Citizen's Budget

It's budget time! Council Staff has created a budget overview with helpful explanations of terms and programs. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in how Provo is governed.

What's Up? - May 6th, 2017

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on homelessness in Provo
   Presentation only. Due to the complexity of the topic, the Council has invited the presenters to return and present additional information at the June 20, 2017 Work Meeting.
   This was an important presentation and discussion. Here are some things that I learned:
   • Primary Providers of Homeless Services in Utah County
   • Center for Women & Children in Crisis
   • Community Action Services
   • Food & Care Coalition
   • Golden Spike Outreach
   • LDS Transient Services
   • Mountainland Community Health Center at East Bay
   • Provo City & Utah County Housing Authorities
   • Utah County Substance Abuse (House of Hope)
   • Wasatch Mental Health
   • The various services work together even though they are competing for the same money.
   • It is more costly to society to deal with the consequences of homelessness (ER visits, court costs, etc.) than it is to house the homeless.
   • Provo has about 20% of the population in the County, yet we are host to about 75% of the homeless beds (emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing) in the County.
   • Many people are given vouchers for housing, but can't find a place to use them
   • The County and the City are struggling with housing affordability. Much of the housing costs more than many of the residents can comfortably afford. The average 2 bedroom apartment rents for well more than what is considered affordable for the average renter.
   • We have a plan. See the link in the description of item 4. 
   • We will continue this conversation later in June when we will focus on affordable housing.
2. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only. This presentation is part of a series which the Water Division has shared with the Council. 
   This was part 5 in the series. If I understood correction, there will only be one more installment.
   This presentation was all about water rights. Because of the wisdom of past Provo leaders, our City is in a fairly comfortable position in regards to water rights. Because of conservation, our water is stretching further than expected. Other communities around us require developers to bring additional water rights with them when they develop, these are often purchased on the open market and raise the cost of development. Provo could consider doing something similar, or charge developers to access the water rights that we already have. One way to look at this is that our current practice has been "giving" water away to developers. Another way to look at it is that our good water situation allows us not to charge developers for it, making Provo a more attractive place to develop and that this practice can help offset the higher land prices found in Provo, which can help keep our housing more affordable.
3. A presentation and discussion of the Westside Planning Committee's recommendations
   A substitute motion to adopt the recommendations document as a policy statement and to direct Community Development to make recommendations as to how to incorporate this document into the General Plan was Approved 7:0.
   I had the opportunity to present the Westside Planning Committee's recommended policies to the Council. The Council was very supportive of the recommendations. The biggest question was how to best memorialize the policies so that they aren't forgotten over the next few years. The recommendations are now official Council Policy, will be incorporated into the Southwest Area Master Plan, and we are looking to Community Development for recommendations on how to further incorporate the document into the General Plan.
4. A discussion on a resolution approving the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled at the May 2, 2017 Council Meeting, which commenced a 30-day public comment period on the amendment, after which this item is scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting for formal action. 
   The "substantial" amendment was just a few lines in a 196-page document, basically adding Lehi City's contact info. But this item gave me a chance to refamiliarize myself with this plan which lays out how the community is organized to address poverty and homelessness in the area. Anyone with interest in this issue should read through the Plan.
5. A discussion on a resolution to place 40 Acres, at the Mouth of Provo Canyon, on the Surplus Property List.
   Presentation only. Several Council members expressed interest in a site visit and Tara Riddle, Property Management Coordinator, will work with Council staff to arrange the site visit. 
   In my estimation, the Council received this proposal with varying levels of concern and uneasiness. What are the potential advantages of selling this land? What are the potential disadvantages? From our questions and discussions, it seemed the potential downsides were far greater than the potential upsides.
6. An update on the status of the Buckley Draw property
   Presentation only.
   The contrast between this item and the last one was stark. My read of the Council was that we are all in favor of the direction this effort is headed.
7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Section 14.49.020(3) to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone. City-Wide Impact.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending the General Plan regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow retail commercial, professional office, and residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
9. A discussion on a zone change from A1.5 to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and LDR Low Density Residential with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay for four acres of land located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting. 
   Items 7, 8, and 9 are related. Item 7 just updates a section of code that wasn't updated when the LDR, MDR, and HDR zones were created. Item 8 would update this stretch along University Ave from agricultural to residential. Item 9 would actually rezone the land to accommodate the proposed development and would overlay a specific development plan to tailor the uses on the zones for the proposed development.
   I personally like the style of the townhouses. I think they will look good in this part of the City, but I think they would fit even better in other parts of town. I am interested to hear what the neighbors think of the proposal.
   
10. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the May 2, 2017 Council Meeting.
    We were running behind so we moved through this quickly. Community Development offered a quick explanation of their adjusted proposal and how it addressed what we asked of them when we continued this item two weeks ago. The Council didn't discuss it at all, which I believe lead to the unfocused and drawn out discussion on this item in the evening meeting (see item 5 below).
11. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
    Discussion only. This item will be continued at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting. This issue is time-sensitive as it impacts the budget cycle for fiscal year 2018.
    Sanitation fees need to go up to cover the increased costs of disposing of our solid waste, household recycling, and yard waste. The question is how should we structure our fees. With our currently our rate structure, adding a green can costs $18.75 per year, adding a blue can costs $45 per year (assuming that you only have one black can). The silly thing is that the yard waste operation costs the City more than the household recycling operation. Another silly quirk is that "bundling" cans cost residents even more money. If you have a black and a blue can, adding a green can costs $42.75 per year. If you have a black and a green can, adding a blue can costs $69 per year. Sanitation proposed a few different options and asked the Council to give them feedback and suggest other options. One interesting option was to charge all residents one base fee for a can of each color. Because of the economies of scale, the fee would be about the same as for one black can and one colored can. Residents could opt out of having the colored cans, but their sanitation fee would not decrease.
12. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 2nd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation for Provology graduation
   Presentation only.
   Congrats
2. A presentation by the Covey Center of "Anne of Green Gables"
   Presentation only.
   I saw this production in a previous season and really enjoyed it.
3. A presentation by Their Story is Our Story regarding the Refugee Crisis
   Presentation only.My description won't do it justice. Check out their website.
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan Development to include the City of Lehi as a member of the Utah Valley HOME for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019 consortium.
   Public hearing only, which commenced a 30-day public comment period on the amendment, after which this item is scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting for formal action.
   See item 1 in the earlier meeting.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A motion to continue the item, form a committee of three (3) Council members to make one proposal, and bring this proposal to a future work meeting was approved 4:3, with Council Members David Harding, Kay Van Buren, and Gary Winterton opposing.
   I feel that we should have discussed this more in our Work Meeting, but we were low on time. Instead, we had a long, drawn out discussion in the Council Meeting that didn't feel very focused or effective. The proposal would do two things. First, it would fix the way that front setbacks are calculated to account for various property line and sidewalk configurations. I don't believe this is controversial and should be applied City-wide. Second, it would eliminate the 50' combined front and rear set back rule. Currently, front and rear setbacks must be at least 20', but the combination of the two must be at least 50'. As was pointed out in the meeting by one resident, the 50' rule is a proxy for a lot coverage requirement. Provo has a requirement that no more than 40% of a lot can be covered by the house and auxiliary buildings. The 50' rule is redundant and not helpful. Houses can be within 20' of the rear property line, or they can be with 20' of the front property line, so the 50' rule doesn't offer any additional protection to neighbors across the back fence, and doesn't guarantee anymore additional front yard space either.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   This happened last year as well. State law requires the Administration to present the proposed budget in the first meeting of May. The State statute directs the Council to review, consider, and tentatively adopt a tentative budget at least 10 days before the final adoption. Since we received the budget shortly before our first meeting began, I felt that I did not have the opportunity to comply with the State statute. The Administration met their requirement. But I feel that I would not have met my requirement if we had tentatively adopted the budget. We will be able to tentatively adopt the budget in two weeks and will meet the letter and spirit of the statute.
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   Same story as item 6.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   A motion to continue the item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 5:2, with Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposing.
   Same story as item 6.

What's Up? - 1 May 2017

Happy May Day everyone!

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:30 AM, Tuesday, May 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on homelessness in Provo
The presenters will include the following individuals:
• Robert Vernon, Executive Director of the Provo Housing Authority
• Brent Crane, Executive Director of the Food and Care Coalition
• Karen McCandless, Executive Director of Community Action and Food Bank (Tentatively presenting)
The February passage of the camping ordinance triggered an important discussion about homelessness in our community. Based on past discussion with community service providers, mostly related to the panhandling ordinance, my understanding was that Provo and Utah County has a small but robust network of services to care for the homeless and near-homeless in our community. My understanding was that anyone wanting help and willing to follow the rules of the organizations would receive it. My understanding was that anyone sleeping outside was choosing to do so.
In the wake of the new camping ordinance, I read a solidly reported article which interviewed leaders from several of these poor and homeless service organizations. I looked all over to find the article so that I could link to it, but I didn't find it. These interviews caused me to revise my understanding of our homeless situation. I still believe that we have a robust network of services to care for the homeless and near-homeless, but I now believe that the network is not fully funded and is stretched beyond its capacity to deliver the services to everyone looking for help.
I believe that the community has a moral obligation to help our poor and needy. I believe that the local government has a role to play in coordinating and assisting in this effort. But I also believe that nobody's long-term best interests are served, not the needy and not the community, if the public abdicates its responsibility and expects the local government to take care of it all.
Homelessness is a complex problem. You do not need to become an expert or try to fix it all on your own. Our community already has a good overall plan and many programs in place to address the short-term needs and build the long-term self-reliance. But the community needs to give more of its time and money to support these programs. The local government can to its part, but we should not look to it to solve the problem for us. That would be a fool's errand.
[Take a look at item 4, for more on the community plan.]
2. A presentation from the Water Division
   This upcoming presentation will be the fifth in the series of Water Division presentations and will focus on water rights. One of the presenters will be John Maybe, a water rights attorney with whom the Public Works Department contracts. He will be discussing water rights in general, as well as water rights relevant to Provo.
   After Mr. Maybe’s presentation, Gary Calder, Water Resources Division Director, will talk more about Provo’s water rights.
   If you want to get a feel for what goes into one of these presentations check out these minutes from a past presentation.
3. A presentation and discussion of the Westside Planning Committee's recommendations
   At the end of February, the Westside Planning Committee unanimously recommended seven policies (and 34 subpolicies) to the Municipal Council.
   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
   I will be presenting the work of the Committee to the Council.
4. A discussion on a resolution approving the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan
   Under the HOME Program, local governments are able to join together to form a consortium to receive HOME funding for Affordable Housing. In July of 2016 the cities of Provo, Orem, Lehi and Utah County entered into an Interlocal Agreement to form the Utah Valley HOME Consortium (HOME) to receive funding under the HOME Investment and Partnerships Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and authorized by Title KK of the Cranston-González National Affordable Act (Act).
   A Substantial Amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan is necessary to reflect that the City of Lehi joined the Utah Valley HOME Consortium for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018 & 2019.
   I need to ask for clarification, but it looks like only a few lines were changed, basically to add some contact information for the administrator in Lehi.
   I believe that it was a coincident that this item is on the same agenda as our homeless discussion, but the Five-Year Consolidated Plan lays out the coordinated plan of the community to assist the homeless and near-homeless. It's a 196-page document, but here is one paragraph:
   The vision of the Mountainland Region Continuum of Care (CoC) is to provide decent, safe and affordable housing and effective support services to homeless, chronic homeless families and individuals including—initial stabilization, transitional housing, permanent housing, access to mainstream resources and independence from governmental assistance. United Way of Utah County (United Way) leads the CoC, of which Provo City is a member, represented by the RDA. The CoC is an organized body of local jurisdictions, government agencies, local nonprofit organizations, faith-based service and housing organizations, and other agencies and partners seeking to maximize resources and avoid duplication of services while providing consistent and unified planning in Utah County.
5. A discussion on a resolution to place 40 Acres, at the Mouth of Provo Canyon, on the Surplus Property List.
   This property is located at the mouth of Provo Canyon. It has steep terrain and has been used for recreational/trail purposes in the past. A departmental review was held by all city departments and there was no compelling reason for the City to continue to own the property.
   We have received an offer on the property for $1,500,000.00 subject to various terms and conditions including the ability of the purchaser to get an approved subdivision plat.
   This is the first I've heard of this proposal. I'm interested in learning a whole lot more about it.
6. An update on the status of the Buckley Draw property
   The property known as the “Buckley Draw” was included in the jail property purchase from Utah County in 1995.
   The property contains 17.21 acres, however, not all of it is developable due to slope and retention basin.
   We are working with a developer on a preliminary plan and will then be requesting a zone change from Public Facility (PF) and Agricultural Zone (A11) to single family. 
7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Section 14.49.020(3) to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone. City-Wide Impact.
   I am unclear of the purpose of the Special Development Plan Overlay Zone (SDP) and how it differs from, say, the PRO zones. It appears that when it was created it was allowed to overlay residential, commercial, and industrial zones. the LDR, MDR, and HDR residential zones have since been created. I believe this request allows the SDP overlay to apply to these new residential zones as well. I look forward to learning more about the SDP zone.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending the General Plan regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow retail commercial, professional office, and residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See description in item 9.
9. A discussion on a zone change from A1.5 to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and LDR Low Density Residential with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay for four acres of land located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   It looks like items 7 and 8, along with this item, are being driven by a single proposal. It covers about 4 acres of land on the northeast corner of 3700 N and University. This proposal changes the plan for this area from only business offices to "small scale retail" on the corner, leaves business offices along University Ave. and now envisions townhouses behind.
   
10. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    This item was continued at our last Work Meeting because the method for determining the "average" setback was not defined. The proposal for tomorrow gets rid of the problematic "average" and would allow for up to 100 sq ft of the house to extend beyond the 20' limit, up to a 15' setback, as long as the extension is a single story.
11. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
    Present options and receive direction for implementing proposed Sanitation rate increase as part of 5 year Public Works utility rate plan. Give an update on composting, now having completed about a year of the current program.
    Even before I joined the Council I was advocating for a change in fee structure for garbage, recycling, and yard waste. Our current structure doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, if I have a black can and decide to add a blue can, it will cost me $45/year. If I have a black and a green can, and decide to add a blue can, it will cost me $69/year. Can you imagine a business making that offer? "The more services you bundle the more you save the more you pay for each one!"
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 2nd, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation for Provology graduation
2. A presentation by the Covey Center of "Anne of Green Gables"
3. A presentation by Their Story is Our Story regarding the Refugee Crisis
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on the substantial amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan Development to include the City of Lehi as a member of the Utah Valley HOME for Federal Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019 consortium.
   See item 4 in the afternoon meeting above.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   See item 10 in the afternoon meeting above.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   Adopting a tentative budget is not the same as adopting the official budget; rather, it is acknowledging that the budget officer provided the governing body with a budget to consider—the tentative budget.
   Moving forward, the Municipal Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Storm Water Special Service District will hold additional public hearings regarding the proposed budgets on June 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017.
   Under Utah Code 10-6- 111, municipal budget officers are required to present a tentative budget to the entity’s governing body at a public hearing. In addition, the Code states that the governing body “shall review, consider, and tentatively adopt each tentative budget.
   If you check the public documents site, you'll see that the proposed budgets aren't there yet. We haven't received them. I believe last year we continued the items a couple of weeks to give us time to review them before tentatively adopting them.
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
   See item 6.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 3018.
   See item 6.

Minutes from a recent Water Division Presentation

The past several "What's Up" newsletters have contained a line or two about the Water Division presentations. I wanted to give you all a taste of presentations by reprinting the minutes from just one of the presentations so far. Few members of the public ever crack open the minutes of Council meetings unless they are looking for ammunition to fight against something.

Skim through, or read to whatever level of interest you have. I hope you will be struck by the professionalism of Provo's water team, the level of detail of this presentation, and the amount of work that goes into providing customers with safe and reliable water on-demand. Remember this is just one of the services that Provo provides our residents and businesses. I also hope you a struck by the effort and professionalism our Council Office puts into creating these minutes. Enjoy.

Dave Decker, Public Works Director, presented this item. Mr. Decker introduced several members of the Public Works staff in attendance who are involved with the Water Division and its operations: • Gary Calder, Water and Waste Water Division Director • Jimmy McKnight, Public Works Finance Analyst • Rebecca Andrus, Engineer IV • Shane Jones, Engineer IV • Ryan York, Manager of Water Sources • Matt Hutchings, Manager of Distribution Systems In addition to these key staff members, there are over 30 key employees in the Water division. Mr. Decker introduced the direction of this series of presentations, beginning with the first topic for that day’s discussion, an overview of the Executive Summary of the Water Master Plan which was completed in 2013. Mr. Decker distributed a handout titled “2016 Fact Sheet for Provo City Water System” (see attachment) and gave some additional background information and context to help Council Members understand what these numbers mean. He cited peak day, average day, and minimum day water consumption figures; peak consumption is generally in July, and minimum consumption usually falls in the winter months. The average day consumption for 2016 was 24.7 million gallons; peak day consumption for 2016 was 50 million gallons; minimum day consumption for 2016 was 13.2 million gallons. The total annual consumption in 2016 was 9.01 billion gallons. In the industry, billion gallons is commonly referred to in acre feet. Mr. Decker explained this term and the measurement conversion; as the name suggests, an acre foot refers to an acre of ground with one foot of water sitting on it. The definitions and conversions section of the handout refers to several common abbreviations and measurements: • 1 acre foot = 325,000 gallons • 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons • 1 cfs (cubic feet per second) = 450 gpm (gallons per minute) • 1 MGD (million[s] of gallons per day) = 700 gpm (gallons per minute) Mr. Decker continued, explaining that the annual water consumption for 2016 of 9.01 billion gallons translates to approximately 27,500 acre feet of water. Gary Calder, Water Division Director, suggested an example for better visualization: picture an acre of land, then picture something 27,500 feet tall—nearly the elevation of Mount Everest—and this gives a good idea of how much water Provo uses annually. The 2016 peak day consumption was 50 million gallons of water. On average, 35,000 gallons per minute must be produced to meet this demand. This equals about 120 five-gallon buckets of water per second that Provo has to produce. Mr. Decker and his staff had set up 10 five-gallon buckets as a visual reference; multiply this quantity by 12 to equal the needed supply for water per second. Mr. Decker stated that on an average consumption day, the figure is about 60 to 65 five-gallon buckets per second. Mr. Decker referenced some facts regarding Provo’s water sources. Provo Canyon springs product between 7,000 – 12,000 gallons per minute (variation depending on dry versus wet year). With all 15 current wells operating, Provo’s well production capacity is 32,000 gallons per minute. Provo’s current water storage capacity is 32 million gallons; this will increase by 10 million gallons in 2017 with the completion of two tanks currently under construction: a Columbia Lane reservoir which will hold 6 million gallons, and a new reservoir on Slate Canyon Drive which holds 4 million gallons. Provo City has approximately 2 million linear feet of water lines, which equates 390 miles. There are ten large-capacity booster pump stations, which can move about 27,500 gallons per minute. Most of the water sources are in lower elevation zones of the City, so much of this water movement is to move water to systems at higher elevations such as areas on the east bench of the City. The City also has 33 PRVs, or Pressure-reducing valve. These valves are of various diameters and divide various water zones of the City. The valves are clamped shut and when water is needed, controls on either side of the valve can be adjusted a small amount to allow water through at a desired pressure. Ryan York is the Water Division staff member responsible for maintenance of Provo’s PRVs, eight of which are privately owned. Council Member Kim Santiago asked a few questions to clarify some of the information about the City’s water storage capacity. Mr. Decker clarified that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is not a replacement of the existing Slate Canyon water facility; the intent is to keep both Slate Canyon tanks online. The old Slate Canyon tank holds 5 million gallons of water. The old water storage facility at Slate Canyon (built in 1970) is at an elevation 17 feet below the Main and the Gallery, the two water storage reservoirs near the MTC. In order for these tanks to work in tandem, they should be located at the same elevation (Mr. Decker clarified that the two new reservoirs—on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon Drive—have been constructed at the same elevation, to work in tandem). During the summer, they are unable to fill the old Slate Canyon reservoir entirely—they can only fill it to half its entire capacity. During non-peak times, they can fill that reservoir completely. The Water Division intends to use this reservoir as much as they can for additional storage and to move water to the newly constructed Slate Canyon reservoir upon its completion. They will continue to use the old Slate Canyon reservoir until they see either structural or water quality issues that would make them want to take it offline. The old tank had been constructed above an old landfill, so there have been some issues with compaction which have been addressed, but will not prolong the life of the tank indefinitely, but has lengthened its usability for the time being. The new Slate Canyon tank was designed to be able to have a second tank added alongside it; Public Works intends for this additional tank to be built when use of the old Slate Canyon tank is discontinued. The old Slate Canyon tank is not seismically sound, which is another reason that Public Works intends to eventually discontinue its use. The Gallery is the water storage reservoir located at the MTC with a volleyball court atop of it, built in 1935. While the Gallery was not designed for seismic conditions, since it is buried it has some inherent structural protection. Council Member Kay Van Buren noted that the design of the interior includes beautiful Grecian columns. Gary Calder indicated that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is completed and the Water Division staff offered to give Council a tour of the tank. The reservoir will be put into operation once the Columbia Lane reservoir is up and running too. Mr. Decker outlined the list of seven discussion topics which he sent to the Mayor, and which he would be happy to share with the Council and Leadership for more direction. • Overview of the 2010 Water System Master Plan • Financial review of the Water Utility Fund • Review of financial recommendations for the future • Water Rights • Water Audit and Water Conservation • Water System Operations • Water System Testing and Regulations Water zones within a city are generally broken down by contour elevations. In the western United States, elevation is used to build pressure. The “Existing Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map shows designated water zones in colors coordinating to their corresponding tanks. These tanks are generally located 250 feet uphill from the lowest point in the water zone. Based on current usage, Public Works identified some issues which would necessitate dividing some of the pressure zones, including high pressure amounts and pipe corrosion. The “Future Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map illustrates the Master Plan recommendation to split this zone into two parts, with corresponding tanks on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon marked in yellow. Mr. Decker clarified further that some of the existing water zones in the Foothills area, depicted as the purple zone “Intermediate Zone,” are very simplified. The Master Plan breaks this purple zone into 26 different water zones. He will explain these 26 zones further at a later point, but he wanted to simplify the illustration at this point in the discussion. Mr. Decker distributed copies of the Executive Summary of the Water System Master Plan (see attachment). He gave some background on the Master Plan history, reviewing former Water Master Plans created for the City of Provo: • 1961 Master Plan – Interesting from historical standpoint and very informational. • 1979 Master Plan – Completed by a group in NYC; $11 million improvements recommended • 1989 Master Plan – Public Works had some concerns about this master plan. $1.6 million improvements recommended. Mr. Decker clarified that some significant progress had been made in the interim between the 1979 and 1989 master plans, relative to the suggested $11 million improvements in 1979. Mr. Decker explained that some significant line replacement [of older water lines] had taken place; his reading of a 2002 water rights study, which included minor updates to the master plan, indicated that from about 1980 to 2000, the City replaced 70 miles of water lines in the water system. These earlier master plans recommended addition of two new water tanks in the 1980s, neither of which was built. • 2002 Water Rights Study – This is a very detailed study. There will be a future 60-minute presentation on this. In the back there is one chapter with some recommendations (hydraulic modeling helped to generate these recommendations). • 2010 Water System Master Plan & Executive – This master plan was completed by the same consultant as the 2002 Water Rights Study. In this study they used the trend at that time • 2010 Impact Fee and Rate Study – done in conjunction with the 2010 Water System Master Plan. These historic master plans help to give context and background to some of the concerns of the Public Works Department and Water Division, particularly in looking at the difference from the 1979 Master Plan to the current master plan (2010). Mr. Decker noted some serious gaps: from $11 million recommended improvements in 1979, to $1.6 million recommended improvements in 1989, to the current $60 million recommended improvements of the current master plan. He hoped this overview helped to illustrate the cause for some of their concern. Mr. Decker began a review of the 2010 Water System Master Plan Executive Summary. There were some significant increases to the Water Demand Projections, due to a significant annexation on the west side as well as changes to development patterns as outlined in the 2010 General Plan. Table ES-1 illustrates Projected Water Production Requirements and uses the industry standard measure of acre-feet. Mr. Decker repeated that the current annual demand for Provo is 27,500 acre feet. Mr. Decker emphasized that Provo’s water production is coming in pretty significantly under these demands, even on a peak day, however in the past, Provo has exceeded a consumption level of 50 million gallons in a day. With all water sources functioning at optimum levels, Provo can meet the demand of its water consumption, but there is not much leniency should an issue arise; wells are mechanical systems and may experience failure. During the summer it is common to have anywhere between one and four wells offline; this is not ideal, but simply an illustration of the fact that the systems are not foolproof. Public Works is doing maintenance work on one of the wells right now; it is easier to work on a well in the winter, and Public Works has tried to plan scheduled work in order to accommodate the seasonal needs of the system. Council Member David Harding asked for some clarification on the projected production requirements versus projected usage and actual usage. Mr. Decker explained that during the summer, Provo takes about 5 cfs, or cubic feet per second, from surface water. Provo has surface water rights in Deer Creek Reservoir and Jordanelle Reservoir. Provo has to pay for water treatment in Orem, then the City uses this surface water to supplement the springs. With this surface water, combined with spring production and well water, Provo is able to produce 50,000 gallons per minute to meet demand. Mr. Decker indicated that this is the ideal scenario, but generally not the reality of the water supply and sources; Provo is well below the projected need, but the water sources are maxed out. The usage trend had been showing a steady increase from 1990 to 2000. Consequently, the 2010 Master Plan and study was based on the upwards trend, even though the trend took a dip and had been showing decreases from 2000 to 2010. Mr. Decker noted that some of the decrease may be due to the effects of conservation efforts, but there are likely other factors which would explain the downturn in usage. In particular, one of the largest contributing factors is that BYU moved many green fields to secondary water systems; BYU has water rights with canal systems on the east bench, so they have been proactive in moving many of their fields from culinary systems to secondary water systems with the canal companies. During construction on Stadium Avenue this year, BYU is also installing a secondary 12-inch water line down Stadium Avenue; their goal is to get this across the parking lot across Canyon Road to the intramural fields on University Avenue, so these fields can be transitioned to secondary water. Mr. Decker indicated that these figures are good from a conservation standpoint, but not all the gains can be attributed to conservation efforts; there were some significant changes which also had an impact. Mr. Decker explained some concern in the water rights industry about the disparity between water rights on paper versus wet water. During wet years, for example, this year based on the heavy snow pack, water rights become easy to manage; this year the City’s water will be plentiful and Mr. Decker doesn’t anticipate issues. In dry years or during times of drought, that is when managing water rights becomes more difficult, and senior water rights versus junior water rights come into play. Mr. Decker was not as familiar with BYU’s water rights, but he confirmed that Provo has many senior water rights. One of the biggest water rights on the Provo River is for Provo City through the Morris Decree in the early 1900s. Provo received a healthy majority of the Direct Flow Rights in the Provo River. Provo is also entitled, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water District, to up to 8,000 acre feet of water. Over the last five years, Provo has received between 50-80% of this, with the levels varying to some extent based on the snow pack. Provo purchases this water from the Metropolitan Water District. Based on the water that Provo takes from the spring sources, the City must return an equal amount of water to the Provo River. Because the spring water is good, drinkable water, the City uses this surface water [which for culinary use, would require treatment in the Orem water treatment facility] from Deer Creek to replenish the Provo River. The water to which Provo is entitled but does not use of the 8,000 acre-feet per annum allotment is referred to as ‘carryover water’ and the exact amount per year may vary. Currently, Provo City has 13,000 acre feet of carryover water stored in Deer Creek Reservoir—this is equivalent to about half the annual consumption rate. During wet years, Provo’s water supply in Deer Creek is subject to ‘Pay-per-spill.’ This is one of the most critical water rights issues for Public Works staff at present; Public Works is trying to move water into Jordanelle Reservoir, where Provo has, with the Metropolitan Water District, 10,000 acre feet of water storage (in Mr. Decker’s words, “think empty boxes”). If Provo City can move water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle, the City has rights to store 10,000 acre feet of water there. Provo also has two water storage rights upstream of Jordanelle, called the Lost Lake Water storage rights. Since there is likely risk of spillover in Deer Creek this year, staff is focused on moving some of Provo’s water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle for more secure storage via Lost Lake. If water rights for springs and wells remain stagnant, surface water resources such as Deer Creek and Jordanelle become crucial. Mr. Decker indicated that there are some well rights which are currently undeveloped, but these water rights are not enough to meet the projected growth. Ms. Santiago asked more about well rights and whether these rights are tied to a specific geographic location or just permission to dig wells in general. Mr. Decker explained that well rights are coordinated through the State engineers and generally refer to a cumulative entitlement of water received from wells. Some well rights are specific for a point of diversion and amount, others are consolidated to a massive water right with the State. Wells in certain locations in the City are more productive than others, which introduces further considerations for Public Works when planning future well sites and utilization of those well water rights. Page 3 of the Executive Summary addresses the treatment of Provo’s surface water at the Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. Provo generally takes 5 cfs (cubic feet per second) from surface water, which equates roughly 1000-1500 acre feet of water, through the treatment plant per year; out of 27,500 acrefeet water consumed per year, only about 1000-1500 acre feet comes from surface water, which represents significant cost savings to the City. As far as cost of water, the water belongs to Provo; we are only paying for the treatment of Provo-owned water at a rate of $95/acre foot. Water coming through the treatment plant costs the City approximately $0.30 per thousand gallons. Well water costs approximately $0.12-$0.15 per thousand gallons. Spring water is the cheapest water; not including pumping costs to direct water to the east bench of the City, the cost is approximately $0.02-$0.03 per thousand gallons. The current rate is $1.20 per thousand gallons; Mr. Decker will go into more detail regarding the costs the City needs to recoup through the water utility rates. Mr. Decker referenced a map illustrating where some of our water sources are, including Big Springs, South Fork, and Rock Canyon Springs. Table ES-2 addresses Availability versus Water Rights of the City in a dry year versus an average year. From an annual basis, the City’s water rights are in a good place, well above the annual consumption. Mr. Decker referenced Figure ES-1, “Annual Projected Production Requirement (Dry Year),” which depicts amounts of all the City’s water rights in a graph alongside projections with and without conservation and actual uses. Public Works made some updates to these graphs to reflect historic production through 2016, which graphs can be found in Mr. Decker’s PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Harding asked for clarification as to why the amount for Deer Creek water rights decreased significantly; Rebecca Andrus explained that this decrease represents the exchange water which was diverted to the Provo River based on the amount of water drawn from Big Springs, shown in cyan on the graph and showing a comparable increase in conjunction with the decreased amount from Deer Creek. Mr. Decker also directed staff to create a graph depicting an average year; the Executive Summary showed the water rights for a dry year only, but water rights might shrink based on the snowpack (or lack thereof) during a dry year. In Chapter 3 of the Master Plan, there is a graphic showing the same graph in an average year without water conservation. In an average year without conservation, the projections show that Provo should have enough water, but in a dry year, it shows Provo running out of water. Mr. Decker reiterated that the authors of the Master Plan were being very conservative in the projections and depictions of water rights. Mr. Decker addressed a question from Ms. Santiago regarding water conservation. Rather than restricting water usage, the Master Plan refers to a broader, holistic approach to water conservation, encouraging landscaping changes and xeriscaping to result in less intensive water uses. There was not sufficient time to address the entire presentation, so this discussion was continued to a future work meeting. Mr. Decker will distribute electronic copies of the Master Plan to Council.van

What's Up? - 20 April 2017

Between the proposed development at 4800 N, new requirements for minimum unit size Downtown, and the potential sale of Bounous Park, there is a lot of interest from members of our community to lobby members of the Council.

Two of these three issues were discussed by the Council in our meetings last Tuesday. Below are my thoughts on all of the items addressed by the Council.

Black text comes from the agendas
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents.

I refer to comments by other councilors in this newsletter. I do this from memory and they might characterize their comments differently. I have tried to represent their comments as correctly as I can.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartments units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   
   The proposal changed again after more discussions with neighbors and going before the Planning Commission again. This item was discussed again in the evening meeting as agenda item 12. Please see that item below for a report on our action.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A substitute motion for Planning staff to bring this ordinance text back to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated was Approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting but that discussion was also continued in conjunction with this motion.In our discussion, Councilor Van Buren advocated for allowing for more flexibility in placement of homes by not requiring a hard 20' rear setback, but rather allowing some portion of the home get as close as 15'. The problem was that the definition of this "average" set back was not well defined. We chose to continue this item for two weeks to allow Community Development the chance to better define that option.
3. A discussion on a joint resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.See my description of this item 6 in the evening meeting.
4. A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
   Discussion only.
   We had a good presentation about the history and the current usage of the Ice Sheet. This news article did a good job describing this presentation as well as our discussion afterward.
5. A presentation from the Water Division
   Discussion only. The Water Division staff will give a presentation on Water Rights at the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting and a concluding presentation at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting.
   Part 4. The focus of this session was on water quality and the testing that is involved.
6. A presentation on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem within half mile of the BRT line.
   Presentation only.
   The initial phase of this study is complete and looked at the experience of other cities who have installed BRT systems. We looked ahead at the rest of the studied and were asked if there were specific questions that we would like answered. Councilor Santiago would like to know what specific types of businesses flourish along BRT lines. We will be able to use this information to help attract such businesses to maximize the benefits of this investment.  
7. A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
   Discussion only. Several council members expressed interest in seeing this appendix continue through the General Plan Amendment process. The Joaquin Neighborhood Chairs intend to gather additional feedback from council members, property owners, and residents of the Joaquin Neighborhood and to continue the process towards formal codification.
   Here is a link to the plan. It was developed by a BYU class, in consultation with leaders from the Joaquin Neighborhood. If I remember right, there are around 70 pages, with a lot of good research and recommendations. I would quibble with a few of their suggestions and conclusions, but overall I believe there is good information that should be incorporated with the Neighborhood Master Plan. The Neighborhood would like to review and perhaps make some modifications before they recommend it. It will need to go through the appropriate process before it can be properly adopted.
8. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   A motion to adopt this document as the intent of the Council regarding zoning compliance was Approved 7:0.These strategies were presented to the Council in our 21 March Work Meeting. I believe the only difference now is that the document has been presented to the Utah Central Association of Realtors and the Utah Apartment Association who have indicated their comfort with the document.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Rylee Snelson!
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack! (You may come across this name later in the report as well)
3. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats Matt Dunlap!
4. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congrats George Hutchings!
   
   Public Comment
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.
   This is what I wrote after her introduction to the Council: Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
6. A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
   Continued indefinitely 7:0.
   I have full confidence in the way that the CDBG and HOME programs are implemented in Provo. They have been important tools in addressing poverty and urban blight. It would be difficult to replace these funds and continue the work if these federal funds are cut or discontinued.
   In our Council Meeting, Councilor Van Buren brought up some concerns with how the overall programs are run across the nation. I realized that while I know enough about how the funds are used locally to support the programs locally, I don't know enough about the programs nationally to make an informed decision about recommending the overall programs. 
7. A resolution appropriating $800,000 in the Water CIP Fund and $350,000 in the Wastewater CIP Fund for construction of Stadium Avenue applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0.A $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. 
8. A resolution appropriating $48,089 in the General Fund, Streets Division for snow removal overtime and costs associated with snow removal applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   Approved 7:0.
   We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K.
9. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
   Approved 7:0.
   I appreciate the professionalism and care with which our waste-water team tackles their job. It appears that all is in order, other than our system is aging, and we have not set aside enough money for replacement and upgrades.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    A motion to continue this item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0.
    Some neighbors have indicated that the proposal is getting close to what they'd be willing to accept. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is getting close to being outside of what they are willing to pursue. I am very interested to see if the parties can find a mutually agreeable plan or if their desires are just incompatible.
    I worry that we may find future proposals better aligned with the current zoning, but less desirable to both the neighbors and the City as a whole.
    I did not feel comfortable voting to approve a change that has not been vetted by the neighbors. It will also be very helpful to have the Planning Commission weigh in on the latest changes. We asked the applicant and neighborhood chair to set up another neighborhood meeting to discuss the most recent changes.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
    A motion to approve a 500-square foot minimum and 800-square foot average was Approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing.
    It's not too unusual for me to be on the losing side of votes. But there are only a handful of times in the past year-plus that I've been on the Council where I really struggle with our decision afterwards and really feel like we've made a mistake. The last time I remember feeling like this was when we removed solar net metering without grandfathering existing customers.
    I believe the Council was trying to address a specific concern, but decided to use a sledge hammer to drive in the finishing nail.
    This item wins the award for the most chaotic during my short tenure on the Council. There weren't many people in the room, but all semblance of "decorum" went out the window.
    This ordinance protects the City from the potential proposals that were causing the immediate concerns. But I believe it also negatively impacts some proposals which will be helpful to the community, and will have unintended consequences which will work against the precise outcomes that we are trying to achieve.
    I am hopeful, now that we have addressed the immediate concern, that the Council can revisit the issue and craft some less blunt requirements.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    During the April 18, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council voted (7:0) to continue this item to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting. The Council requested that Planning staff bring this ordinance text back with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated.
    As discussed in item 2 in the afternoon meeting, this item is continued for two weeks.

What's Up? - 14 April 2017

There are a lot of important issues facing the Council right now, and many of them are on the agenda for next Tuesday. These include the proposed PEG development on 4800 N and University Ave, the Ice Sheet, development along the BRT route, parking and walking in Joaquin, zoning compliance, minimum unit sizes.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartments units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   
   
   *Note that this illustration is one revision old
   This item was discussed in the 21 Mar 2017 Council Work Meeting. Changes had been made since it was presented at a neighborhood meeting and voted on by the Planning Commission (a 3-3 tie). We requested that the proposal, which had been modified to try to address concerns raised by the Neighborhood and Planning Commission, be taken back to the Neighborhood and Planning Commission. The applicant has completed that tour and will be presenting it again at this work meeting and is asking the Council to decide on it in the later Council Meeting. The central question, in my mind, is, would this development be too intense for this location of the City.
   The neighbors I am hearing are saying that they are not against multi-family housing at this location and would support this type of project if it was north of 4800 N, but (paraphrasing in my own words) development at this location should not exceed MDR (medium-density residential) in character. The overall density of the project is just under the MDR limits, but that is because the density of the single-family detached lots in the back is being averaged with the density of the HDR (high-density residential) apartments in front.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   This item was continued on the 11th because of some discrepancies between the drafts. Perhaps the biggest question remaining is if we want to have a hard minimum of 20 ft for the rear setback, or if we are willing to allow a minimum average setback of 20 ft and a hard minimum of 15 ft. After discussing it here, we will be voting on it as item 14 in the evening meeting.
3. A discussion on a joint resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs
   CDBG and HOME are federal programs which give local communities money to fight poverty and urban blight. I appreciate the local aspect of these programs, allowing us to focus the money where we feel it will make the biggest impact. Last year CDBG money supported the Community Action Services and Food Bank, the Center for Women and Children in Crisis, the Downtown Facade Renovation program, the Egress Window program, House of Hope, RAH, Victim Services, Project Read, and many more.
   The federal government has proposed cutting or eliminating these funds in the upcoming budget. We are considering a joint resolution with Orem City to communicate our support of these programs to our Congressional Delegation.
4. A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
   Round 2. Here is what I wrote about our last discussion: After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale, and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over, then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A presentation from the Water Division
   Part 4. 
6. A presentation from Zions Bank Public Finance on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem.
   From looking at the support document, this looks more like an introduction to a study that is just starting, rather than a report on what the study found.
7. A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
   This appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan was produced by the Provo City Lab, a class of students at Brigham Young University who received assistance and guidance from the Joaquin Neighborhood Board and the Planning Division of Provo’s Community Development Department. Input from the residents of Joaquin directed and augmented the research of the Provo City Lab.
   This appendix will serve as a reference point for future development projects within the Joaquin Neighborhood and offer recommendations on their implementation in order to preserve a vibrant sense of community, promote walkability, improve livability, support beautification, and allow for future growth and development.
   The appendix is nearly 70 pages long with "Current Status," "Case Studies," and "Recommendations" on a number of topics which affect the livability of the neighborhood.
8. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   These strategies were presented to the Council in our 21 March Work Meeting. I believe the only difference now is that the document has been presented to the Utah Central Association of Realtors and the Utah Apartment Association who have indicated their comfort with the document.
9. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

3. A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
   Congrats Rylee Snelson!
4. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
   Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack!
5. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
   Congrats Matt Dunlap!
6. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
   Congrats George Hutchings!
   
   Public Comment
7. A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
   This is what I wrote after her introduction to the Council: Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
8. A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
   See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.
9. A resolution appropriating $800,000 in the Water CIP Fund and $350,000 in the Wastewater CIP Fund for construction of Stadium Avenue applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   A $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. 
10. A resolution appropriating $48,089 in the General Fund, Streets Division for snow removal overtime and costs associated with snow removal applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
    We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K.
11. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
    In 2012 the state of Utah implemented a general permit for wastewater collection systems in order to “develop programs for the prevention, control, and abatement of new or existing pollution of the waters of the state.” Provo City submitted a Notice of Intent at that time stating that we will comply with the requirements of the general permit. Compliance requires review and adoption of the program documents by the City Council. The Municipal Wastewater Planning Program SelfAssessment Report for Provo 2016 fulfills the annual reporting requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, gives Provo City points on the Utah Wastewater Project Priority List/System, and gives operators completing these forms continuing education credits for each form returned. 
    I appreciate the professionalism and care with which our waste-water team tackles their job. It appears that all is in order, other than our system is aging, and we have not set aside enough money for replacement and upgrades.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    See my description of item 1 in the afternoon meeting.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
    When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created, they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions. At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average.The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
    Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
    The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit? I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800, but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the[starting point for our deliberations].
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.

What's Up? - 13 April 2017

Springbreak delayed our meetings by a week which means we will have Council Meeting Tuesdays in back-to-back weeks. I'm posting this meeting report today and hope to be able to post the meeting preview tomorrow.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. An introduction to the future City Recorder
   Presentation only.
   Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
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.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   This item was voted on in the later meeting. See item 5 in the Council Meeting below.
3. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   Discussion only. The DAPR Committee will review feedback gathered during this Work Meeting with the DAPR noticing subcommittee at an upcoming meeting.(DAPR stands for the Development Approval Process Review) Overall I felt that the Council was receptive to the recommendations. We spent much of the time talking about parts of the proposal that raised concerns. One Councilor wants to make sure that hearing land use issues first in Work Sessions remains the default practice. If I understood it correctly, there was another concern that the Council may feel some pressure to vote unanimously in the first Council Meeting so that the item can be passed without an added two-week delay. We will discuss this feedback in the DAPR Committee and will consider changes.
4. A discussion on the Ice Sheet Authority
   Discussion only. This item may be scheduled for a future Work Meeting and the Council may discuss during a closed strategy session as needed.After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion for a 600 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size Failed 3:4, with Council Members David Sewell, David Knecht, David Harding, and Gary Winterton opposing.
   The original motion for a 500 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size was approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing. This item was already scheduled to be heard at the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.We were voting on which option to prepare for the Council Meeting later that night. What we selected in the Work Meeting became the implied motion which is our starting point in the Council Meeting.When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions.At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average. The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
   Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
   The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit?I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800 but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the implied motion for later that night.See item 7 in the meeting below to see how it turned out.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   See the description of item 8 in the later Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on budget appropriations for Public Works
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled to be heard at the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K. The other part is basically a $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. We'll vote on this next week.
8. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only.
   This was part 3. The main point of this discussion was that there are times during the peak of summer when we use water faster than we can source it. At these times we depend on our storage capacity. They fill overnight while demand is low and then drain during the day when demand outstrips supply. Our storage capacity and interconnectivity is something that we need to carefully manage.
   
   Notice the significant increase in money going into the Water Capital Improvement fund starting in about 2012. That is what it looks like when the City gets serious about properly maintaining and properly investing in infrastructure. It hasn't been painless, but it is the prudent thing to do.
9. A presentation on the Airport Master Plan
   Presentation only.
   Our current master plan is about 17 years old and has served us well. The process of updating the master plan has just begun and soon the public will be asked to weigh in. We have outgrown our one gate terminal and have not been able to accommodate requests for expanded service. The airport is looking for ways to fund a new terminal which will likely start out with four gates. This will become better defined through the master plan process.
10. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

Public Comment


2. A report from the Elected Officials Compensation Commission
   Presentation only.
   The Commission recommends raising the mayoral compensation from $109,500 to $120,000. It recommends raising the council compensation from $12,485 to $18,000. The mayoral compensation was last adjusted in 2013. If I heard right, the last time the council compensation was adjusted was in 2007 and it was a "cost of living adjustment". The Commission based its recommendations on the compensation of comparably sized cities around the State and also noted that the responsibilities of the Mayor and Council are greater than most cities because we run a power department and an airport.
   It doesn't surprise me that the council compensation lags behind other cities, even though we are asked to do more. Our Councilors are very concerned about the frugal use of public money. My guess is that even now many will not want to accept more money from the City. Of all the areas to "cut" during the budget process, a pay increase for ourselves will be the easiest.
   No Councilor runs for the money, but it can help take the edge off of the lost income caused by the time off work. The problem is that there is a large swath of our community who cannot take hundreds of hours off of their "day job" without some compensation. If Council members aren't compensated reasonably then Council service may become the domain of retirees and the independently wealthy. I believe that we should accept the Commission's recommendation to open the service opportunity to more people. I will suggest that any Councilor who is uncomfortable with the increase can donate it to the Provo City Foundation, or another charity.
3. An ordinance granting MCIMetro a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.The only change they asked for was a 10-year contract rather than our default 5-year. Our code allows for contracts between 5 and 15 years.
4. A resolution on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   Approved 7:0.It will be used to engineer parts of the Provo River Trail which will then be built with RAP money.
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.
   Approved 7:0.This is a great opportunity to address one of the difficult, unpleasant parts of the Provo River Trail. Our General Fund Balance has been increasing over the years and would be over the 25% State limit at the end of this fiscal year without some appropriations. With this appropriation, along with previous appropriations, and contemplated appropriations, the general fund balance will be under 22%. This is a significant amount of money, and can't be taken lightly. This money could be used elsewhere or it could be used to reduce taxes. But this could also be an opportunity to significantly improve one of the most beloved public facilities in the City. This is an investment in the future. A gift to future generations. We will use RAP money, already earmarked for River Trail improvements to realign the Trail. Will not have enough RAP money to fully develop the rest of the area, but hopeful it will eventually be used in a creative and special way.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A substitute motion to continue the item at the April 18, 2017 Work and Council Meetings was Approved 5:2, opposed by Council Members Gary Winterton and Kay Van Buren.
   There were some discrepancies between the version of the proposed ordinance we have previously received and the one that was presented during the meeting. The item was not urgent so we continued it until next week.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion to continue the item to the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council Members Kay Van Buren, David Knecht, and George Stewart.The discussion was pretty much the same as in the Work Meeting (see item 5 in the above meeting). I believe there is a consensus around 800 sqft/unit being the minimum average, but some disagreement about what the hard minimum should be. But since the final decision will likely be more restrictive than what had been noticed, there was a desire to postpone final action until the public could be notified that we are considering something greater than the 400/600 recommended by the planning commission and noticed to the public.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Approved 6:1, opposed by Council Member Kay Van Buren.There were three main parts to this proposal: code clean up, changing the name of the preliminary plan to a concept plan, and moving the checklist of what is needed in an application outside the code. Moving it out of the code means that it could be changed without Council approval. Everyone was good with the code clean up. I personally don't like the changing the name until the substantive changes are ready to be made but the administration wanted the name changed now so that it can be put into the new Provo360 platform. There wasn't enough support on the Council to even warrant a discussion on moving the checklist.