements are being finalized.
3. Discussion – Trampoline Gyms
   Trauma surgeons are alarmed at the rising number of young patients that they are treating for serious injuries stemming from participation at our local trampoline gyms. The County has looked at this and the Health Department drafted some proposed regulations, but the effort fizzled. The State may take up the issue, but it'll be at least a year out. Some members of Provo's Council will be meeting with stake holders next week to discuss the concerns. Orem's Council expressed an interest to participate in the dialogue.
4. Discussion – Orem NIA Program
   NIA stands for Neighborhoods in Action, and is similar to Provo's Neighborhood Program. We exchanged tips on successful programs.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1.  A discussion on a recommendation from the Municipal Council Budget Committee on 2016-2017 Budget Preparation Guidelines.
   The Budget Committee is recommending some initial steps towards budgeting based on priorities. Take a look at the recommendation if this kind of thing interests you. I do think that priority-based budgeting is how we should be doing it, but it takes a lot of effort to get there. I think this is a good proposal to use as a starting point in our discussion with the administration.
   
   My biggest concern is with the use of the nine priorities that the Council identified at the beginning of the year. The Council has taken some flak from some corners that "Zoning Enforcement" was our "Number 1" priority (I use quotation marks because our priority is Zoning Compliance and our priorities don't have a set ranking) instead of something like Public Safety or Maintaining Infrastructure. I have used a car analogy to try to explain how I see this. If I'm thinking about buying a used car, my priorities are to make sure the engine is in good shape, the frame is sound, and the power-train is solid. I'm not too worried if I notice that a tire is under inflated. If I'm headed out on a road trip with my well maintained car and I notice that one tire is under inflated, my priority is to get the tire topped off. This doesn't mean that tire pressure is more important than the condition of the engine, it's just the issue that needs to be addressed. The same goes for the priorities that we selected for this year, these are issues that we feel need some extra attention. We considered Maintain Infrastructure to be a priority, which is a core duty of city government, but we didn't select it because the Council has put a lot of focus on the issue over the past couple of years and we already have a good plan in place.
   
   So what does this have to do with Priority-Based Budgeting? The overall budget should be based on the Engine-type priorities, not our Tire Pressure-type priorities. Year-over-year adjustments should reflect our nine priorities, but the magnitude of the allocations should be based on long-range priorities like Public Safety.
   
   The first and fourth bullets in the proposal talk specifically of the Council's priorities. If we are going to base the budget on priorities, I think the Council needs to define priorities for the budget, not just use the list of issues we think needs our extra attention this year.
2. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   This item has been continued at the last two Work Meetings because of time restraints. My thoughts haven't changed from the last two times I wrote about it.
3. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process.
   A talented and dedicated BYU intern has worked with me to research the best practices nationally and in nearby cities for citizen participation. The semester is over and he will be presenting our findings.
4. A discussion on funding for the Miss Provo Pageant
   According to the group, Provo use to financially support the program more in the past and is asking for more financial support again.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Sections 14.41, 15.03.300, 15.03.310, 15.04.120, and 15.06.030 in order to clarify code and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact.
   Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission.
6. A discussion on a request by Ivory Homes for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.49E.050(6)(a)(iii) and 14.49E.040(6)(b)(ii) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet instead of one five foot and one eight foot setback in single-family residential areas. North Lakeview Neighborhood.
   If a waiver is obtained from the Utilities, the 8' side-yard set-backs can be reduced to 5'.
7. A discussion on a request by Adam Hall for a zone change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) to facilitate a three-lot subdivision for property located at approximately 1080 West 500 North. North Park Neighborhood.
   Three houses are on two lots and the lots can't be modified in the RC zone. Under a different zone, three lots can be created out ot the two, one for each home. LDR is the only zone that allows single-family detached homes on the lot size of the smallest proposed lot. LDR would allow the three homes to be torn down and replaced with a 7-unit town-home, but the applicant proffered to enter into a development agreement restricting this "subdivision" to three units.
8. A discussion on a request by Brian Dabb on an ordinance text amendment to Section 14.34.500 to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in Residential Zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)
   The applicant proposes that solid fencing, up to six feet high be allowed in certain portions of front yards across Provo.
9.  Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 19, Municipal Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Provology Graduation 
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
3. Public Comment Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda
4. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo.
   (Richard Brimhall)
5. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah.
   (Finally)
6. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project.
   I had a new experience this evening. I had 19 letters come into my email inbox in a little under 4 hours voicing people's positions on BRT. I want to thank everyone who cares enough to get involved. Apparently the impetus was an anti-BRT email that encouraged people with concerns to reach out to the Council. Ten people did. The email also motivated nine people who support the BRT project to reach out as well.
7. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   We saw this item and items 8 and 9 in our Work Meeting a month and a half ago. I wrote this last time, "CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. The CDBG Social Services Committee has two recommendations: one that uses 15% of the grant and one that uses 12.5% of the grant." The Council decided to pursue the 15% plan.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017.
9. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. 
10. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency.
    Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.2 acres of real property, generally located at 2470 West 1160 North, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview North Neighborhood.
    The proposal is for a 26-unit, mostly twin home development that would be targeted to the over 55 age-group. There has been some discussion if LDR is the best zone for this proposed project.

What's Up? - 13 Apr 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, April 12, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A tour of the Public Works Water Reclamation Facility.
   The tour was very informative. It is very apparent that we have outstanding civil servants keeping our drains flowing. It is apparent that Public Works has tried to stretch every dollar and to keep things lean. It is also apparent the Provo has underfunded this operation, and has charged rates well below what was necessary to keep up with the long term capital replacement needs of our waste water system. The infrastructure is literally crumbling. More on this later.
2. A discussion regarding the approval of a lease agreement between Provo City and Utah Transit Authority regarding various Provo City streets for the purpose of constructing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System.
   Report only, item to be heard at April 19^th Council Meeting
   We received an update on the project and corridor design, including stations and projected timelines. We also had the opportunity to discuss the two proposed agreements. There are some obviously wrinkles to work out, but we have been promised the final versions soon. Everyone appears committed to working together to make this project as good as it can be.
3. A discussion on the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plans and the plans for the RAP Tax.
   Report only
   I was wrong on my earlier speculation of this item. We neither heard from Grantwell or discussed much the delayed implementation of the RAP tax. It was mostly a review of all of the park upgrades and creations that are in the works. One Department worry is that residents will be so excited that they won't want to wait for the improvements which will happen steadily over the 10 years of the RAP tax. I was perhaps most excited to see an actual concept for the long rumored Beach Park on the shores of Utah Lake.
4. A discussion regarding Eagle Summit Construction, LLC request for a zone change from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for property located at approximately 2470 West 1160 North. Lakeview North Neighborhood.
   Report only, item to be heard at April 19^th Council Meeting
   I think I'll stick with my description from before.
5. Council Rules Policy Amendment: Items Referred from the Planning Commission.
   Approved with changes to handbook amendment - 7:0
   We gave our Chair more flexibility in scheduling Land Use items on our Council Meeting agenda to hopefully avoid a super crowded agenda that takes us late into the night.
6. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties.
   Continued.
   We were running way over time, so this was punted until our next Work Session.
7. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process.
   Continued.
8. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   Conintued.
9. A discussion regarding Public Works infrastructure in Provo City.
   Much of our waste-water facilities are nearing their end-of-life. We have the option to replace the equipment and structures at the current waste water plant in phases over the next several years, or build a new plant.
   The previously proposed rate hikes will not be sufficient for either scenario. One thing that we can do is change how we charge the base rate (the portion of the bill that stays the same regardless of how much waste water you produce. It is intended to cover the fixed costs of the waste water system). Currently we charge one base rate for every meter: $7.31. A single family home with one meter is charged $7.31 per month. A 300 unit apartment complex also gets charged a single base rate of $7.31 per month, if it uses a single (much bigger) water meter. If this proposal is adopted the waste water charges to large multi-family complexes will go up much more than the general population, if they have had few meters than units. The counter argument is that they haven't been paying their "fair share" all along. If this proposal is adopted then the rate increases for the rest of our residents will still need to be larger than previously presented, but not by as much as they would otherwise.
   Over the next 85 years, the rebuild in place and the move the plant scenarios will cost the City roughly the same, but the rebuild scenario pushes the most expensive years out for another 50 years, the new build would cost a lot more up front. There are a variety of reasons why a new build, in a location that makes more sense, would be good in the long run, but I'm not sure I can be convinced that we should pay more in the short run when we seem to be so far behind and need to catch up in so many other areas as well.
10.  Closed Meeting

What's Coming Up?

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO JOINT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 14, City Council Chambers, 56 North State Street, Orem

1. Discussion/Update – Balance of Housing Distribution
2. Discussion – Provo/Orem TRIP Lease Agreement
3. Discussion – Trampoline Gyms
4. Discussion – Orem NIA Program