What is in the best interest of the community?

That is the standard that I use when making any decision as a member of the City Council. Of course, the answer is not always apparent (law of unintended consequences, anyone?), and different people have different opinions as to what is the right answer, but before I vote or choose where to put my effort, this is the question I try to answer.

There has been some recent frustration bubbling up with Council members unwillingness to consider changes to City ordinance which would allow a microbrewery to sell alcoholic beverages in the City, or even to engage much in a discussion about it. In one comment, someone wondered why Councilmembers wouldn’t just do what’s best for the community. So I wanted to respond a little bit about what goes into my decision process about what is in the best interest of Provo. But before we do, let me address a couple other thoughts that have been expressed along with this frustration.

The Public Has Spoken!

I am grateful to the administrators and members of Provo Forward, Our Provo, and the new New Provo Developments. They have been a valuable resource to me before I joined the Council and continue to be now that I’m on the Council. As much as I enjoy frequenting them to hear the opinions and ideas of others and sharing a few of my own, it is a mistake to think that members of these groups are samples representative of the residents of Provo. Even if one of these groups (or the people who speak up in the groups) come to a consensus, that does not mean that it is the consensus, or even majority view, of the residents (or voters) in Provo.

But the Poll Proves It!

Speaking of gauging the majority view, I’m sure everyone here recognizes that the wording of a survey question will affect the outcome. If you word a survey question like, “Are you open-minded enough to want a brewery in the City, or are you a religious bigot wanting for force your morals onto everyone else?” I hope you wouldn’t interpret the lack of negative responses to mean that everyone in the City is for it. Before you point out that none of the poll questions in the groups were framed that way, consider that the hostile environment can be set before the poll question is asked. These groups, at times, have been quite hostile to differing opinions. It can be intimidating (and painful) to speak up when the rest of the posting members are aggressively promoting the opposite view. Note that before and while these polls were active, posts and comments were made similar to the fictitious poll question I wrote above. In the last “New Provo Developments” brewery poll, members were asked if Councilors should discuss the proposal. 46 votes were in favor, and 5 were against. This is out of 27,000 or so group members. Provo, by the way, has roughly 116,000 residents.

Moral Legislation!

Speaking of politicians forcing their morals on the public...I grew up in SLC, so I’m familiar with the arc of some of the political issues that happenings there over the past 25 years. It has surprised me how many issues now facing Provo have parallels with what happened in Salt Lake over the past few decades (take Trax and BRT, for example). For years Salt Lake had more lax laws regarding smoking on public property than many comparable cities around the Country. Anytime proposals were made to restrict smoking on the city or state level, howls would go up about government officials forcing their morals on others. It finally took an ex-Mormon and smoker by the name of Rocky Andersen to push through smoking prohibitions in public parks. No one could question his motives. It went from a moral issue to a public health issue.

So let’s get to some considerations when determining what’s in the best interest of the community.

Everyone Else is Doing It!

That is not an argument that I put much weight behind. Provo is a special place. We have a pretty good thing going. We are listed high on many national measures for quality of life. So I’m not too anxious to be like everyone else. That’s not to say that we can’t look to other places and learn from the things that they have tried. But on its own, “other people are doing it” doesn’t sway me much when weighing out what's in the best interest of the community.

I Don’t Understand It, So Change It!

When we don’t understand something, it is human nature to assume that it has no reason. “Well that’s a silly law, the people who put that into place must not have been thinking.” I try to approach existing laws with enough humility to assume that even if I don’t understand the reasoning, the people who enacted the law thought carefully about it and had a good reason. This is not to say that mistakes weren’t made in the past or that as the community and circumstances change we shouldn’t update our laws. But it does mean that it is incumbent on me to study and try to understand the intent of the law before I go about changing it willy-nilly. This can take a lot of time and effort. Which gets to the heart of the matter.

Just Do It Already!

Not only do I consider the community’s best interest when voting, but I also have to make this calculation when deciding where to put my effort and spend my time. Even if something, by itself, is in the best interest of the community, it may not be in our best interest to pursue if it displaces something of greater importance. You all know this already, it’s called opportunity costs, but it is easy to lose sight of.

Some people are passionate about allowing a brewery in Provo. For some, it feels like the most important thing. Others are very concerned about BRT. They may feel that it is the most urgent issue. Some are exasperated that I’m not jumping at the chance to wade through the fine print of contracts and GRAMAed email of other officials. For others, BRT isn’t even an afterthought and what they care about is how West Provo is or isn’t going to develop. For others, the Council’s position on rooftop solar is the only issue that matters to them. Some people are leaving Provo because of the impacts of zoning non-compliance (mostly over occupancy) on things like parking and noise. They can’t understand why the City can’t resolve the issue and enforce the law. Others are on the opposite side, wondering why the heavy hand of the government is persecuting people for living the way they want. I hear from people all the time who are passionate about issues. Many of them are frustrated when they don’t get the response from Councilors that they think their issue deserves.

When I first took office about a year ago, I had so many great ideas for tweaks to make the City a better place. By attending meetings and talking with City employees and residents, I ran my “to do” list up to 72, before I stopped adding. You can imagine my disappointment when the Council chose to select only 9 issues as priorities. Nine should be easy to accomplish, right? I was told that we could add more as we check some of them off the list. Guess how many we added? None. Take a look at the priorities that we set last year. Now, not everything that we accomplished last year was on this list, and we made a lot of progress on some of these issues, but consider how much work there is to do. I don't consider even one of these priorities as "checked off". My point is that there are so many important things to be done in the City, more than can be accomplished. We have to prioritize where we put our time. We have to chose which issues to engage in. Some of the more active members of the Council are already putting in 20-25 hours a week. Some of us are also trying to hold down full-time jobs. We are looking for ways to be more efficient and more effective. I often question if I’m putting my time where it matters most. These are difficult questions. I have made this blog a priority, I think communication and transparency are critical, but I sometimes wonder if the blog is worth the time investment. Could I have tackled another issue or two last year if I didn’t preview each meeting and file a meeting report afterward? There are many things that I regret not getting around to as a Council member, many ideas never floated, emails marked for responses that never happen, meetings not attended. At times I think that being on the City Council of Provo should be a full time job. But that would prevent many people, including myself, from serving.

Back to the Brewery!

Alright, with that background information, let’s consider the brewery request. If I remember what I was told, the brewery can operate in Provo -- they can brew beverages-- but they can’t sell their brews here. I do not know the details of why not. We obviously have bars in Provo, we have a state liquor store, and some types of alcohol are sold in grocery stores. And other places, including in Utah County, allow for brewpubs. Again, I’m not clear what prevents this in Provo. I have been asked if I would sponsor the item to be on a Work Meeting agenda. I ask myself, is it in the best interest of the community to sponsor this item? Is it in the best interest of the community for me to spend time on this? Is this going to improve the quality of life here? What’s the likelihood of it passing? What are the potential Pros? More vibrant downtown? Improved convention center draw? A business that some residents want? What are the potential Cons? Abuse of alcohol is the costliest of any drug in the US, with costs to the economy estimated at 2.5% of our GDP ( Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ, February 2001). Would this change to our code make any difference in the public health in Provo? Should I spend my time trying to learn more? What issue that I’m currently working on should it displace? How does it compare with say improving zoning compliance? Visioning for the Future? Plans for West Side Development? What impact would it have on the time and efforts of others? Other Councilors? City staff? Community Development generally works on the ordinance language for items like this. What else are they working on? The plan was to write a Neighborhood Master Plan for each of our 34 neighborhoods, it seems like we wanted to be a third or so done by now. We have completed three. We just approved a text amendment drafted by Community Development that will allow “The Mix at the Rivers Edge” to add the residential component of their project to the old zone that governs the current Plumtree Plaza. Community Development said that they would have preferred to propose a new Mixed Use zone, but instead just made modifications to the current SC3 zone, because of time constraints and their workload. I feel the City needs a Mixed Use zone, I asked them to try to work the creation of such into their priorities. Should work on the proposed brewery text amendment be a higher priority than the creation of the SC3 zone?

All this and much more have gone through my mind in just trying to decide if I want to take a closer look. After a rough appraisal of all of these questions, I decided that it is not in the best interest of the community for me to spend my time looking further into whether or not the Council should schedule a Work Meeting discussion on this item. I do not know enough to decide whether allowing brewpubs would have a net positive or net negative effect on our community. I have decided that there are more important things for me to work on. Speaking of which, I’ll now see if I can finish up the report for the 17 January meetings, and work on the proposed policies for Westside development for the subcommittee that I chair. If anyone is interested in that issue (which was the number 2 response of another Facebook group poll) check out our work here.

I wonder how many people made it this far. I realize the irony of writing such an essay about prioritizing the use of time spent serving the City. But hopefully you can see how a simple, "I have other priorities to work on" wouldn't tell the whole story.

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.

Property Taxes and Effective Communication

I appreciate clear, concise writing. Likely because it is so hard for me to achieve. I was impressed by a paragraph in Braley Dodson's Daily Herald article this week reporting on the School District's vote to increase property taxes. I use far more words than Braley when I explain to residents why the City Council has to "raise" taxes, just to keep tax rates level. Here is Braley's description, followed by an interactive graphic that I created. Which one do you think is more effective?

"While assessed values of homes have increased locally, the amount of money the school district receives from property taxes has remained the same, meaning the tax rate has decreased. In that time, there has been inflation without any matching increases from taxpayers."

West Side Grocery

I received an e-mailed question about what it would take to get  grocery store on the West Side. Here is the question, along with my response:

Thank you Dave for the heads up on what's going on in my neighborhood. I was wondering what is it going to take to get a grocery store on the west side of the freeway? Is council even considering this after all the requests for it?

Great questions. Here is what it would take:

Option 1: Provo City creates a Department of Grocery Stores and gets into the grocery store business, buying the property, building the store, and the running the operation. Some in the community might not think it is the proper role of the City to run a grocery store. 

Option 2: Provo City signals a desire to attract a grocery store, and publicizes an ever increasing package of incentives until a group takes us up on the offer. If grocery store operators felt that they could successfully run a store in Provo, west of the freeway, they would already be there. Depending on the perceived profitability gap, the incentive package might have to be large. Some in the community might not think that offering huge incentive packages is sound fiscal policy for the City. 

Option 3: Provo City engages with the citizens to plan for a healthy, sustainable, vibrant community west of the freeway, allowing for enough people to reside in the area to make the operation of a grocery store an attractive opportunity for grocery store operators. It takes more time, but it builds the foundation for the area to thrive in the long term. The difficult part of this is helping residents think about what kind of community they want to live in, and what choices to make now to make that a reality. Not everyone shares the same vision of what the area should be. Sometimes we don't consider the longer-term consequences of our choices. If we choose to zone the area for half- and quarter-acre lots, there is a real possibility that no grocery store will ever choose to locate in Provo, west of the freeway. 

If a grocery store could appear on the Westside with a snap of the Council's figures, we would have already snapped years and years ago. I don't believe there is a Councilor who wouldn't love to see a grocery store there. I am very interested in the planning that is underway right now for the area. I am hopeful that we will make wise decisions about the future which will provide a great quality of life for all residents of our great city. 

Thanks,
Dave

BRT Questions, Answers, and Discussion

I'd like to wrap up this round of the BRT saga. Much of my time over the past month has been spent communicating with residents about the project. Though much of the communication has been with people who disagree with my vote, it has generally been a positive experience, cultivating understanding on both sides. There were a few exceptions, like a new friend who called me a coward, thief, and either corrupt or ignorant, but overall it has also been one of the more rewarding experiences of being on the Council.

I want to share some snippets of conversations I've been having by email. There is no real order to the excerpts, I just skimmed through my inbox and grabbed parts that I thought might be interesting. I'm not using names, as I have not asked permission. I've taken the liberty to fix some of my grammar and edit for length. My words are in blue.

• I wonder why we aren't putting in a train. I understand the costs. Let's put in a more safer, stable and more permanent system.
• I am all for a train. There is a night-and-day difference between riding a regular bus and a lightrail train. The point of BRT is to try to take all of the aspects that make lightrail so appealing, and repackage them into a form that is much less expensive. BRT should feel much more like lightrail than a regular bus...UTA has indicated that they will change this system over to lightrail when there is sufficient population and demand. They note that by putting in dedicated lanes now, the corridor is preserved for rails in the future. As much as I would love to have lightrail now, I think BRT is the right intermediate step.
• I guess the real issue for me is the vision of Provo's future. Will it remain a cute, friendly college town with strong LDS values or will it turn into another SLC.  I really don't want to see it turn into another SLC.
• It's a bit cliche, but the most constant thing in Provo's history is change. Provo now is different than it was at the 20 years ago, which was different than the way it was 20 years before that, and so on. It has always been the heart of the County, and less rural than its satellite communities. It has remained the center through steady growth and development. Even its LDS-ness has shifted over time. In the early decades, Provo was a distance away, both physically and culturally, from the center of Zion. Church leaders in Salt Lake often chastised us for lax observance, including the slow efforts to build the tabernacle. In many ways, the cultures of the two cities have swapped.I love the culture and the uniqueness of our city, I think it is part of what makes us great. Growth and progress have brought us to this point. I think we would destroy what we have if we tried to freeze our community in place. I feel that we instead need to carefully plan how we can maintain our great quality of life even while we grow.Growth will come. Success attracts people. And much of our growth will be from our own children. Even if we could freeze our population size, we would have to give up our role as the business, education, cultural, entertainment, commercial, and government center of the County in order to shield ourselves from the impact of the large County growth.If we are going to double the number of people traveling on our roads, we can't just double the width of our roads. Traffic and congestion is coming, unless we can provide commuters with convenient alternatives. Some of our residents may never ride on a BRT bus, but they will benefit from the service by having roads that are less congested.
• Please help keep us free.  I am grateful you are so open, I really am.  Every new regulation, every new program, every new public benefit is one degree less freedom we all are left with.  The government who has the power to give us everything also has the power to take everything we have from us. As [redacted] said, 'freedom is the fuel which government consumes'.  (This quote was attributed to a locally-elected State official.)
• One of the freedoms that I relish in America is the freedom of self-governance. The concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is truer in local government than any other level. There is always tension and a tug-of-war between different levels of government, but we, as a community, enjoy a fairly broad ability to chose what kind of community we want to be and what we want to become. We have the ability to chose if we want to run our own electric utility, we can chose how we want to set up our transportation infrastructure, we can chose, to some degree, how we want to run our school system. At its best, government is the vehicle by which we exercise this freedom.
• I do have one question; who pays to remove BRT stops should BRT fail?  
• The lease agreement that we are considering spells out UTA's responsibility to pay for the removal of any infrastructure they put in if it is no longer used.
• UTA proposed, in one of their presentations, that folks would ride BRT to the Orem mall, go shopping, and return by bus.  Personally, I want them to shop in Provo…but who goes school shopping for a family of six or seven on the bus when they have a family car?
• I don't think that school-shopping families of six are the intended customers for BRT. They are welcome, but are not who this line is being built for, in my opinion. The #1 intended customer is the commuter. Imagine someone who lives in Provo and works some place north of here. BRT may give them quick access to FrontRunner. Or imagine the reverse. Some one lives north of Provo and has a daily commute into our Downtown, or to BYU, or to the Novell campus. BRT may make it much more convenient for them to take FrontRunner, because it solves the problem of how to get to where they are going once they get off the train. Imagine the impact to our congestion and our air quality if a significant number of people leave their cars at home, or at a FrontRunner station far from Provo. Imagine the financial impact to some families who will be enabled to get by with just one car, because of the option to commute using transit. I believe the second intended customer is the university student. Many BYU and UVU students feel the need to bring a car with them to college. Recent and coming changes will convince more of them that a car is an expensive luxury that they can do without. The new BYU shuttle is helping some students leave their cars at their apartments, but they still need their cars when they are going places other than campus. BRT will make two malls and our wonderful Downtown easily accessible without driving. I'm sure that BRT will be used by some other people, and will help with game-day traffic, but it is not intended to be the be-all, end-all solution to everyone's transportation needs. Even people who will never ride it will benefit from BRT because of the reduction in congestion and the improvement in our air quality that it will bring.
• I don't think the city should be involved in using public funds to create or enhance a public transit system. If we are to have public transit, it should be run like a business. The company could contract with the city to get permission to use roads, perhaps, or build bus stops, but the funding should come from the company, not from the city. If public transit is going to be so good and so profitable, why couldn't a private investor put down capital and get a business loan like everyone else?
• I'm curious why you think transit should be privately run, but roads should be publicly run ("focus funds on fixing roads"). We could sell our roads to the highest bidder and have them pay for the repairs and upkeep and then charge drivers whatever the market demands for usage.
• You also bring up an interesting point regarding the government's role in public transportation vs. public roads. I had to think about that one for a bit. I guess my short answer is that if I felt there was a feasible way to privatize road building and maintenance, I would be in favor of that as well. The reason I don't think it is feasible is primarily due to ownership of land. It would be nearly impossible for a private company to coordinate the purchase and use of so many rights of way. The actual construction and maintenance can obviously be contracted out to the lowest private builder, but the ownership and control of roads is one of the few things that I think is better handled by government. It is also important to note that EVERYONE uses the roads. Everyone pays taxes and everyone benefits. 
  Public transportation is markedly different. First, there are no substantive issues with land. Any minor use by a transit service (for signs and bus stops) is on land that has already been set aside by the government. Second, the demand for public transportation is very low. It is not something for which tax dollars seem appropriate, especially when it would not be hard for a private company to offer an efficient transportation service (e.g., taxis, shuttles, etc.).
  I believe that anything that can be done privately should be done privately. The more government can deregulate and get out of the way, the better. In all of these things, we need more people like you who are willing to present the issues and engage in discourse with your constituents. Thank you for your time.
• Before serving on the Council, I spent a couple of years on the City's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, and studied and thought a lot about transportation policy. You say that "EVERYONE uses the roads" to which I agree, but I would frame it as "everyone has transportation and mobility needs". The people, at least partly through their government, set up transportation systems. Back in settlement times, roads were mostly for pedestrians, but other modes of transportation were also welcome, including horses, carts, and wagons. For a time we had a "Provo Street Railroad" (http://utahrails.net/streetcars/provo-street.php). Right now our transportation system is designed mostly around private automobiles. Other cities rely of public transit to varying degrees. Every system has consequences, both good and bad. Because of our unique geography, our automobile usage has a greater impact on air quality than most places. Building up our transit infrastructure will broaden our transportation options and will diversify our system. Even people who will never ride transit will "use" and benefit from the system, just as someone who doesn't own a car, or even is home-bound, still uses and benefits from our current system. I'm not necessarily arguing for the BRT project here, just that there is a public need for transportation, and that it is wise for community leaders to thoughtfully plan for a transportation system that best meets the needs of the people.
• I'm sure you know, but the UTA has already been much in the news in recent years for their baffling, corrupt, and unethical actions. This is my no means intended to be an attack on ALL of UTA; I'm quite certain that many of them are honest, caring people trying hard to solve real problems. However, as the old proverb warns us, "the fish rots from the head down;" I am very concerned about giving more of our tax money to an organization of which the Office of the Legislative Auditor General so recently warned us is estimated to be approaching a shortfall $1.2 billion against their projections from 2007. Rail maintenance continues to be dangerously underfunded, there are still significant, unanswered questions about the UTA's Farebox Policy, and so on.
• Finally, I think the willingness of UTA to enter into this unprecedented project governance model where they cede their control, is yet another indication that the agency has been sufficiently chastened and is reforming in earnest. Agency culture does not change over night, but I am seeing encouraging signs. Of course, much is in the eyes of the beholder. When the fall out from the Switzerland trip hit the news a few months back, some saw it as a sign of continued corruption at UTA. I saw it as a sign that it is no longer business-as-usual at UTA, that board members didn't follow strict, newly-created policies, and they were swiftly shown the door. I do have confidence in H. David Burton, and look forward to the continued improvement at UTA and the eventual restoration of public trust. 
• "Listen to the people whom you are sworn to represent, please." "The majority of your tax-paying constituents are opposed to BRT.  Please listen to the people you were chosen to represent." "It seems like common sense to me to see that this is not something the people in this town want, or even need."
• Excerpts from "Results of the 2014 Provo Registered Voter Poll 5 June 2014"
  Quin Monson
  The Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy Brigham Young University
  
  "Bus Rapid Transit Provo City’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal has proven to be a controversial issue. However, the 2014 survey confirms that voters in Provo overwhelmingly support BRT, with nearly 79% of respondents indicating that they either somewhat (38%) or strongly (41%) favor BRT.
  
  "Favorability Analysis: Statistical analysis demonstrated that the area of the city in which a respondent lived does not play a significant part in the level of support of BRT, with the notable exception of those neighborhoods directly east of Brigham Young University. Among respondents in precincts 11 and 36, often referred to as the “Tree Streets,” support of BRT was significantly lower, though still above 64% overall. The key difference between this neighborhood and the rest of Provo is the significantly higher rate of “Strong” opposition to BRT, indicating that a minority of residents have intense feelings on the issue, while the neighborhood, taken as a whole, remains supportive of BRT. Our survey questions did not address specific routes for BRT, although these results are likely due to the proposed route on 9th East, to which many residents in this area have voiced opposition."