Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to District Five, Provo, and the World! May we find peace and love in our hearts and our community. May we have goodwill towards all. May that peace, love, and goodwill be reflected in our actions and our service to others.

West Provo

I know many of you are on the edge of your seat, anticipating my write up of December 6^th's meetings. You'll have to hold on just a little longer. I'm part way through it, but much of my time has been focused on West Provo.

West Provo is the topic of this post and I recommend that anyone who has interest in the future of this area read through the end of it. It covers two topics: The requested authorization of eminent domain for the next phase of the Lakeview Parkway, and future development in the area of Provo west of I-15 and south of the Provo River, with a heavy emphasis on how agricultural uses are treated.

Eminent Domain

Authorization of eminent domain was considered at our 6 December Council Meeting, and the item was continued until our next meeting on 4 January. Many questions were raised during the meeting, to which we asked our City Engineer, David Graves to respond. He has done so. Normally this information wouldn't be published until the Thursday before the meeting (which in this case would be 29 December), but I requested that we get it out sooner to give the public more time to review it before the meeting. I'm grateful that the Council Staff were able to make it happen. So here is some light reading for your holiday enjoyment: http://www.provocitycouncil.com/2016/12/lakeview-parkway-project-information.html

I should note that for the "Westside Connector" portion of the Lakeview Parkway, three separate times Public Works came to the Council to request eminent domain permission. I believe the three requests, all of which were granted, covered nine or so properties. If I remember right, 37 or so of the properties directly affected by this stretch have reached negotiated resolutions, including a majority of the nine. Only two properties haven't been settled on, and the City is still hopeful that agreement can be found on the last two without turning to the courts for eminent domain. My point is that even if we authorize eminent domain, it doesn't mean that it will be used. I believe it is everyone's hope that negotiated resolutions can be found for this next phase as well.

West Side Planning and the Purpose of Agricultural Preservation

In an extraordinary step for transparency because of the intense public interest in this topic, the Council made the meetings of the West Side Planning Committee open to the public. Even if you can't make it to the roughly every-other-Tuesday meetings, you can follow along here: http://www.provocitycouncil.com/p/west-side-planning-committee.html. You'll find summaries of each meeting, along with links to the audio of the proceedings.

One of the hot topics of study and discussion has been the future of agriculture in West Provo. We have talked a lot about "Open Space" which agricultural land can be considered, along with things like developed parks, and natural environs. A couple meetings ago, Committee members were given the "homework assignment" of explaining what they see as the purpose of agricultural preservation. I took this as a sincere question, because the outcomes that we want to achieve by agricultural preservation will determine how we go about the preservation. Avid readers of my blog (or should that be "avid reader") know that I already posted my homework submission, but for the rest of you all (or is it just "you") here is the link: http://provodistrict5.blogspot.com/2016/12/purposes-of-agricultural-preservation.html.

I'm checking into whether the rest of the submissions are considered part of the open meeting and can be posted. Hopefully we can get them onto the West Side Planning Committee blog very soon. So check back often!

Purposes of Agricultural Preservation

Heritage and Sense of Place
Farming has been a part of life in West Provo for the last 150 or so years. It is a part of the heritage of the area. Preserving agriculture in West Provo helps preserve that heritage. Healthy communities have a sense of place. Growth and develop in West Provo should be done in such a way as to honor and respect the heritage and sense of the area.


Psychological Wellbeing and Recreation
Agricultural land functions as a type of "Open Space". It is peaceful and can create a sense of wellbeing in many who merely look upon it. Getting out into an agricultural area can give someone a sense of solitude and a place to think, meditate, and reflect on the weightier matters of life. If we plan to spend public resources on something, we need to make sure that it is happening in a responsible, effective and efficient manner. If we set aside a certain amount of dollars to ensure that the residents of Provo have access to places which provide such benefits, we should use the use the money in such a way to get the biggest benefit for the most people. Other types of "Open Space" include developed parks and natural habitat. Certain sections near the Provo River bank allow for public access to wooded areas, like Paul Reams Wilderness Park, and the picnic tables along the last mile or so of the river before the Stake Park. Such areas could be preserved and expanded. Boardwalks could be built in the wetlands and in the coming Provo River Delta. The land could be used for developed parks, possibly even a regional sports park. All of these open spaces can provide important benefits to our community, and I think that a mix of open space types is likely to provide the best value for our investment.
Some of the best ways to provide interactive open space is through private ventures like the corn maze and the rope's course which already exist in West Provo. Other types of agritourism and recreation in natural(ish) settings may be private, public, or joint ventures. Salt Lake County's Wheeler Farm (a public park), or Young Living Farm in Mona (a private venture open to visitors), are examples from other places. A community garden would be another example. We should be prudent in how much public resources are used to support the retention and expansion of such amenities.


Food Security
West Provo has some of the best growing conditions in Utah. By restricting the land to only agricultural uses, we are less dependent on food being shipped in from elsewhere. I believe the last number of acres that we were discussing as having potential for development was 870. A rough rule of thumb is that one acre of land can produce enough food for one person (http://www.farmlandlp.com/2012/01/one-acre-feeds-a-person/). So if we restrict development from all 870 acres, and all of it begins to be used for food production, we could theoretically feed roughly three-quarters of one percent of the current Provo population. Perhaps the bigger impact is that the population of Provo wouldn't grow as quickly, so one could argue that there would be more food security because there would be less mouths to feed. But the demand for housing in the region would not be any less and the population that wouldn't come to Provo would likely go elsewhere in the County, likely in less compact form, requiring even more agricultural land be developed which would actually decrease the food security of everyone in the County, including Provo residents. This is why the Agricultural Toolkit advocates for more compact growth which allows for less agricultural land overall to be developed.

West Provo Agriculture

My friend and Council colleague, Dave Knecht, serves on the West Side Planning Committee with me. This Committee has been tasked with recommending policy to the Council to guide land use decisions in West Provo. On Wednesday he sent out an email to his distribution list which said, in part,

"Recently the Provo City Council formed a West Side Planning Committee and one of the main questions being asked is:
What is the purpose of Agriculture in Provo, now and in the future ?

Unless there is a compelling answer to this question, explaining the need and value of local agriculture by this Friday, then there will likely be NO agricultural element in the new West Side Plans and eventually every square inch of farmland on the West Side will be developed if at all possible." (bolded emphasis is from the email).

Since then I have received, or have been forwarded, many responses from upset residents of Provo. I have decided to address this issue here on this blog, in an effort to efficiently respond, and in the interest of transparency.

I have communicated with Councilor Knecht, to let him know that I disagree with how he characterized the situation, and he has looked over this blog post and has had a chance to clarify or dispute what I have written. He has told me that wrote his email based on his understanding at the time, and it is obvious that we took "Purpose" question to mean different things.

First, let's start with the area of agreement: the first paragraph. I agree that one of the main questions being asked of the committee is, "What is the purpose for agricultural preservation?" Agricultural preservation is one of the main topics that we have been studying and discussing. It is one of the factors that we are attempting to understand so that we can find the right balance. The question, "What is the purpose for agricultural preservation?" isn't a combative question, for which if there isn't a satisfactory answer then all agricultural uses will be exterminated. It is an honest question to help us define what are we trying to accomplish through agricultural preservation. What goals are we trying to achieve? What would successful agricultural preservation look like? These are important questions that will help shape the policies that we recommend.

Next, the area of disagreement: the second paragraph. I disagree that "there will likely be no agricultural element in the new West Side Plans" under any circumstances. Not one member of the committee has expressed any interest in this. Quite the opposite, all of the discussion has been about balancing the wishes and interests of all stakeholders. I can't speak for others on the Committee, but for myself, the reason I have invested huge amounts of time and effort to be on this committee is because of my fear that West Provo would be developed with no vision or plan and we would lose what makes West Provo so special.

The Friday deadline (which has since been pushed to Monday) was for Committee members to submit their thoughts so that we can continue our discussion next Tuesday. There is a separate request for information and opinion going out to large land owners in West Provo, with a proposed deadline of January 19th. The point is we are still discussing these topics and there will be many opportunities for the public to weigh in on the plan as it is developed. Your input is always welcome, but there is nothing magical about today being your last chance to save agriculture in West Provo.

What's Up? - 5 December 2016

The item generating the most feedback from the public is Item #9 in the Council Meeting regarding the authorization to pursue eminent domain. I've been surprised that I haven't heard anything recently about the South East Neighborhoods Plan, which we are being asked to adopt in Item #13. Perhaps most of the concerns have been addressed.

If you haven't already, be sure to check out Provo's Open City Hall, the new platform for engaging with and providing feedback to the City Council.

Here are the links to the documents for tomorrow's meetings (all ~550 pages).
Work Meeting
Council Meeting
If either link is broken, you can go here for instructions on how to access the documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. Rules Committee Policy Evaluation: A discussion on amendments to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook
   The Council Rules Committee is recommending a fairly significant overhaul to Chapter 4 of the Council Policies and Procedures Handbook. Some of the changes make the Handbook much easier to understand, and other changes will make our meetings flow more efficiently and effectively. I really appreciate the work of the Committee, particularly the Committee Chair Dave Sewell, and Council Attorney Brian Jones.
2. A discussion on recommendations of potential committee members for the Impact Fee process and review
   At our last Work Meeting, we decided to move ahead with forming this committee. It appears that we will be discussing potential members for the committee. The document packet does not contain the names of the nominees. It only has the documents that we reviewed last time.
3. A discussion on sections of the proposed Vision 2050
• Section 7 - Public and Non-Profit Partnerships
• Section 8 - Safety
• Section 10 - Diversity and Unity
• Section 11 - Governance

I feel like a couple of these sections need to be polished a bit more. I wasn't always clear what was trying to be communicated, and in a few instances I'm pretty sure what was written wasn't what was intended.
4. A discussion on a proposal to create an Arts Council
   We haven't had a functioning Arts Council for a while now, and with the new RAP tax, we need some leadership from our art community to ensure the best impact from our public investment.
5. A discussion on an appropriation for Fire Department equipment and software
   There are three components to the proposed appropriation: dispatch software, department operations software, and personal firefighting gear. At the last budget cycle, I was appalled at how underfunded our 911 center was. I'm hoping this new software will help ease the stress and demand on our dispatch personnel. The operations software was already approved but delays in the implementation pushed it into a new fiscal year. The firefighting equipment purchase would be taking advantage of a warranty replacement of some gear to get all of the gear updated.
6. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee
   There is no information in the document packet for this item. It is the regularly scheduled opportunity for Don Jarvis and the Sustainability Committee to report on current issues and efforts related to sustainability and environmental stewardship in the City.
7. A discussion regarding Provo City's Driveway Standard
   There is a short description of this item in the document packet, but it doesn't disclose what changes are proposed to our Driveway Standard. Currently, the Standard is to "not allow access from residential properties on collector and arterial streets unless approved by the City Engineer."
8. A discussion on a request for an amendment to the Provo City Major Street Plan for the extension of 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
   This is the next step in connecting the Lakeview Parkway to the rest of our street system. It will be an important link to help our students get to the new high school location.
9. A discussion on an ordinance text amendments to Chapter 14.20, Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone, to allow for mixed-use redevelopment of the Plum Tree Shopping Center, located at 2230 North University Parkway. City-Wide Impact.
   I am excited about this development, but I was a little worried about how changes to the SC3 zone might unintentionally affect other properties in Provo with this zoning designation. In reading through the material I was encouraged that the staff also had this concern and had put considerable thought into how the proposed changes might affect the Provo Towne Centre and Riverwoods properties.
10. A discussion on a request for amendments to the Provo City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14.38) to increase signage allowances in the DT1, DT2, ITOD, Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. Downtown, Dixon, Franklin, Franklin South, and East Bay Neighborhoods.
    In response to current businesses, Provo Economic Development is proposing some "modest" changes to our sign regulations in Downtown (and Center Street to the freeway) zones. It mostly affects non-ground-floor businesses and businesses who share a common entrance.

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. A special Citizen Recognition for Sally Breeden presented by the Mayor.
2. A Presentation of Handel's Messiah - Amy Norton, Wasatch Chorale
3. Provology Graduation
4. An audit report from Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose, & Erickson and a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
   I admit that I did not read all 120 pages of the Report, though I read through the first twenty or so and skimmed the rest. I applaud the competence and professionalism of our finance department. I invite any who are interested to dive into the report. 

Public Comment


5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.28 (Metropolitan Water District) to change the number of board members and rules for removal.
   The changes include moving from five members to seven members, and will now include two members of City Staff instead of one. The chair will now be selected by the Municipal Council.
6. A resolution appointing individuals to the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo.
   We will be appointing individuals to the board.
7. A resolution adopting the 2017 Council regular meeting schedule.
   It's pretty much the same schedule, 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, with a few changes to accommodate holidays and other events.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 2.50.010 (Municipal Council Rules) regarding the procedure to adopt, suspend, or repeal Council rules.
   This is the same item as Item #1 from the earlier Work Meeting.
9. A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3240 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.
   Being asked to authorize eminent domain (should it be deemed necessary) is one of the most difficult aspects of council service. It is always hoped that negotiations will be successful and that eminent domain will never be used, and that is still the hope in this case. It is in the public interest to have streets in the proper location, and for the streets to be put in before other development. Just consider the difficulties surrounding 620 North (the subject of the next item) and 820 North. Lack of foresight and street alignment for connectivity has put us in a position where there are no good options. The Lakeview Parkway alignment in Phase 1 is not needed right now, but it will be in the future. Now is the time to secure the alignment.
   
   Much of the concern is related to the bisecting of the Corn Maze. I have met with the owners and had a very good conversation with them. Their operation is exactly the kind of agricultural use I want to see continue and thrive in West Provo. I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to find workable solutions for all parties.
10. A resolution amending the Major and Local Street Plan to extend 620 North Street from Lakeshore Drive to Lakeview Parkway. Lakeview South Neighborhood.
    This is the same item as Item #8 in the earlier Work Meeting.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.4 acres of real property, generally located at 54 West 4200 North from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    This was Item #7 from the November 15th Work Meeting. Here is what I said about it then: "The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences."
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20 (SC3 - Regional Shopping Center Zone), to allow Mixed-Use development within the zone. City-wide Impact.
    This is Item #9 from earlier in the day.
13. A resolution to adopt the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan.
    Two years in the making, the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan is ready for a vote by the City Council. I recommend interested parties read the plan.

What's Up? - 24 November 2016

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

What Was Up?

This is the report of the Council meetings from nine days ago. It took considerably longer to write than usual. There were many tricky items that require careful consideration. The report is relatively long. I recommend skimming through it and only reading about the items that you care about. Items of particular interest might be: clean air and diesel, concept plans for rezones, moving from Vision 2030 to Vision 2050, tax increment financing, impacts of the PHS relocation, and the adequacy of land-use tools.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
   Presentation only. The Council seeks to further discuss this item at a future date with the Utah County Commissioners.
   What I wrote previously, "Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it."
   
   The Utah County Commission will hear the item next Tuesday, 29 November. I am hopeful that the testing will be reinstated.
2. A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
   Council Vice-Chair David Sewell moved to accept the first two steps common between the proposals—use of concept plan and rezone—then to review staff recommendations for a text amendment at a future date. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
   When considering legislation, I try to ask, "what is the worst that can happen?" I don't always vote with the assumption that the worst will happen, but I think it is important to consider the potential unintended consequences.
   
   I think that the worst-case in this instance is that an applicant could submit an insincere concept plan, just copying-and-pasting pretty pictures off of Google. The new development rights are vested with the r5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Centerezoning and General Plan amendments, so the applicant could build whatever they want or sell the property off to someone else who has no connection to the concept plan.
   
   The current requirement of a full application, rather than just a concept plan, doesn't by itself preclude this from happening, but it makes it costlier to present an insincere plan.
   
   I hope that we can make reforms to the process that lower the barriers to "good" development while strengthening the protections against "bad" development. The use of  "development agreements" was discussed a lot during this item. Unfortunately, development agreements seem to cycle in and out of favor in Provo City, both in terms of entering into them as well as enforcing them, so I don't have full confidence in them.
3. A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
   Council Member David Knecht moved this item to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0. This item will come back to Council after the Planning Commission has heard it.
   This cuts much of the red tape required to make minor lot adjustments. I feel this is an example of a change that reduces barriers that aren't helpful in protecting the community.
4. A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
   Council Member George Stewart moved to proceed with the Budget Committee recommendation to complete an Impact Fee Analysis. Council Chair Kimberly Santiago moved to add to Mr. Stewart’s motion the creation of a committee to move this impact fee study forward. Mr. Stewart agreed. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   It is time for Provo to update our impact fee analysis which is necessary to adjust the fees which developments pay to help cover the costs of extending city services to them. If a proposed state statute amendment passes, we will be able to update components of the analysis as various utility plans are updated, rather than continuing to do monolithic updates once the whole analysis is out-of-date.
5. A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
   • Section 3: Recreation and Parks
   • Section 4: Natural Resources
   • Section 5: Heritage
   • Section 6: Prosperity
   Council Members discussed various changes and revisions to wording of Vision 2050.
   Our review continues. I think that the suggestions that the Council made will strengthen the document. I really need to assemble the peices together on the blog to make it easier for you all to review it as well and provide meaningful feedback. I'll try to get it done over the holiday weekend. [With as long as the report took to write, ,I'm not sure I'll be able to get to this over the weekend.]
6. A discussion on updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
   Presentation only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   See item #4 below.
7. A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Discussion only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   I don't recall any opposition from the neighbors or anyone else, and I don't recall having any concerns myself.
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
   Hats off to Ryan Rieske and Rebecca Hunt for their exemplarly service to the people of Provo. Provo City could not provide the quality of services it does without the dedication of our city employees.
   
   Public Comment
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Provo Holdings 2, LLC.
   Ammended 5:2. Council Members David Harding and George Stewart opposed. Approved amended resolution 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
   Tax increment financing (TIF), whether property tax or sales tax, is controversial. In a nutshell, taxing entities give some of the higher tax proceeds, generated by a new investment, back to the entity that made the investment. At its best, TIF spurs investment and development that wouldn't occur on its own, by returning some of the newly generated taxes that wouldn't have occurred without the development. At its worst, TIF is a form of corporate welfare, violating basic tax premises that businesses help pay for the services they consume and pay into the community on which they rely.
   
   When evaluating requests for TIF, I consider multiple criteria:
   • Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment?
   • Would the investment happen without the TIF?
   • Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment?
   • Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? (When considering the "public benefit derived by using TIF", this is not the future value of the development with the investment vs. the current value of the development, it is the future value of the development if TIF is used vs. the future value of the development if TIF isn't used. The TIF formulas are based off of the current value, but it is a mistake to assume that no future development would occur if the TIF isn't granted.)
   • Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive? 
   
   So how does this request for TIF measure up? The original request was to reimburse the owners of the Parkway Village up to half of the cost (estimated at $1.2M) to remove (and replace) a building to accommodate a new four-way intersection that is proposed as part of the BRT/University Parkway widening project, using the increase in sales taxes for up to the next ten years.
   • Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment? Yes, the investment of Parkway Village will allow for a full signalized intersection which will improve access to both the Parkway Village and The Mix. This investment will make the area more economically productive.
   • Would the investment happen without the TIF? I am not sure, a case could be made that the return on the investment for the Parkway Village would more than justify the investment without TIF. I have to rely on our Economic Development team's judgement on this question. It is their opinion that TIF is needed to get this done.
   • Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment? In order to accommodate the four-way intersection a building needs to be torn down. That is pretty exceptional.
   • Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? Assuming that the intersection wouldn't happen otherwise, yes it is significantly more valuable.
   • Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive? I made this request of Economic Development when they were negotiating, and I have to trust them that that is what they negotiated.
   So yes, it would have been easy to support the original request. In addition to the original request negotiated between Economic Development and the Parkway Village owners, the owners made an additional request that if any of the ten years remain after half of the costs had been reimbursed, the additional tax increment would be split 50/50 with the City (rather than 100% to the City). They stated that they would be happy if the original request is granted, but were also asking for more.
   
   It was easy for me to oppose this additional request. The investment would happen without the additional TIF. The value the TIF is more than what is necessary to achieve the goal of the TIF. Because of this, I don't think that granting the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
   
   I should note that the Council added in a cap, so that not more than the cost of the investment will be reimbursed. In order to reach that cap, it was estimated that the $25M in sales that took place on this property over the last year would need to increase four-fold to $100M per year over the ten years. It is unlikely that we will reach this cap, but this gives you an idea of the kind of economic development we expect from the BRT/University expansion project. The public is investing $190M in this project, and there will be real returns on our investment. The commercial property owners along the route stand to benefit greatly from our investment. Sales tax returns roughly 1% back to Provo City. TIF reduces this amount.


4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
   Approved 7:0.Here is what I wrote before, "Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. "
5. An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.
   As I've written in the past, "This allows a new business to access utility right-of-ways in the City," and, "As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise."
6. A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
   Approved 7:0.
   As I pointed out last time, this is yet another consequence of the relocation of PHS that may not have been fully appreciated at the time the decision was made. Significant money has to be spent to extend the necessary infrastructure to the new location. Other projects, which have been planned for several years, and have waited their turn, are being bumped back several more. In a committee meeting this week, the Fire Chief commented on his concern over the new location and the challenges that it has created in providing acceptable response times for a building of that size.
   
   I have continued to point out these negative consequences. I mention them here on this blog, I mention them in Council meetings, and I mention them in joint meetings with the School Board. I'm not trying to be a sore loser, I'm not trying to publicly embarrass the School Board. I'm trying to raise the awareness, of the Board and the public, of the full consequences of moving a centrally located school, in an area that is fully developed and already has significant infrastructure in place, out to the edge of the city, to an area that only has infrastructure planned and in place that would serve low density residential. There are infrastructure costs as well as societal costs. I want everyone to be aware of these costs, as our city experiences them first hand, so that it will help inform our decisions in the future.
   
   Sadly, we are not the first community to make a move like this. It has been well studied and the consequences well documented. These are the consequences warned of by some of the opponents of the relocation. I do not feel that these warnings were appropriately considered when the decision was made. At the time we were told that the School Board makes its decisions based on the best interest of the students over the impact to the broader community. I hope that the next time a decision like this comes up, that we will consider all of the consequences, and will look to the experiences of other communities as well as our own in the relocation of PHS.
   
   I do want to express my appreciation to the members of the School Board for their service to our community and our children. Just because I disagree with some of their decisions does not mean that I question their dedication or commitment to our children. The quality of our school district has a huge impact on the quality of life we enjoy here in Provo. The quality of the School Board has a huge impact on the quality of our school district.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   Approved 7:0.
   In voting for this rezone, I helped authorize the use of a sledge hammer (the DT-1 zone) to put in a finishing nail on which to hang a picture (convert an office to a residential unit), and duct tape (the development agreement) to try to mitigate the consequences of using the sledge hammer. Of course the duct tape will have its own consequences the next time we want to do something different with the wall (redevelopment).
   
   I'm not particularly proud of my vote. We could have asked if putting in the finishing nail was worth the hassle given the tools that we had available. We could have also asked why we don't have a better tool for the request before us. We could have gone to the store and bought a new tool, but that costs time and money. Instead, when asked nicely by a member of the public, we accommodated the request the best we could with the tools we had available.

What's Up? - 11 November 2016

Happy Veteran's Day. I want to personally thank all those who have served our country in this capacity.

Next Tuesday is another round of City Council meetings. Here is some links to the supporting documents, but they will break if anything is updated.
Work Meeting
Council Meeting
If either link is broken, you can go here for instructions on how to access the documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
   Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it.
2. A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
   I have mixed feelings on this one. I understand the reasons for streamlining the development application process, but after a rezone is granted, the property owner is vested with all of the development rights afforded by the rezone. Regardless of what the concept plan shows, without some sort of legal agreement, there is no way to make sure that the actual development relates at all to the concept plan.
3. A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
   This one is much more straight forward. A simple lot line adjustment would no longer require a complex review.
4. A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
   Impact fees are "A one-time fee imposed by the City on new construction to fund the cost of infrastructure to meet the needs of new development" and are "Based on providing the same level of service to the new development as is provided in the city currently." The Committee is recommending that we review impact fees, which will require hiring a consultant.
5. A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
   • Section 3: Recreation and Parks
   • Section 4: Natural Resources
   • Section 5: Heritage
   • Section 6: Prosperity
   We are reviewing proposed updates to the City's main visioning document (moving Vision 2030 to Vision 2050). We will be reviewing and discussing the four listed sections.
6. A discussion updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
   Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. 
7. A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
3. Citizen Recognition-- Sally Breedan
   
   Public Comment
   
   
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Partners.
   Parkway Village is across University Parkway from the current Plum Tree Plaza. With the reconstruction of University Parkway, a full four-way intersection could be put in to provide better access to the complexes on both sides of the Parkway. This would benefit the property and business owners on both sides, but would necessitate the removal of a current building on the south side. Parkway Village Partners would like to be reimbursed for up to half of the costs associated with the new intersection and demolishing and rebuilding the building from the increased sales taxes generated at Parkway Village over the next 10 years. In addition to this tentative agreement that they have worked out with our RDA, they are asking to split the increased sales taxes 50/50 with the City if there is any remaining time after half of the construction costs are covered. I support the tentative agreement. I am skeptical that the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
   See Item 6 on the Work Meeting agenda (above).
6. An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   This sounds very similar to the non-exclusive franchise we granted to First Digital in our last Council meeting. As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise.
7. A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
   I have been impressed at the agility and flexibility shown by our Public Works Department to mitigate the impacts of the Provo High relocation. I don't know if the residents near the new Provo High campus will ever fully appreciate the decrease in impact that getting this section of the Lakeview Parkway in place before the school opens will have on their quality of life. At the same time, important projects that other areas of the City have been patiently waiting on will be delayed for years in order to make this happen. I fear that this is only one of the many community impacts that may not have been fully appreciated when the decision to move the school was made. Any savings to the School District have been or soon will be more than eclipsed by additional costs to the City, which, not coincidentally, are borne by the same tax-payers.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   On this proposal I have previously written, "As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch." Two weeks ago we continued this item because the development agreement which was proposed when the neighborhood voted on proposal was not proffered to the Council. Since it is back on our agenda, I assume that the development agreement will be proffered this time. This does not address my concerns, though, that this corridor will be ripe for redevelopment soon and this proposal does not position us well to encourage the best redevelopment.