Let's do this!

After careful consideration and family deliberation, I have decided that, win or lose, standing for re-election is the right thing to do.

I have learned so much in the past year and a half. I feel that has been a significant investment and that I am even better prepared now to do the work of the people.

I have tried to be open and transparent. This blog chronicles almost every issue I've faced and vote I've taken, often including my thoughts, and feelings, and reasoning. I will be participating in debates and campaign events in the coming months, but I hope to have earned your vote through the way I've represented you and the interests of Provo since taking office.

I welcome all the support that I can get so that I can keep my primary focus on the work of the Council. Send me an email at DaveOfProvo@gmail.com if you are interested in helping out. I imagine it'll be a couple months before the campaign gets going.

I am hopeful that voters of District 5 will have several good candidates to choose from this cycle. I have heard of one other person who is interested in running. Please encourage good potential candidates to consider running, or throw your own hat in if you feel you could represent our neighbors well.

What's Up? - 6 April 2017

Today I'm hanging out at the Utah League of Cities and Towns Conference. I participated as a panelist in the session this morning talking about active transportation. It was helpful to see how other communities are trying to address this issue. A county health official on the panel made an interesting point that our #1 killers use to be communicable diseases, but now it is chronic diseases. The best way to prevent chronic diseases is through healthy lifestyles. We have done such a good job engineering convenience into our lives that we have effectively engineered activity out of our lives. We have designed our communities and lives so that people have to actively seek exercise rather than allowing it to be an organic part of our lives.

Anyway, the rest of the conferences has been good so far. The quiet evening in the hotel room made for a great time to get ready for this coming Tuesday's meetings. Below is my preview of the Work and Council Meetings.

As always, instructions for accessing all of the documents can be found here. This is especially helpful if the documents are updated (which breaks the links). The black text below comes from the agendas. I wrote the blue text, dark blue tonight, light blue previously. The brown text comes from the support documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:00 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction to the future City Recorder
   Janene Weiss is retiring at the end of the year. ONBASE will be replacing SIRE as our document workflow system as Provo 360 is implemented. ONBASE will be administered by the City Recorder in the future. After an extensive search, Amanda Ercanbrack is being recommended to take over as City Recorder at the start of 2018. The plan is for her to shadow Ms. Weiss for the rest of the year to learn the Recorder's duties while heading up the transition to ONBASE.
2. A request for a resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   I am thrilled for this item. I love the Provo River Trail, but there are a few sections that are difficult or dangerous to navigate. With this acquisition, Provo City will be able to eliminate one of these sections and turn it into one of the best stretches of the trail. The KOA campground has come up for sale. It lies between a park and the river and is adjacent to Geneva Road. The park will be able to be expanded and the trail will be able to follow the river rather than the current alignment which is narrow and has sharp turns as it goes around the campground.
3. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   This is a very wonky item, but it happens to be one that has been most rewarding to work on. It is not often when all sides will benefit. And simply from improvements to the process. The public will get more thorough and longer-lead noticing of land use issues coming before the Council. Developers will routinely experience a (40%) shorter to (80%) much shorter turn around time between Planning Commission recommendations and City Council decisions. The public will get two opportunities to address the Council on controversial proposals. The Council will get a couple weeks to consider public input at the first hearing. The Planning Commission will be basing their recommendations on proposed language that is closer to the form that the Council will consider. I am seeing very little downside to these changes and immense upside.  How is this possible? Check out the details here. I appreciate the work and contributions of everyone on the DAPR Committee, especially the leadership of the Chair, Dave Sewell.
4. A discussion on the Ice Sheet Authority
   On March 23, 2017 the City was served with a Notice of Termination. . .from the Utah County Commission Chair, William C. Lee, which stated that the County would like to exercise its dissolution rights under section 15(c) of the 5th Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between Utah County, Utah and Provo City, Utah
   These news articles summarize all the he-said-she-said.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   This is the second consecutive Work Meeting where we have discussed this item. My rant after the last discussion still serves as a good reflection of my thinking on it: It is clear to me that the Council will be reinstating some sort of minimum dwelling unit size. This is an example of what I personally feel has been one of the Provo Municipal Council's biggest weaknesses over the years. I've been paying attention long enough that I remember with the DT1 and DT2 zones were put into place. I remember the discussion on the role of minimum dwelling unit size in the zoning code. Later, I was in the room when the Council decided to remove the minimum dwelling unit provisions. Remove, mind you, not reduce, not tweak, but remove. It was at the request of the applicant for the very first development to be proposed after the new zones were in place. If I remember correctly, it was a proposal for developing land that had been acquired by Provo's Redevelopment Agency. So you had an associated agency also advocating for the change so that they could maximize the return on the investment (of tax-payers money). I was disappointed at the time. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I didn't feel that the Council explored the request deeply enough. "Why were these provisions put in in the first place?" "Has our thinking/vision changed so much since this zone was created?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" Perhaps these questions were asked outside of the Work Meeting and Council Meeting, but from what I saw, the only question that seemed to matter was, "What do we need to do to make this development happen?" Here we are a few years later ready to reinstate a minimum. So I have to ask, "Why was the minimum previously removed?" "Has our thinking/vision changes so much since then?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I want the reasoning to be sufficiently developed that the next time a developer dangles a pretty proposal in front of the Council that we won't continue oscillating back and forth. I'm all for being nimble and flexible, but I don't think that large shifts in public policy, accommodating the desires of the latest petitioner, is good governance.
   Right now the question is what structure with the minimums have, and how high will they be set.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   This item appears to be identical to item 12 in the last Work Meeting. I thought we decided to wait until we had a recommendation from the DAPR (Development Approval Process Review) Committee. I missed the last DAPR Committee meeting while I was battling Strep Throat, but I didn't think they voted this item. I'll be interested to find out.
7. A discussion on budget appropriations for Public Works
   This request covers the Stadium Ave reconstruction and the City's over-budget spending on road salt for our above-normal winter weather this year. I have noticed that the City is generally over-conservative in putting together the budget projections each year. Our revenues are generally better than projected and our expenditure's are generally lower than projected. This allows the City to appropriate more money during the year as things come up without necessarily running a deficit (i.e. reducing the fund balance). You might have noticed that there are multiple discussions on appropriations going on right now.
8. A presentation from the Water Division
   Round 3. 
   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 Council and the Budget Committee provided Public Works with a list of three high-level questions and a longer list of detailed questions. Dave Decker and the Public Works department have discretion to address the questions how they see fit.
   The first two presentations occurred during the work meetings on March 7th and March 21st. This upcoming presentation will be the third in the series and will focus on the financial picture of the water utility and rate structure/increases planned in the coming fiscal year and in coming years. 
9. A presentation on the Airport Master Plan
   In light of the Westside Planning Committee’s forthcoming recommendations, various Council members have expressed interest in understanding more about present and future plans for the Provo Airport.  
   Steve Gleason, Provo Airport Manager, will advise the Council on what is likely to happen in the near future and what the long term plans for the airport are.  
10. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

Public Comment

2. A report from the Elected Officials Compensation Commission
   The Staff Memo does a great job outlining the process (except that I believe it happens every four years, rather than every year). This Commission reviews the research conducted by the HR department and recommends the compensation level for the Mayor and Council Members starting at the beginning of the following year.
3. An ordinance granting MCIMetro a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   It's been a few months since we've seen one of these, but they are completely routine and use a boilerplate contract.
4. A resolution on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   This was item 6 in the last Work Meeting.
5. A resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   This is item 2 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   This is item 9 in the last Work Meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   This is item 5 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   This is item 6 in the earlier Work Meeting (see above).

What's Up? - 1 April 2017

Happy Spring Break, everyone. Because of the holiday, our first Tuesday meetings in April have been pushed off to the second Tuesday. We will have our regularly scheduled meetings on the third Tuesday. I'm a little slow getting this report out, but I figured that I had a little extra breathing room with the extra week between meetings.

There were no notable surprises in these meetings, just an uneventful continuation of processes in doing the work of the City. But isn't that what we want from our City government, particularly the Council? Boring, predictable, with no surprises?

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding property management and parking issues
   Presentation only.
   Parking has been an issue around Startup Crossing ever since it opened. It is hoped that the opening of the BRT line will have a significant impact on the number of cars the tenants bring with them. But that is still more than a year away. Representatives of the company that manages Startup Crossing came to talk with us about why parking is such an issue and what they are doing about it. The most notable is that an adjacent plot of ground is going to be graveled to allow for off-street parking.
2. A discussion regarding Vote by Mail
Presentation only.The report focuses on the Vote by Mail process and the safeguards that are used to prevent voter fraud. I personally feel that VBM is at least as safe as voting at polling stations.

3. A presentation of the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Project Report
   Presentation only.
   The City's 5-year CIP is 180 pages long. It can be considered very dry and boring. Or it can be exciting to see all of the projects that are planned. If you really want to see what the City is up to, where your tax-dollars are going, I recommend reviewing the CIP.
4. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only.
   This is round 2. Continuing with our conservation efforts, Provo should have sufficient water rights well into the future. One challenge that we face, though, is that water is spread across the whole year. Provo's water demand is highest in the summer when resources can be stretched the thinnest. We don't have the storage capacity to "bank" the water when it's not needed for when it is. One promising technique to address this is "artificial groundwater recharge".
5. A discussion regarding a resolution to appropriate funds for the abatement of asbestos and the demolition of the former Utah County Security Center
   Presentation only.
   The total comes to about $725,000. We appropriated this amount in our evening meeting. See item 5 below.
6. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   The Zoning Compliance Committee will invite Peter Christensen, Utah Central Association of Realtors, to provide input on the recommendations before the April 11, 2017 Work Meeting.
   Many ideas were submitted on how we can improve zoning compliance. The committee sorted and consolidated the submissions into seven goals:
   1. Enhanced enforcement efforts reduce financial incentives for violators and result in greater compliance.
   2. Enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses leads to greater compliance by landlords.
   3. Increased regulation and enforcement of zoning disclosures and verifications leads to decline in over occupancy/illegal rental market.
   4. Adequate staffing and training of code enforcement personnel allows for timely and efficient enforcement efforts.
   5. Increased communication with, and education of, residents leads to reduction in violations and better cooperation in enforcement efforts.
   6. Engagement with stakeholders increases awareness, cooperation, and compliance.
   7. Clarifying current zoning laws and advancing new ones results in a code that is clear and provides the tools enforcement officers need.
   Please see the Zoning Compliance Strategic Plan - Council Zoning Committee Recommendations for the accompanying action steps.
7. A discussion on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   Presentation only.
   This one is very straight forward. See the last "What's Up?" for a description.
8. A discussion regarding a resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Towne Centre Mall.
   Presentation only.
   [T]he Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of Provo Towne Center Mall requires the [Redevelopment] Agency to approve of any change in the ownership of the mall. I don't believe this change will affect anything other than giving the current owner access to more capital.
9. A discussion on a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.080 regarding yard requirements in the One-Family Residential Zone, specifically eliminating the combined front/rear yard requirement. City-Wide Impact.
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   The proposal is to change the setback requirements (how far a home is away from the front and back of the property) in R1 zones and to better specify how those setbacks are measured. The proposed changes make sense to me.
10. A discussion on a proposed amendment to the Provo City Code Sections 14.21A.090, 14.21B.080 and 14.23 to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the Downtown One, Downtown Two, and ITOD Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    Staff was directed to prepare two versions of the ordinance: one utilizing the previously codified standard, the other reflecting the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Discussion of this item will continue at the April 11, 2017 Work and Council Meetings.
    It is clear to me that the Council will be reinstating some sort of minimum dwelling unit size. This is an example of what I personally feel has been one of the Provo Municipal Council's biggest weaknesses over the years. I've been paying attention long enough that I remember with the DT1 and DT2 zones were put into place. I remember the discussion on the role of minimum dwelling unit size in the zoning code. Later, I was in the room when the Council decided to remove the minimum dwelling unit provisions. Remove, mind you, not reduce, not tweak, but remove. It was at the request of the applicant for the very first development to be proposed after the new zones were in place. If I remember correctly, it was a proposal for developing land that had been acquired by Provo's Redevelopment Agency. So you had an associated agency also advocating for the change so that they could maximize the return on the investment (of tax-payers money). I was disappointed at the time. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I didn't feel that the Council explored the request deeply enough. "Why were these provisions put in in the first place?" "Has our thinking/vision changed so much since this zone was created?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" Perhaps these questions were asked outside of the Work Meeting and Council Meeting, but from what I saw, the only question that seemed to matter was, "What do we need to do to make this development happen?" Here we are a few years later ready to reinstate a minimum. So I have to ask, "Why was the minimum previously removed?" "Has our thinking/vision changes so much since then?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I want the reasoning to be sufficiently developed that the next time a developer dangles a pretty proposal in front of the Council that we won't continue oscillating back and forth. I'm all for being nimble and flexible, but I don't think that large shifts in public policy, accommodating the desires of the latest petitioner, is good governance.
    Right now the question is what structure with the minimums have, and how high will they be set.
11. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 14.50(22) of the Provo City Code to allow an apartment complex buffered by 10,000 square foot single family lots located at 31 West 4800 North. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    Motion for the Council to request that, following a meeting of the neighborhood with the developer, the Planning Commission hear this item on April 12, 2017 and that this item be scheduled for Work and Council Meeting on April 18, 2017. Approved 7:0.
    The proposed development has been met with some resident opposition. The proposal has been changed in response to that feedback and concerns on the Planning Commission. One of my biggest concerns was that the proposed changes had not been heard by the neighborhood or the Planning Commission. We were guessing as to whether the changes truly addressed the concerns. I am very pleased that proposal will go back to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. I would like to see this process always followed.
12. A request for an ordinance text amendment to Provo City Code Chapters 14.02, 14.31, 15.01, 15.03, and 15.04 to consolidate development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines found in the various chapters of the Provo City Code. City-Wide Impact.
    This item was moved to the agenda for the Development Approval Process Review Committee Meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
    The proposed changes help prepare for the coming adoption of Provo 360, and new software platform for unifying workflow across the City. But it was also beginning the shift away from preliminary project approval to conceptual approval. This would be a significant shift and we felt that the DAPR committee should make a recommendation on it, rather than just discuss it a few times, like we have.
13. A discussion regarding a request for a zone change from A1.1 to R1.8 for 22.5 acres of property located at approximately 890 South 1600 West, in order to facilitate Final Subdivision Approval for 70 lots of at least 8,000 square feet. Sunset Neighborhood.
    Discussion only.
    This is related to the Scott's Corner proposed development that we heard last fall and helped kick off the Westside Planning Committee. The project has continued to evolve, and the applicant feels that they have addressed the most pressing neighborhood concerns.
14. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

Public Comment


3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court.
   Approved 7:0.
   The Temporary Justice Court Judges appointed were:
   • Judge Sherlynn Fenstermaker (Springville City Justice Court)
   • Judge Scott Cullimore (Utah County Justice Court)
   • Judge Reed Parkin (Orem City Justice Court)
   • Judge Morgan Cummings (Lehi City Justice Court)
   • Judge Steven Ridge (Utah County Justice Court)
4. A resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Town Centre Mall.
   Approved 7:0.
   See Item 8 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
5. A resolution appropriating $725,000 in the General Fund to pay for the cost of asbestos abatement and demolition of the former Utah County Security Center, generally located at 1776 Buckley Lane.
   Approved 7:0.
   The history on this, in a nutshell: Years ago the County decided to build a new jail. The County planned to sell the jail to a private prison company. The nearby residents were not thrilled with the idea and plead with the City to do something. Since the County owned it, there wasn't much the City could do besides buying it. Just about anything sounded better than a private jail to the neighbors, they plead with the City to buy it. The money came from funds the City was planning to use for a park. The plan was for the City to sell the land for development that would repay the park fund. Once the imminent threat of the private jail was gone, the neighbors were less interested in seeing the development go in that would reimburse the City. The neighbors have since fought to limit the intensity of the development. The amount that they City is selling the land for will mostly be used to pay for the asbestos abatement and demolition of the old jail. The amount left over will not fully pay back the park fund. An interesting wrinkle over the last couple of years is that a Provo-based "maker" group has proposed to rehab the old jail and use it for a makerspace. The City did not choose to accept their proposal. I believe the group has filed in court to take possession of the property from the City through eminent domain.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
   The ordinance making provision for use of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was Approved 6:1, Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   The ratio for South Campus went from 0.7/bed to 0.8/bed + 0.2/unit. The ratio for Downtown and ITOD zones went from 0.75/unit (one bedroom) and 1.13/unit (multiple bedroom) to 1.13/unit and 1.69/unit, but the Planning Commission can lower the ratios if the proposed development includes a parking mitigation plan. They can lower it down to 1/unit and 1.5/unit if the Commission feels that the plan warrants it.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 22.5 acres of real property, generally located at 890 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Sunset Neighborhood.
   Approved 7:0.See Item 13 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
8. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule to add a Meter Reading Fee for customers who elect not to have an AMI Meter.
   Approved as amended 7:0.
   After deliberation, a majority of the Council voted to amend the ordinance to reduce the fee from $25/month down to $10/month. We hope that the number of customers opting out of the smart meters will be very few.
9. A resolution appropriating up to $70,980 in the City Recorder’s Office for the funding of Elections for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   The Vote-by-Mail resolution was Approved 6:1, Council Member George Stewart opposed.
   I voted against selecting the vote-by-mail option, but the majority of the Council voted for it. Once that method was selected, I voted for the appropriation. "Vote by Mail" was already available, but it wasn't the default, people had to take an extra step to have a mail-in ballot sent to them. Voting in person will still be available, but it no longer will be the default. Extra effort will be necessary as the number of polling locations will be greatly reduced. The administration's "Provo Pulse" opinion polling showed overwhelming support for VBM. The Council's "Open City Hall" showed a 60/40 split favoring VBM. But of the comments submitted, it was as close to 50/50 as it could get.
10. An ordinance amending the Official Neighborhood Map.
    Approved 7:0.
    Three different Neighborhood boundary adjustments were made. The Downtown Neighborhood proposal was removed from this batch so more thought and discussion can go into it.

Should I Run Again?

For a few months now, I've been asked in various ways whether I am going to run for reelection.

Serving the community on the Council has been very rewarding. I feel that I've been able to make a positive difference. I don't have any serious regrets about things I've done. I am comfortable with the effort I put in to move things forward and the care with which I have cast my votes. My regrets are reserved for the things that were left undone, the ideas and requests that I didn't get to.

I am at peace with my overall effort. I am giving as much of my time, energy, effort, and thought as I can while trying to balance the other aspects of my life. If more should be required of our City Councilors, then the office will likely become the domain of retirees and the independently wealthy.

My family, particularly my wife, has sacrificed the most to enable my service on the Council. I need to have their blessing before I commit to run again. We've set a deadline of April 10th to make the decision. I figure that Conference, Spring Break, and the run up to Easter will provide my family a good opportunity for some soul-searching.

Whether I run again or not, I hope that the voters in District 5 will have multiple good candidates from which to choose. I welcome challengers who care about our community and feel that they can help direct our city into the future and represent our residents.

If I choose to run again, I will also welcome the active support of people who feel that I have done a good job and would like to see me serve another term. I have never tried to campaign while serving in office, but it doesn't sound pleasant. I would need a lot of support. And yes, I'm talking to all those who are pushing me to run, please consider if you are willing to help with a campaign. ;) 

What's Up? - 16 March 2017

Vote by Mail. Capital Improvements. Water. Zoning. Parking. Tuesday will be hopping.

My comments are in blue, past comments are in pale blue, text from our document pack is in brown, and black text comes from the agendas.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding Vote by Mail
   VBM [vote by mail] through Utah County would be the least expensive of the three options. However, cost is not the only consideration. Some Provo citizens “enjoy and prefer the traditional act of walking to (a) polling place and casting a ballot there.” Others “worry about the security of votes cast by mail.” The purpose of this report is to address this last concern.
2. A presentation of the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Project Report
   The Capital Improvement Plan was submitted at the beginning of March to the Municipal Council. John Borget will lead a discussion regarding the Plan, and leave time for Council members to ask any questions that they may have.
   The City's 5-year CIP is 180 pages long. It can be considered very dry and boring. Or it can be exciting to see all of the projects that are planned. If you really want to see what the City is up to, where your tax-dollars are going, I recommend reviewing the CIP.
3. A presentation from 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 Council and the Budget Committee provided Public Works with a list of three high-level questions and a longer list of detailed questions. 
   This is round 2. The first presentation on 7 March was very interesting. It ran long because we asked so many questions. Take a look at the last "What's Up" for my report, item 3.
4. A discussion regarding a resolution to appropriate funds for the abatement of asbestos and the demolition of the former Utah County Security Center
   The former Utah County Security Center has become an attractive nuisance and needs to be demolished. Community Development is looking for funds for the abatement of asbestos and other hazardous materials and demolition.  
5. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   This committee was formed to advise the Council on strategies to improve zoning compliance. The recommendations are not in our document packet, but, based on this agenda item, I assume they have made some.
6. A discussion on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   This is an annual grant offered by Utah County for communities within the county. Funding for the grant comes from the “Restaurant Tax”. Funds distributed to communities based on population data collected in 2013 Census. Based on Provo’s population, grant allocation is: $60,855.48.
   Funding will be used to pay the retained engineering consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. This project is the highest priority of the 5 Year Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan.
7. A discussion regarding a resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Towne Centre Mall.
   Brixton Capital has completed their purchase of Provo Towne Center Mall from General Growth Properties (GGP) and has begun the process of revitalization of the center. Section 107 of the Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of Provo Towne Center Mall requires the Agency to approve of any change in the ownership of the mall. The proposed change gives Abrams Capital an ownership position in exchange for additional capital to help Brixton revitalize the mall. Seeing there was no material change to the previously pledged agreements and seeking to meet timelines for Brixton and Abrams Capital, the Chief Executive Officer approved the change subject to ratification by the Agency Board.  The new partnership will not affect the management of Provo Towne Center nor will it involve the tax increment financing that is currently pledged as collateral for Brixton’s loan.
8. A discussion on a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.080 regarding yard requirements in the One-Family Residential Zone, specifically eliminating the combined front/rear yard requirement. City-Wide Impact.
   The proposal is to change the setback requirements (how far a home is away from the front and back of the property) in R1 zones and to better specify how those setbacks are measured.
   In extensive examination of the entire City, staff has not found the amendment would create any nonconforming situations. However, staff did find a number of existing nonconforming situations which would become conforming through passage of the amendment. Additionally, staff believes the portion of the amendment regarding the front yard measuring points will greatly benefit the Pioneer Neighborhoods where the current ordinance actually requires a greater setback behind the sidewalk than required in most of the remainder of the City. 
9. A discussion on a proposed amendment to the Provo City Code Sections 14.21A.090, 14.21B.080 and 14.23 to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the Downtown One, Downtown Two, and ITOD Zones. City-Wide Impact.
   A few years ago the Council removed the minimum unit size from the DT zones at the request of a developer. As projects have been built and others proposed, we have the smallest units going in along the Wasatch Front. Community Development is proposing that we reinstate zoning minimums in the Downtown zones and add them to the Transit Oriented Development zone. The Planning Commission recommended a slight tweak to the proposed regulation, instead of a 600 sqft minimum, they suggest a 600 sqft minimum average for a project, with 400 sqft being the absolute minimum. I like the Planning Commission's suggestion because it allows more flexibility and encourages a variety of unit sizes.
10. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 14.50(22) of the Provo City Code to allow an apartment complex buffered by 10,000 square foot single family lots located at 31 West 4800 North. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    This proposed development would occur just south of the Riverwoods Shopping Center. It includes three and four story "upscale" apartment buildings directly across the street from the Shopping Center and single family homes south of apartments to "buffer" the existing residences. There are many concerned neighbors, Community Development Staff recommended the project, the Planning Commission was split 3-3.
11. A request for an ordinance text amendment to Provo City Code Chapters 14.02, 14.31, 15.01, 15.03, and 15.04 to consolidate development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines found in the various chapters of the Provo City Code. City-Wide Impact.
    This item is being pitched as a simple code cleanup. Some of the language is being changed from requiring a "preliminary project plan" to a "concept plan." I'll make sure that all substantive changes are being fully explained and considered. There may also be a request to remove the requirement for a submittal checklist from the code because there is already a checklist in the application.
12. A discussion regarding a request for a zone change from A1.1 to R1.8 for 22.5 acres of property located at approximately 890 South 1600 West, in order to facilitate Final Subdivision Approval for 70 lots of at least 8,000 square feet. Sunset Neighborhood.
    This is related to the Scott's Corner proposed development that we heard last fall and helped kick off the Westside Planning Committee. The project has continued to evolve, and the applicant feels that they have addressed the most pressing neighborhood concerns.
13. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

Public Comment
3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court.
   Two new judges will be appointed, joining the three current temporary judges, as recommended by Judge Romney. They can cover for Judge Romney when he is unavailable.
4. A resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Town Centre Mall.
   See Item 7 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
5. A resolution appropriating $725,000 in the General Fund to pay for the cost of asbestos abatement and demolition of the former Utah County Security Center, generally located at 1776 Buckley Lane.
   See Item 4 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
   This will be the second consecutive time we've discussed this item in the Council Meeting, and we discussed it twice so far in Work Meetings. Here is what I've said previously about it: 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)...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.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 22.5 acres of real property, generally located at 890 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Sunset Neighborhood.
   See Item 12 in the Work Meeting agenda above.
8. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule to add a Meter Reading Fee for customers who elect not to have an AMI Meter.
   This was Item 1 at the 7 March Work Meeting. 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.
9. A resolution appropriating up to $70,980 in the City Recorder’s Office for the funding of Elections for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   This amount would cover the cost of contracting with the County to administer our fall election, as we usually do. What is unusual is that previously the County did this with electronic voting machines, this year they are only offering a vote-by-mail process.
10. An ordinance amending the Official Neighborhood Map.
    This was Item 6 at the 7 March Work Meeting. The non-controversial proposals will move ahead. The Downtown proposal will get some more discussion and public input. One additional, non-controversial, boundary alignment has been added in.

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.