What's Up? - 8 March 2017

This time I focused more on describing the outcome of the item rather than the item itself. If you would like more information on the items I suggest referring to my last blog post.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, March 7th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an AMI Opt-Out Policy and fee request
   Motion to move to the Council Meeting agenda on March 21, 2017. Approved 7:0.
   Roughly half of the meters have been placed and so far 21 people have protested having their meter replaced. Provo Power predicts that maybe three would pay a monthly fee to stay on the old technology. $25 would be about the incremental cost to the City to send out an employee to physically read somewhere around 10 meters each month.
2. A discussion on form-based code
   Presentation and discussion only. Staff will coordinate further discussion with Community Development.
   A number of cities in Utah have at least dabbled in form-based codes (FBC). Of the city-employee planners in these cities who responded to an APA survey, a large majority have an overall positive experience and see it as a positive step. There have been difficulties with the learning curve in adopting a new system. Cities generally start out by applying FBC to one or two contained areas and then expanding as they gain experience. The Council is learning more and would like our Planning Division to propose some next steps.
3. A presentation on the Water Division
   Presentation only. There was not sufficient time to cover this entire presentation, so it will be continued.
   We are fairly well situated as far as securing water well into the future. We are using significantly less water than has been projected, putting us in an even better position. But we do need to continue to be proactive and wisely manage our water resources or we may find ourselves in a much less enviable position down the road.
4. A discussion on creating a Public Works Board
   Motion to direct staff to conduct a best practices study of other comparable cities and Public Works Boards, including what these boards contribute to the city and the makeup of membership on the board. Approved 5:2, Council Members Kim Santiago and Kay Van Buren opposed.
   Motion for the Mayor to move forward with the creation of a task force to examine the sewer treatment plant issue with the advice and consent of the Council. Approved 7:0.
   The more immediate need is to have an ad hoc committee to study our waste water treatment plant dilemma. We would like to move forward first with this committee and then see what we can learn from it before setting up a permanent Public Works Board. In the mean time, Council staff will look to other comparable cities to see if they have a Public Works Board, what their experience has been, and what are the best practices.
5. A presentation and discussion of the West Side Planning Committee's recommendations
   Item continued to a future Work Meeting following review at the Planning Commission.
   We were running behind schedule so I gave a 15 second report that we had fulfilled our assignment and would be presenting more on our recommendations after the Planning Commission has had an opportunity to weigh in on them.
6. A discussion on neighborhood boundary changes
   Motion to move the proposed changes for the Lakeview North/Lakeview South Neighborhoods and Sherwood Hills/Edgemont Neighborhoods forward to a Council Meeting, and to continue study and discussion on changes to the Downtown area. Approved 7:0.
   The non-controversial proposals will move ahead. The Downtown proposal will get some more discussion and public input.
7. A discussion on a proposed amendment: Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the parking ratios for the Off-Street Parking Standards for Baching Singles (Section 14.37.060), the ITOD Zone (Section 14.23.120), the General Downtown Zone (Section 14.21A.150) and the Downtown Core Zone (Section 14.21B.140) to consider increasing the minimum parking requirement within these zones. City-Wide Impact.
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled for a Public Hearing at the Council Meetings on March 7, 2017 and March 21, 2017, with the intent for the Council to take formal action at the March 21, 2017 Council Meeting.
   After the discussion, I felt more comfortable that we are talking about a stop-gap measure until we can implement a more comprehensive parking strategy.
8. A discussion on an appropriation for Vote By Mail
   Discussion only. Staff will prepare two resolutions—one addressing an appropriation for a Vote By Mail option, and the other addressing an appropriation for an optical scan option.
   Vote By Mail has many advantages. But also some distinct disadvantages. It's good to know that I'm not the only Councilor who is hesitant about taking this step. But, again, I feel the County's decision will force the issue this year.
9. A discussion regarding the appointment of temporary Justice Court judges
   Council Chair Sewell stated his intent for Leadership to place this item on the next Council Meeting agenda.Two new judges will be appointed, joining the three current judges, as recommended by Judge Romney.
10. Administrative update on the BRT project
    This item was continued; Administration will provide an update to Council Leadership to determine whether this requires time at a future Work Meeting.
11. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

4. A presentation by the Provo Bicycle Committee of the Golden Spike Winter Bicycle Commuter Award.
   Presentation only
   Public Comment
    
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to permit parking areas
   Approved 7:0.
   My previous description is sufficient, "This is mostly a cleanup of the code and helps get us ready for license plate readers used for enforcement."
6. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
   Motion to amend the Southeast Neighborhood Plan on page 34 to include the words “This document should be available on the City website and at the front counter of the Provo City Community Development Office.” Approved as amended 7:0.
   Councilor Knecht met several times with the three neighborhood chairs covered by the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan to discuss citizen feedback that we received in January when we last heard this item. These meetings resulted in a number of improvements to the plan. There was little public comment on this item in this meeting, and it was uniformly positive.
7. A resolution to renew the surplus status of unsold property on the Surplus Property List.
   Approved 7:0.
   There were several people who came to speak on this item because one of the properties returning to the Surplus List is the old jail property. All of them were members/supporters of ProVolt which is a community maker-space. The head of ProVolt has pitched the idea of the City selling the old jail building to their group for $1 to allow them to expand the maker-space. From all accounts, ProVolt is a great part of our community. Unfortunately, the City has determined, based on the opinion of several independent professionals, that the old building is not salvageable, and is a hazard that must be removed. I wish ProVolt the best going forward, but it won't be at the old jail property. This same step would be necessary regardless of who the property is being sold to. It is up to the administration to decide on the buyer, within the parameters of the ordinance. But we do understand that a preliminary agreement has been entered into with a developer who will pay the roughly $1M price tag to remove the building, and has proposed a development that has met less neighbor opposition.
8. An ordinance amending the Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
   Presentation and public hearing only. This item is scheduled for an additional public hearing and formal action at the Council Meeting on March 21, 2017.We heard from a number of community members, including some developers. I am hopeful that we will back off of the parking reductions Downtown, rather than eliminate them completely. We heard a lot about flexibility and differing needs in differing areas. I think it makes sense that Downtown parking needs would be different than parking needs elsewhere. But again, my hope is that this is just a stop-gap measure until a more creative, flexible, parking strategy can be developed.
9. A resolution adding the structure generally located at 690 West 300 South to the Provo Landmarks Register.
   Approved 7:0.
   This house had previously been nominated, but the owner at the time objected. The current owner welcomes the designation. This sounds like a win-win to me.
10. A resolution appointing individuals to the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo.
    Approved 7:0.
    Thank you to all who applied and are willing to serve our community. Here are the five Board members who were appointed or reappointed last night:
    Greg Hudnall
    Wood Miller
    Cindy Richards
    Scott Steffensen
    Dennis Weir

What's Up? - 7 March 2017

Finished by the skin of my nose.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, March 7th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an AMI Opt-Out Policy and fee request
   AMI-enabled power meters allow for electrical use to be read and billed without Provo Power employees visiting each property in Provo. There are a number of other advantages including near-real-time energy usage information that's available to the customer. Read more here.Provo City Power recognizes that some customers may not want to be a part of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system. The objective of this policy is to outline the criteria under which such a customer may opt-out of the AMI system while still covering the costs of providing services for an older technology and for manual meter reading...Customers who qualify to opt out of having an AMI Meter will be charged a $25.00 Monthly fee to cover the cost of a truck roll and personnel for an older technology.
   $25 seems pretty steep for a monthly fee. I'll be inquiring if this truly is the cost to (not) provide this service.
2. A discussion on form-based code
   On January 12th, 2017, form-based code was a topic during the Council’s Development Approval Process Review Retreat. Council members desired to discuss the topic further at a future work meeting. The presenter for this topic will be Jake Young—a Landscape Architect and Land Planner with the Civil Solutions Group. He has experience with ordinance and form-based code development, and he will provide insight to supplement the information Council received at the original retreat.
3. A presentation on the Water Division
   During the February 21st, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council moved that the Public Works department provide presentations on the Water Division over the next several months.
   The upcoming presentation at the March 7th Work Meeting will be the first in the series of presentations regarding the Water Division. 
4. A discussion on creating a Public Works Board
   During a discussion about the Water Division in the February 21st, 2017 Work Meeting, members of the Council suggested creating a Public Works Board. The function of the Public Works Board would be similar to the Energy Board in the sense that it would make recommendations on public works-related items to the Council and Administration. The Energy Board, for example, advises on long range planning, capital improvement projects, rates and fees on Energy-related items. The Public Works Board could serve in a similar capacity, although it’s breadth of topics would likely be wider since Public Works encompasses multiple areas (i.e., Engineering, Water, Airport, Storm Water, Streets, and Sanitation.) 
   This is a very interesting idea. We'll need to evaluate the costs vs. potential benefits.
5. A presentation and discussion of the West Side Planning Committee's recommendations
   In the fall of last year, the Council formed a West Side Planning Committee with the charge to return with policy recommendations for development related issues in the area of Provo that is west of I-15 and south of the River. I was appointed to chair the Committee. We are now returning with our recommendations.
   Members of the Westside Planning Committee have met 15 times since September 2016, researching and discussing issues pertaining to the future of West Provo. Over the course of those meetings, the Committee identified the following seven policy areas:
1. Preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage and support agriculture for as long as farmers choose to farm
2. Preserve and Create Quality Usable Open Space
3. Encourage Sustainable Residential Development Patterns
4. Promote Development of Commercial Amenities and Employment Opportunities in Appropriate Locations
5. Create a Robust Transportation Network
6. Require Proper Integration and Sequencing of Development
7. Restrict Development in Wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas
6. A discussion on neighborhood boundary changes
   Currently, the only representation for the Downtown Neighborhood is through Downtown Inc. In effort to represent the residents living that area, staff recommends dissolving the Downtown Neighborhood into the Franklin, Timp, Maeser, Joaquin, and Dixon Neighborhoods, while preserving an overlay of the Downtown on the neighborhood map.
   In addition, after receiving feedback neighborhood chairs representing the Lakeview North and Lakeview South neighborhoods, and the Sherwood Hills and Edgemont neighborhoods, staff recommends boundary adjustments to these four neighborhoods.
   Here is a map of the proposed realignments.
   The changes in the North are a no brainer. I have mixed feelings about the Downtown proposal. Would the core Downtown residents be better served by staying together and electing one of their own (rather than the current arrangement of having the head of Downtown Inc. represent them). Or is it better to split them up into four adjacent neighborhood? What's better for the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown?
7. A discussion on a proposed amendment: Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the parking ratios for the Off-Street Parking Standards for Baching Singles (Section 14.37.060), the ITOD Zone (Section 14.23.120), the General Downtown Zone (Section 14.21A.150) and the Downtown Core Zone (Section 14.21B.140) to consider increasing the minimum parking requirement within these zones. City-Wide Impact.
   Continued from last Work Meeting. It will be heard in tonight's Council Meeting as well. Should the current relaxation of parking requirements in our more urban areas be removed? This strikes me as a very unimaginative solution. I might be okay with it if it is a short-term holding solution until our Parking Manager can get going. I fear, though, that short-term solutions have a way of sticking around (e.g. the RC zone).
8. A discussion on an appropriation for Vote By Mail
   Over the past several years, there has been growing interest in moving from voting at polling locations on Election Day to a vote-by-mail (VBM) election. In 2015, several cities in Utah County chose the VBM option and every one of them nearly doubled their voter turnout. Although the costs were higher, the cost-per-vote was less than previous years. In 2016, 21 out of 29 counties in Utah administered a VBM election. Turnout was very high, although that could have been due to the presidential election. Bryan Thompson and Scott Hogensen, with Utah County, held a meeting last month for all recorders/clerks in the county. Given the interest and push towards a VBM election, they have opted to administer that type of election for any city that contracts with them. They will be able to administer only one type of election so the electronic voting machines will not be available this year.
   I also have mixed feelings about vote by mail. But it doesn't matter much because it appears the decision of the County will force the issue this year.
9. A discussion regarding the appointment of temporary Justice Court judges
   A recent change to State Statute requires that we appoint temporary Justice Court judges. Judge Romney is recommending five local judges to be appointed.
10. Administrative update on the BRT project
    No files found.
11. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

4. A presentation by the Provo Bicycle Committee of the Golden Spike Winter Bicycle Commuter Award.
   
   Public Comment
    
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to permit parking areas
   This is mostly a clean up of the code and helps get us ready for license plate readers used for enforcement.
6. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
   The Southeast Neighborhoods Plan is back again (I wonder what the record is for the number of times a plan comes before the Council. This one might take the cake). I am interested to learn what the committee has done with it since we heard it last.
7. A resolution to renew the surplus status of unsold property on the Surplus Property List.
   Resolution to place 7.40 acres of real property on the Surplus Property list and then authorize the Mayor to sell the property in accordance with the purchase contract dated December 6, 2016...The Municipal Council renewed this property’s placement on the Surplus Property List in October of 2015; however, we were not able to get the property sold before its placement on the list expired. It needs to be placed back on the list in order to complete the sale of the property...The City has entered into a purchase contract which is subject to the approval of the Municipal Council. This contract is with David Gardner. 
8. An ordinance amending the Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
   See item 7 in the Work Meeting agenda.
9. A resolution adding the structure generally located at 690 West 300 South to the Provo Landmarks Register.
   This house had previously been nominated, but the owner at the time objected. The current owner welcomes the designation. This sounds like a win-win to me.
10. A resolution appointing individuals to the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo.
    There is not much information in our packets on this one. I believe the Board recently voted to move from 5 to 7 members. That creates five vacancies to be filled. We have received seven applications. See past blog posts about the saga of filling this board.

What's Up? - 23 February 2017

For those in a hurry, I recommend item 6 in the Work Meeting and item 7 in the Council Meeting.

The black text below comes straight from the published agenda. My current comments are in bright blue. The muted blue text signifies my comments from past reports. The sections of brown text are quotes from the informational documents supplied with the published agenda.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:30 PM, Tuesday, February 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion pertaining to a proposed ordinance amendment to the Provo City Permit Parking Area Program
   Motion to move this item to the March 7, 2017 Council Meeting. Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   This is mostly a straightforward code cleanup in preparation for the coming of a City Parking Manager, license plate readers for parking enforcement, and expected changes to one of our permit parking areas.
2. A discussion about Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Property Conversion pertaining to the Bounous Park property
   Motion expressing Council’s approval for the Parks Department to continue moving forward with the conversion process. Approved 7:0.
   Bounous Park is adjacent to Timpview High. The school would like to purchase it in order to build a softball field on campus. Many neighbors are concerned about losing access to a nearby park. The School District has worked with neighbors to try to address their concerns and to find a solution that works for both the school and the community. One complicating factor is that the park property was originally purchased with LWCF monies. This presents significant hurdles before it can be sold. The money generated by the sale must be used to create a new park.
3. A discussion on a Budget Committee request for a Water Division review
   Motion that the Council invite the Public Works Water Division to present during work sessions over the next few months (beginning as soon/as quickly as they are ready to do so), working from the higher level questions [Chair David Sewell’s summary of three core questions] and detailed questions [compiled by Council Member Kim Santiago, Budget Committee Chair] as reference points. Approved 7:0.
   This was one of our more intense discussions of the day, and all the way through it sounded like everyone mostly agreed with each other. We will receive a series of presentations on the status and future of the Water Division.
4. A discussion on a proposed amendment from the Rules Committee changing the Implied Motion language in the Council Handbook
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   This is a simple tweak to the way the Council conducts business. We passed a fairly significant set of changes a few meetings ago, and now after trying them out, we see something that can be improved. The wrinkle was promptly ironed out.
5. A discussion on a change to the Provo Landmarks Register: Wendy Holdaway requests the Nomination of the Erik C. & Sine J. Henrichsen House, located at 690 West 300 South, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Franklin Neighborhood.
   No action taken. This item is scheduled to be heard at the March 7, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There were a few questions about the nature and draw of Landmarks Registry. 
6. A discussion on a proposed amendment: Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the parking ratios for the Off-Street Parking Standards for Baching Singles (Section 14.37.060), the ITOD Zone (Section 14.23.120), the General Downtown Zone (Section 14.21A.150) and the Downtown Core Zone (Section 14.21B.140) to consider increasing the minimum parking requirement within these zones. City-Wide Impact.
   Motion to follow the plan outlined by Council Leadership to continue discussion of this item at the March 7, 2017 Work Meeting and hold public hearings on this item at the March 7, 2017 and March 21, 2017 Council Meetings. Approved 7:0.
   If I had to recommend one item from this meeting for the general public to watch, this would be it. At 50 minutes long, though, not many would be willing to see it through. It is a perfect example of the issues that Provo is facing at this point in our history. Who are we? Who do we want to become? How do we get there? This is the parking aspect of those questions. I do recommend watching this clip if you are interested in the future of Provo. We will be discussing this again at our next Work Meeting, as well as at our next two Council Meetings.
7. Administrative update on the BRT project
   This item was postponed to a future work meeting.
   A Councilor expressed concern that UTA had more representatives at the Executive Committee meeting than the other participating entities. The administration was asked how the seating at the table is decided.
8. Closed Meeting
   No closed session was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

5. A resolution appropriating $47,525 in the Mayor's Office for the Hiring of a Parking Manager and appropriating $57,066 in the Finance Division for funding a full-time collections person and an Accounting Clerk applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0.
   Have you noticed a parking theme for Tuesday's meetings? I think the above "short title" is a bit misleading, a net total of $45,925 is being requested. The increase is due to the hiring of a new Parking Manager. The rest is a shuffling of responsibilities, positions, and employees between our Justice Court, Customer Service, and Finance Division. The net difference because of the shuffle is a savings of $1600.
   I believe that this is the first step in changing the parking paradigm in our city and actually addressing our long-standing parking problems. I believe that there are new tools for regulating on-street parking and that a Parking Manager will allow us to implement these new tools. I believe that Item 6 above and Item 9 below are temporary solutions until the paradigm shifts.
6. A resolution appropriating $2,040,000 in the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 and approving the execution of a Master Tax-Exempt Lease Purchase Agreement for the purchase of fire apparatus.
   Approved 7:0.
   During the May 17, 2016 Council Work Session, the Fire Department discussed the need for purchasing two new fire trucks and related equipment. The two trucks that have been selected as best meeting the needs of the Fire Department are the Rosenbauer Fire Engine (pumper truck) and the Pierce 105’ Ladder Truck (Quint). A summary of the equipment costs is outlined below:
   Rosenbauer Engine $675,000
   Engine Equipment 150,000
   Pierce Truck 1,065,000
   Truck Equipment 150,000
   Total $2,040,000 
7.  An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 9.18. Prohibiting Camping on Public Property.
   Approved 7:0.
   This was the most controversial item of the night. I was very encouraged to see people from the community turn out to speak on the proposed ordinance. The people who come to Council meetings to speak on items are often the people who are most directly affected by the pending legislation. For example, when we were considering changes to the fee structure for solar users, we mostly heard from solar users. But for this item, we mostly heard from caring residents speaking up for a group who generally doesn't have a voice in local government.
   I assume that most of the people we heard from are disappointed in the outcome of the vote. We carefully listened to the concerns presented. Many of them reflected the concerns that we first had at the beginning of this process. And these were mostly the same concerns of the authors of the ordinance tried to address while tackling a very specific problem.
   The specific problem is that public property in the City was not intended for people to camp on, and there are not sufficient facilities to allow for camping in a safe, sanitary, healthy way. Public property has been used for camping in an unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy way, but our police had no way to address it.
   Here is a recent example. It was shared a couple weeks ago, along with a fairly graphic photo, so I may have some of the details wrong, but it illustrates the problem. Up until a few weeks ago, a man had been camping for months under the State Street Bridge along the Provo River. The man dumped his trash and human waste over the wall separating the River Trail from the River. It piled up on the rocky bank and would have been carried away as the River rose in the spring. The man was there for months. Services were offered to this person -- food, shelter, mental health support -- but were refused. The situation was unsafe, unsanitary, and unhealthy for the individual as well as for the community. It was dangerous for both this man and for the users of the Provo River Trail. The only thing the police could do was to cite the man for littering, and the citations were ignored. They had no authority to require the man to move or to clean up. The trail is a wonderful amenity for the whole community, something that the community has invested in. The misuse of the trail drives many in the community away from using it as intended.
   This ordinance gives the police a new tool. They can now ask someone camping to "cease and desist" and it is only a violation of this ordinance if the individual does not comply. The ordinance allows the police to clear camps that are abandoned or if the occupants refuse the "cease and desist" order. This would have allowed the police to address the situation above in a timely manner, rather than allowing it to go on for months.
   Homelessness is a complex problem. This ordinance was not intended to address homelessness. This ordinance addresses a very specific problem and it prohibits anyone from camping on public property that isn't intended for camping.
   Our community offers many services to homeless individuals, but people can't be forced to accept these services. I imagine that it isn't easy to go through treatment for some of the underlying causes of homelessness. By allowing camping on public property we are enabling behavior that is detrimental to many individuals and often harmful to the broader community.
   To anyone interested in actually addressing homelessness in our community, I highly recommend getting involved with the Mountainland Continuum of Care coalition.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 3.04.030 (Disposal of Property - Surplus Property List).
   Approved 7:0.
   This proposed ordinance would allow surplused property to remain on the Surplus Property List until sold or until it is removed by the Council. Currently, the property is automatically removed at the end of each fiscal year, causing problems when negotiations extend across multiple years. The ordinance also adjusts property value thresholds when certain provisions kick in, like when Council approval is necessary or when multiple appraisals are necessary. I think it makes sense to adjust these thresholds to keep up with inflation, but I'll be carefully considering if we are being asked to inappropriately give up too much oversight.
   The threshold values hadn't been updated in at least 20 years, in which time inflation has doubled prices. This adjustment moves us back to where we were 20 years ago.
9. An ordinance amending the boundaries of the existing Foothill Park Permit Parking Area.
   Approved 7:0.
   This was the third of the three required meetings. Unlike the other two meetings, no one showed up to speak to the issue. Councilors had no comment either. Everything that needed to be said had already been said.

What's Up? - 18 February 2017

Happy Saturday everyone!

This past week we held a "stakeholders" meeting at Amelia Earhart Elementary School to review the proposed Policy Recommendations and take public input. Public input is still being accepted at our online Open City Hall. The current deadline is Tuesday morning, but I believe it will be extended until the end of next week.

I decided to play with the color codes in my report a little. I was worried that they weren't distinct enough in my last few reports. The black text below comes straight from the published agenda. My current comments are in bright blue. The muted blue text signifies my comments from past reports. The sections of brown text are quotes from the informational documents supplied with the published agenda.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:30 PM, Tuesday, February 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion pertaining to a proposed ordinance amendment to the Provo City Permit Parking Area Program
   This looks like a mostly straightforward code cleanup. I imagine as Staff was preparing for the proposed changes to the Foothill Park Permit Parking Area, they noticed some areas that could be improved. The changes consolidate the code defining the process of qualifying for and obtaining permits. Interestingly, there is a list of apartments that are explicitly excluded from qualifying for permits.
2. A discussion about Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Property Conversion pertaining to the Bounous Park property
   The purpose of this proposal is to make the public and City Council aware of a proposed LWCF property conversion. See attached letter. There is no attached letter in our packet.
3. A discussion on a Budget Committee request for a Water Division review
   A discussion on Budget Committee request for...authorization to move forward with an in-depth review of the Water Division. 
   We are in the middle of a multi-year plan for water rate hikes to pay for postponed maintenance and to put us on a fiscally sustainable path to maintaining our infrastructure. The Budget Committee would like to do an in-depth review of the Water Division.
4. A discussion on a proposed amendment from the Rules Committee changing the Implied Motion language in the Council Handbook
   This is a simple tweak to the way the Council conducts business. We passed a fairly significant set of changes a few meetings ago, and now after trying them out, we see something that can be improved.
5. A discussion on a change to the Provo Landmarks Register: Wendy Holdaway requests the Nomination of the Erik C. & Sine J. Henrichsen House, located at 690 West 300 South, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Franklin Neighborhood.
   On a vote of 4:0, the Landmarks Commission recommended that the Municipal Council approve the above noted application. The house has been previously nominated to the Landmarks Register but the nomination was withdrawn due to owner objection. Wendy Holdaway has recently purchased the house and desires to restore it to its historic condition. She desires the house to be listed on the Provo Landmarks Register to protect its integrity and to qualify for available financial or other assistance. The property meets the requirements for nomination to the Provo City Landmarks Register and the application is accompanied by the proper documentation as established in Provo City Code.
6. A discussion on a proposed amendment: Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the parking ratios for the Off-Street Parking Standards for Baching Singles (Section 14.37.060), the ITOD Zone (Section 14.23.120), the General Downtown Zone (Section 14.21A.150) and the Downtown Core Zone (Section 14.21B.140) to consider increasing the minimum parking requirement within these zones. City-Wide Impact.
   Community Development is recommending removing the 50% reduction in parking requirements in the Downtown zones, shrinking the reduction from 50% to 25% in the ITOD zone, and increasing the parking requirements for baching singles in other areas.
   Key points addressed in the Staff's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • The Joaquin Village student housing complex has demonstrated that a parking ration of .7 spaces per bed is insufficient. • The Start Up Crossing ITOD housing complex has demonstrated at allowing a 50% reduction in required parking does not provide sufficient off-street parking. • The Downtown Zones (DT1 and DT2) also allow for a 50% reduction. • Comparable parking ratios from other communities along with Wasatch Front are higher that what is permitted with the 50% parking reduction allowed in the ITOD and Downtown zones. 
   We did not receive a unanimous positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chair Jamin Rowan argued that "the Downtown and ITOD zones are forward-thinking [and that he] felt that the city should continue in the direction those zones have established even though the city is experiencing growing pains at this time."
7. Administrative update on the BRT project
   No files found.
8. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

4. A presentation by the Covey Center of a segment from 'Last Train to Nibroc.'
   
   Public Comment 
5. A resolution appropriating $47,525 in the Mayor's Office for the Hiring of a Parking Manager and appropriating $57,066 in the Finance Division for funding a full-time collections person and an Accounting Clerk applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Have you noticed a parking theme for Tuesday's meetings? I think the above "short title" is a bit misleading, a net total of $45,925 is being requested. The increase is due to the hiring of a new Parking Manager. The rest is a shuffling of responsibilities, positions, and employees between our Justice Court, Customer Service, and Finance Division. The net difference because of the shuffle is a savings of $1600.
   I believe that this is the first step in changing the parking paradigm in our city and really addressing our long-standing parking problems. I believe that there are new tools for regulating on-street parking and that a Parking Manager will allow us to implement these new tools. I believe that Item 6 above and Item 9 below are temporary solutions until the paradigm shifts.
6. A resolution appropriating $2,040,000 in the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 and approving the execution of a Master Tax-Exempt Lease Purchase Agreement for the purchase of fire apparatus.
   During the May 17, 2016 Council Work Session, the Fire Department discussed the need for purchasing two new fire trucks and related equipment. The two trucks that have been selected as best meeting the needs of the Fire Department are the Rosenbauer Fire Engine (pumper truck) and the Pierce 105’ Ladder Truck (Quint). A summary of the equipment costs is outlined below:
   Rosenbauer Engine $675,000
   Engine Equipment 150,000
   Pierce Truck 1,065,000
   Truck Equipment 150,000
   Total $2,040,000 
7.  An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 9.18. Prohibiting 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.
   Specific examples include persons occupying city property between curb and sidewalk for extended periods of time, generating complaints and [affecting] businesses. These individuals “camping” are leaving trash, panhandling, trespassing on Provo Power Property and spurring complaints from local residents. Other examples are issues in the Dixon, Franklin and Spring Creek neighborhoods that include persons living in RV’s, camp trailers and personal vehicles which are legally parked on city streets.
   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.
   I recommend reading the ordinance to anyone interested in this issue.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 3.04.030 (Disposal of Property - Surplus Property List).
   This proposed ordinance would allow surplused property to remain on the Surplus Property List until sold or until it is removed by the Council. Currently, the property is automatically removed at the end of each fiscal year, causing problems when negotiations extend across multiple years. The ordinance also adjusts property value thresholds when certain provisions kick in, like when Council approval is necessary or when multiple appraisals are necessary. I think it makes sense to adjust these thresholds to keep up with inflation, but I'll be carefully considering if we are being asked to inappropriately give up too much oversight.
9. An ordinance amending the boundaries of the existing Foothill Park Permit Parking Area.
   Here is what I wrote after our discussion on this item two weeks ago, "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." It is expected that we will take final action on this issue on Tuesday.

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