Appendix C: Resolutions & Documentation of Support for the Preferred Alternative

Transcription

1 Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit Appendix C Appendix C: Resolutions & Documentation of Support for the Preferred Alternative Orem City Letter Expressing Continued Support of Preferred Alternative (December 2013) Orem City Resolution in Support of the Preferred Alternative (August 12, 2008) Provo City Resolution in Support of the Preferred Alternative (June 4, 2014) Mountainland Association of Governments Resolution in Support of the Preferred Alternative (February 10, 2014) Environmental Assessment December 2014

2

3

4

5

6 RESOLUTION A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE PROVO MAYOR AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SUPPORTING BUS RAPID TRANSIT FOR THE CITIES OF PROVO AND OREM AND SUPERSEDING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, since 1995, the communities of Provo and Orem, the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) have worked collaboratively to identify the best solutions for beginning the implementation of an effective mass transit system for the urban center of Utah Valley; and WHEREAS, given the growth that has occurred in our communities since 1995 and the anticipated urban growth in the central part of Utah County, a higher-speed, higher-frequency and higher-capacity mass transit system is important; and WHEREAS, concerns about the health challenges associated with air quality in our area can be addressed in a substantial way by good mass transit with energy efficient and lower emissions buses and WHEREAS, following a three year concerted effort at involving the region s residents in exploring options, the 2011 Environmental Assessment for a Bus Rapid Transit Route in Provo and Orem identified bus rapid transit as the most cost effective way to provide improved speed, capacity and frequency for mass transit and improve air quality in the cities of Provo and Orem in their important position as the economic hub of Utah Valley; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Municipal Council recognize that the process of arriving at a conclusion as to the specific route alignment of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that best meets the needs of both Provo and Orem, our community stakeholders and the traveling public has been difficult and they wish to express their appreciation for all who have engaged in this effort; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Council recently received the results of an independent third-party evaluation, commissioned by the Council, which determined that no route reviewed was substantially better when considering all pertinent factors than the route currently described as the 2013 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as shown on Attachment A of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Municipal Council desire to more precisely define the position of the Mayor and Municipal Council of the City of Provo with regard to the Bus Rapid Transit project. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and Municipal Council of Provo City, Utah as follows: PART I: The Mayor and Municipal Council hereby express their support for the 2013 Locally Preferred Alternative (commonly known as Route 4) as the Bus Rapid Transit alignment that best meets the criteria of the city of Provo, the Utah Transit Authority and the Mountainland Association of Governments and which has the best possibility of funding from Utah County, UTA, UDOT, MAG and the Federal Transit Administration. PART II: Page 1

7 The Mayor and Municipal Council hereby express their commitment to engage in a detailed review of possible enhancement strategies to make the Locally Preferred Alternative as responsive as possible to the needs and concerns of residents, neighborhoods, the traveling public and the Provo business community impacted by the proposed alignment, as well as key institutions to be served by the BRT, and to work diligently toward funding appropriate enhancement strategies as part of the BRT funding package. The Mayor and Council also call upon UTA, MAG, UDOT and other stakeholders to fully engage in this process with the City to achieve these objectives which may include enhancements for business and residential ingress and egress, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, parking, noise abatement, school security, landscaping, and other factors that may arise as the project is designed and built. PART III: The Mayor and Municipal Council hereby express appreciation to the City s partners in the BRT development process including MAG, UTA, UDOT, neighborhoods, the City of Orem and Utah County for their assistance through the process and their continued willingness to work together to make the BRT system in Provo and Orem as responsive and effective as possible. PART IV: The intent of the Municipal Council is that this resolution supersedes Resolution PART V: This resolution shall take effect immediately. END OF RESOLUTION 59 Page 2

8 Attachment A Page 3

9 DRAFT Awaiting Approval PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Redevelopment Agency of Provo Regular Meeting Minutes 5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 03, 2014 Room 200, Municipal Council Chambers 351 West Center, Provo, Utah THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT: Council Chair Harold L. Miller, Jr. Council Second Vice-Chair Gary Garrett Council Member David Sewell Council Member Stephen Hales Mayor John R. Curtis Brian Jones, Deputy City Attorney Council Vice-Chair Kim Santiago Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren Council Member Gary Winterton Matthew Taylor, Council Executive Director Wayne Parker, CAO Conducting: Chair Miller Opening Ceremony Roll Call Invocation and Pledge Richard Holmes, Provost eighborhood Chair Mr. Holmes was asked to give a brief report on the Provost Neighborhood. He informed the Council that the neighborhood was pleased with recent improvements in the area, including the trail and some of the clean-up on south State Street. They appreciated the continued efforts of the City to improve that area. Some of their concerns included landlords that did not maintain their rentals and those that have apartments where they shouldn t. He felt their neighborhood was in pretty good shape. The neighborhood was excited about the Slate Canyon Trailhead Park. The park was ready to let bids out the first part of August. He asked the Council to consider additional funding for the park. There were funds to begin the park but there was not a plan to complete the park; it was on a pay as you go basis. Having a project plan that detailed the construction schedule would be preferred. Approval of Minutes May 6, 2014 and May 20, 2014 Motion: Roll Call Vote: Council Member Gary Garrett moved to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2014 and May 20, 2014 Council Meetings. The motion was seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren. The motion passed 7:0 with Council Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Sewell, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 1 of 8

10 DRAFT Awaiting Approval Presentations, Proclamations and Awards 1. A Provo City Heritage Moment, presented by Douglas Thayer Douglas Thayer, Emiratis Professor of English at Brigham Young University, read an excerpt from his book Hooligan: A Mormon Boyhood. The book was about his childhood growing up in Provo 75 years ago. 2. A presentation on the 2014 Freedom Festival Paul Warner, Executive Director of America s Freedom Festival at Provo, discussed some of the activities planned for the 2014 Freedom Festival. He reported ticket sales for the Stadium of Fire picked up after the magazine was mailed out to residents in Utah County and parts of Salt Lake and Wasatch counties. There were still tickets available, it was not sold out. Mr. Warner reported that a Stadium of Fire survey was completed with 1,329 participants. Some of the results from the survey showed that: 30% of the respondents attended the Stadium of Fire every year, with a little more than 20% indicating it was their first time. On a scale of 0 to 5 all nine acts in last year s Stadium of Fire ranked 3.5 or above. The top three preferences for entertainers were Taylor Swift, Carrie Underwood, and Kelly Clarkson. (Mr. Warner said they were excited about having Carrie Underwood perform at the 2014 show). The majority of respondents said that was their preferred source of information about the show and other activities during the festival. Mr. Warner discussed the economic impact of America s Freedom Festival. About 50% of people attending the festival were from Utah County, 25% from Utah, and 25% came from out of the state. It was estimated the economic impact in 2013 was around $13.5 million from people that came into the county and city because of the festival. Mr. Warner noted that former First Lady Laura Bush would be the keynote speaker at the Patriotic Service to be held on Sunday, June 29, Mr. Warner thanked the City for their support. Public Comment Melanie McCoard, Provo, stated the Monday lunch meetings with council members had been very successful; however, they were not getting the audience they should have. This was an opportunity for citizens to meet one-on-one with council members and they were not taking advantage of it. She indicated that Mike Roan had suggested that council members schedule neighborhood meetings in local schools and publicize them so that more people would come. The Council could use these meetings to put specific issues on the table that affected those areas. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 2 of 8

11 DRAFT Awaiting Approval Mr. Sewell commented that he had received an from Mike Roan making that suggested and the Council would give the idea some consideration. Dave Knecht, Provost South, agreed with the idea of neighborhood meetings and also getting more information available on-line. He mentioned the current contest sponsored by Outdoor Magazine that had Provo City as one of the eight finalists for best town in America. He encouraged everyone to not only vote but to make comments and post pictures on the website. He felt that Provo City was the best overall community and this gave us the opportunity to promote Provo in a positive way and possibly bring businesses into Provo. Eric Watkins, Provo, spoke about parking issues. There was traffic problems all over the City and bus rapid transit (BRT) was not the problem but would be part of the solution. He stressed the importance of Provo City s partners in the BRT project and including them in the discussions. We need to remember that we caused some of the problems around BYU so we need to have an equal share in fixing them. That would include working on a parking study for the area. Jason Christensen, Provo, said that nearly 250 years ago Thomas Paine wrote a letter about summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots that were leaving the Revolutionary War because things were too hard. He complemented the four council members that voted no on the BRT issue in order to protect property rights. He advised them to continue to be patriots, protect property rights, and be fiscally responsible. Zachary Harman, Provo, asked what the Telecom Debt Fund was and wanted to know how to obtain more information. Mayor Curtis asked Mr. Harman to send him an and he would get him all the information he would like. Steve Wycant, Provo, was interested in the budget presentation by the Council s advisory board. He tried watching on YouTube and could see the presentations but could not hear the discussion. He asked the Council to make the presentation available to the public. Mr. Wycant also thanked the Council for including stronger language in the proposed BRT resolution concerning the mitigation efforts. Randy Rhineer, Provo, agreed with Mr. Wycants comments about stronger language in the proposed BRT resolution. He asked that residents on 900 East be involved in the mitigation efforts because it impacted them in a profound way. Specifically, ingress and egress to their property and bike paths versus bike lanes (on both sides of 900 East). Sue Cox, St. George resident, stated she owned three properties on 900 East that would be affected by the proposed BRT route. She asked that the citizens voices be heard, especially those with property on 900 East. As they worked on the 900 East design they needed to consider safety first and foremost. She asked that a buffer or green zone be created, ingress and egress into properties be considered, and building bike paths instead of bike lanes along 900 East. She reiterated the importance of working together to make sure that property owners were involved in the decisions. There were no more public comments. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 3 of 8

12 DRAFT Awaiting Approval Mayor's Items and Reports 3. Joint Resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council supporting bus rapid transit for the cities of Provo and Orem and superseding Municipal Council Resolution (14-006) Mayor Curtis reported that a copy of the proposed resolution had been posted on line several days ago for citizens to review. There had been a few minor changes made to that resolution for presentation that night for council approval. No small amount of effort had gone into creating a resolution that encompassed the desires of the Administration and the Council. For the past couple of weeks they tried to create a resolution that would be a compilation of all the concerns and, hopefully, touched on everything that was important. He noted that some words had been analyzed for hours. The proposed resolution signaled a transition from a debate about where BRT would be in the City to a coordinated effort to make this the absolutely best project it could be. They would be working with UTA and the other partners to find solutions while working within the confines of the $150 million project budget. In addition, the City would be very aggressive in looking for resources to solve problems outside the scope of BRT such as safety and other concerns already inherent with the roads. He expressed appreciation to the council members and public and stated that everyone in the dialog just wanted what was best for Provo. He recommended approval of the resolution presented to the Council that night. Mr. Winterton expressed gratitude for the patience of the residents and partners in BRT. The route on south University Avenue was more concrete so UTA had been able to start design work in that area and hoped the work would begin soon on 900 East. Mr. Garrett was interested to know if our partners at UTA had received the updated copy of the proposed resolution and if they supported it. Mayor Curtis responded that there had been a few changes made that day and UTA had just received the amended resolution. Hopefully they could move forward with our intent to make this a great project. Mr. Sewell expressed appreciation to the Council, Mayor Curtis, the residents and the neighborhoods for their work on the proposal. He especially wanted to thank Kim Santiago for her prodigious efforts along with Melissa Kendall and others with a difference of opinion that had contributed to the conversation. He felt they all had the same goal in mind to make this the best project possible. He also thanked UTA, MAG, UDOT, and anyone else involved. Ms. Santiago wanted to thank her colleagues on the Council. She felt lucky to be able to interact with them, get their advice, and come to a resolution through a difficult issue in order to do what was best for the community. She was grateful for Melissa Kendall and her efforts in holding neighborhood meetings and getting the word out. All the residents were well-versed because of those efforts. Ms. Santiago acknowledged Leo Lines and Bill Graff from the Joaquin Neighborhood, and Paul Evans from the Pleasant View Neighborhood. She was able to talk about BRT issues with them, address concerns for their areas, and discuss how they could soften the impacts. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 4 of 8

13 DRAFT Awaiting Approval Ms. Santiago thanked Mayor Curtis for taking her questions and working with her to negotiate and resolve things. She expressed appreciation for Hales Engineering, Civil Science, and Metro Analytics for their work and the questions they answered through their study. Also the UTA, MAG, Walkner Group that had been able to educate the Council about what BRT actually was. She was grateful to move forward with this issue and appreciated the efforts that had gone into getting a resolution that they could all feel good about. Chair Miller called for a motion on the proposed resolution. Motion: Roll Call Vote: Council Member Gary Garrett moved to approve Joint Resolution that had been prepared by the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council supporting the 2013 locally preferred alternative, commonly known as Route 4, as the bus rapid transit alignment that best meets the needs of Provo and Orem cities. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. The motion passed 8:0 with Council Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Sewell, Van Buren, Winterton, and Mayor Curtis in favor. Chair Miller strongly suggested that the Council and Administration gather as much material as they could concerning the BRT discussions to serve as a reference for the stakeholder groups that had been convened jointly by the Mayor s Office and UTA. 4. Resolution supporting the Provo Sustainability and atural Resources Committee. (14-044) Mayor Curtis reported that four (4) years ago a Sustainability Committee was created during the Vision 2030 process. They were given the assignment to develop the language for the sustainability portion of the Vision 2030 plan. After that work was completed they continued to meet and, under the direction of Chair Don Jarvis, embraced a scope far beyond the creation of the Vision 2030 document. Mayor Curtis stated the committee was organic in nature and by formalizing the committee it would run the risk of damaging that organic nature. Mayor Curtis proposed a resolution be approved expressing appreciation and support for that committee and the great work they had done. Mr. Sewell said the group was very passionate about their work and felt the Council needed to be more involved in the issues because they were crucial, long-term issues the City would have to deal with. He expressed two concerns with the language of the resolution expressing support and commitment to the committee. First, although the resolution stated there would be interaction between the Council and the committee it was not very specific about how that interaction would occur. Second, the resolution authorized the Mayor to take administrative actions as necessary to support the committee in its efforts and he was not sure what that meant. He did not know if it had any practical effect. Brian Jones, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the committee was not codified by ordinance or resolution. It was put together and reported to the Mayor as part of an administrative function. The joint resolution was a way for the Mayor and Council to express support for what the committee was doing but that support could be rescinded at a later date if the Council desired. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 5 of 8

14 DRAFT Awaiting Approval The resolution did not authorize the Mayor to take any action that he was not already authorized to take. Mr. Sewell responded that he was hoping for something a little more specific, such as a creating a council committee or sub-committee. He supported the concept of the Council being more involved but he would prefer the item be continued to put a little more meat in the resolution. Chair Miller stated it was likely the resolution would not change anything; the committee would continue to consult with the Administration and Council. He suggested approving the joint resolution as a statement of a spirit of endorsement. At a later date they could make a specific proposal for meetings and to address other concerns Mr. Sewell had. Mr. Jones commented that the ambiguity in the resolution was intentional because it was not subject to state statutes regarding the open meetings act and public notices. Although the Council had not stated their intent to formalize the board there was nothing that prevented them from forming their own committee. Mayor Curtis agreed saying the Sustainability Committee, like the Bicycle Committee, were productive because they did not have to give notice for their meetings and did not require city staff attend the meetings. The committee was highly productive and was flourishing and this was just a way to say thank you. Mr. Sewell said if they wanted to keep the committee informal a resolution of appreciation would be more effective than a resolution of support. It looked like they were transferring authority to them when it was not their intent. He had stopped attending the meetings because, more than half the time, they did not discuss policy issues. He would like to see the committee chair more directly involved with the Council on policy issues. Mr. Winterton saw a positive effect from the committee. He felt that by giving them support the Council was implying things for the future such as financial possibilities. He felt they were giving them permission to go forward, broaden their scope, and look at things that would affect policy. Chair Miller noted that Ryan Harvey, Council Policy Analyst, was involved with the committee and suggested he keep Mr. Sewell and other council members up to date with suggestions from the committee. Motion: Council Member Gary Garrett moved to approve Resolution supporting the Provo Sustainability and Natural Resources Committee. The motion was seconded by Council Member Stephen Hales. Roll Call Vote: The motion passed 6:1 with Council Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor and Council Member Sewell opposed. 5. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, in the amount of $195,203,754 and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Sections Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 6 of 8

15 and of the City Code. (14-035) DRAFT Awaiting Approval Matt Taylor, Municipal Council Executive Director, presented. The Council held a budget discussion during work session earlier in the day led by their budget committee. The Council staff would be preparing for a budget retreat next Tuesday to address Council concerns and suggestions. This would be the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. The final public hearing would be held on Tuesday, June 17, At that point, the budget would be approved or the Council could request a Truth-in-Taxation hearing. Chair Miller observed that the Council had been treated to a series of presentations by members of the Finance Department. There had been a continued and substantial effort to share the budget in a citizen friendly way. He commended the Finance Department and the Administration for their efforts. Chair Miller invited public comment. Melanie McCoard, Provo, thanked the Council for creating a budget committee. Their presentation was very impressive. She asked for a link to Dr. Walter s presentation so that she could post it for people that were not there. She asked for the details of the budget retreat that would be held next week. Ms. McCoard stated that policy making began with money allocated and she applauded the Council for their courage and dedication. There were no more public comments. Ms. Santiago felt they should have a discussion about the Council intent statements because they needed to be updated. A budget was the most important tool for getting things done. Their goals needed to be very clearly stated within the intent statements. Moving forward she asked that they create new goals and clearly state them in the intent statements. Adjourn Council Meeting Motion: Roll Call Vote: Council Member Stephen Hales moved to adjourn as the Municipal Council and convene as the Storm Water Special Service District at 6:59 p.m. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gary Garrett. The motion passed 7:0 with Council Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Sewell, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Provo City Storm Water Special Service District 6. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $3,245,630 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, (14-038) Mr. Taylor stated the proposed budget would be discussed at the budget retreat and the final public hearing would be held on Tuesday, June 17, Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 7 of 8

16 DRAFT Awaiting Approval There was no response to the request for public comment. Adjourn Storm Water Special Service District Motion: Roll Call Vote: Council Member Kim Santiago moved to adjourn as the Storm Water Special Service District and convene as the Redevelopment Agency Board at 7:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren. The motion passed 7:0 with Council Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Sewell, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Redevelopment Agency of Provo 7. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015 in the amount of $4,574,246. (14-034) Paul Glauser, Redevelopment Agency Director, presented. Mr. Glauser said they had spent the past several months reviewing the federal grant portion of this budget with the Council. The final public hearing would be held on Tuesday, June 17, Mayor Curtis noted that Mr. Glauser would be leaving the city and wanted to take the opportunity to thank him for all his work with the Redevelopment Agency. He had been an important part of many of the advancements in the City. There was no response to the request for public comment. Adjourn Motion: Roll Call Vote: Board Member Harold L. Miller, Jr. moved to Adjourn the meeting at 7:03 p.m. The motion was seconded by Board Member Gary Winterton. The motion passed 7:0 with Board Members Garrett, Hales, Miller, Santiago, Sewell, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Municipal Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Draft Page 8 of 8

17