In Provo, not only were new council members sworn in but new municipal council leadership was selected, too.

Provo city swore in Gary Winterton in District 1, Hal Miller in District 3 and Kay VanBuren in District 4. Laura Cabanilla, the sole woman on the council, was elected chairwoman, with Winterton as vice chair. Councilman Sterling Beck was elected Redevelopment Agency chairman, with VanBuren as vice chair.
Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/north/american-fork/cities-swear-in-new-councilmembers/article_9a7f2427-109f-52f0-b0c8-4bfa6181fdcc.html#ixzz1j5kc7Zkr

What do Pasadena, Calif., and Provo have in common? Besides both having a nationally recognized parade, Provo’s community development department is suggesting city leaders look at Pasadena as a prototype for city planning and have introduced new multi-family zoning and design standards as a step in that direction.

Councilman Sterling Beck agreed and added he would like to see design options that offer indoor bicycle parking similar to what New York City has implemented as a way to encourage bike use.

Mayor John Curtis said, “This is all part of the 2030 visioning and city planning.”

The Daily Herald has the rest of the article on the proposed zoning changes here.

The event took place at council chambers in Downtown Provo with candidates Hal Miller, Glen Thurston, Richard Wood, and James Kallbacka participating. City wide candidate Yancee Hardy as well as North Provo candidate Gary Winterton and West Provo candidate Howard Stone were also in attendance.

Each candidate had the opportunity to provide a short bio and then respond to questions submitted. Information on the candidate’s biographical background can be found here.

Here’s a quick summary of the questions asked and responses given. Please note that each candidate took a minute to answer and also had time for a short rebuttal and that this has been trimmed as best possible in order to briefly summarize the candidates response:

Name one law you’d strengthen, repeal, or amend and why?

Hal Miller: Make it easier to amend a bad process even if someone comes in late during that process.
Glen Thurston: None.
Richard Wood: People should have had a say on iProvo, will change it so an expense like that cannot happen again without people’s approval.
James Kallbacka: Indicated he’d like to see same thing as Richard in that major expenses should have citizen approval.

If elected, will you keep or amend the restrictions on unrelated number of occupants permitted in a home regardless of size.

Hal Miller: Willing to revisit issue, but not sure he’d amend. Complicated issue.
Glen Thurston: Not sure three occupants is fair, thinks it should be done on a neighborhood basis, laws should reflect what neighbors wants occupancy to be.
Richard Wood: Believes that property owners have certain unalienable rights. Instinct is to favor those rights.
James Kallbacka: Difficult issue, should be looked at as a variance on a case by case basis but otherwise keep it.

What can be done to pay off iProvo debt? Please focus on solutions you’d support.

Hal Miller: Appoint expert panel of volunteers to explore other non-commercial uses for iProvo infrastructure.
Glen Thurston: Likes all ideas stated, leans towards charging those that use it. May have to just charge everyone $6 on their utility bill if that’s all that is viable.
Richard Wood: Liked Kallbacka’s idea. Believes we should sell iProvo, even if at a large discount.
James Kallbacka: Hindsight is 20/20. Should sell off some surplus properties to reduce debt.

Do you think there is a need for street parking permit programs?

Hal Miller: Believes there may be a need, and it can be necessary at times.
Glen Thurston: Neighborhood by neighborhood basis to decide who has it. Obviously have to have some sort of a program.
Richard Wood: May need to create new parking areas, but one shoe does not fit all.
James Kallbacka: Agrees with Mr.Wood. Let neighborhoods decide.

Would you add recycling cans to our parks and city facilities?

Hal Miller: There is a civic value apart from economic aspect. Believes that parks and public facilities should provide recycling options.
Glen Thurston: If it”s not making the city money, then no. Should look at other solutions. Believes opt-out is unethical.
Richard Wood: Could be profitable. Not for taking away from private business. Supposes government does have responsibility to provide a recycling option in city facilities.
James Kallbacka: It’s a good idea, but we do not have the facilities to recycle locally. Shipping costs more than actual recycled savings. Not time for recycling.

Should city resources be used to compete with private industry? For example, the iProvo investment, Rec Center, or the recent decision to allow Neighborworks to rent and compete with the private market using out city funds.

Hal Miller: Uniquely, the community had the option to actually vote on Rec Center. Additionally has an escape option unlike iProvo. Neighborworks is different because they use federal funds to help low income.
Glen Thurston: Two sides to this issue, solution may be slow in coming. Not sure which we should do, but should probably change the rental situation.
Richard Wood: Is against competing with private enterprise. Lets get out of the rental market asap.
James Kallbacka: Believes city should never compete with private enterprise. It’s unfair on the private market, because government does not need to make a profit.

Many do not know about the South State Street project to beautify and widen South State street. (question from audience)

Hal Miller: If state and city are working together, this is likely something that’s been well planned. Supports having an appelate option for citizens on decisions that span many years.
Glen Thurston: Study both sides. No position, but wants to listen to voice of people.
Richard Wood: Should treat property owners fairly, eminent domain is concerning.
James Kallbacka: Does not know enough about it.

How should mayor and council work together in this city? (question from audience)

Hal Miller: Council should be flexible.
Glen Thurston: Compromise is necessary.
Richard Wood: Never a reason to be discourteous. Need to get along with mayor.
James Kallbacka: Controversy brings about ideas.

Those running include Hal Miller, James Kallbacka, Glen Thurston, Richard Wood, Jim Pettersson, Howard Stone, Kay Van Buren and Lindsay Wiblin.

Locations for where to vote in the primary depend on which precinct you live in.

Click here for an interactive map to find your polling place.

Precincts, Polling Location, Address

05, 09 Provo Peaks Elementary (Farrer) 100 N. 600 E.

02, 17 Utah County Health & Justice Building 151 S. University Avenue

03, 45 Spring Creek Elementary 1740 S. Nevada Avenue

10, 38, 46 Eldred Center 270 W. 500 N. 12 Wasatch Elementary 1080 N. 900 E.

13, 23, 27 Freedom Academy 1190 W. 900 N.

18, 19, 35 Amelia Earhart Elementary 2585 W. 200 S.

20, 24 Lakeview Elementary 2899 W. 1390 N.

25, 31 Westridge Elementary 1720 W. 1460 N.

28 Larry H. Miller Dodge 1825 N. University Pkwy

47 Provost Elementary 629 S. 1000 E.

During tonight’s meet the candidates meeting there was a fairly lively debate.

It took place at Lakeview Elementary with candidates Howard Stone, Lindsay Wiblin, Jim Pettersson, and Kay Van Buren participating. City wide candidate Yancee Hardy was also in attendance.

Each candidate had the opportunity to provide a 10 minute bio and then respond to questions submitted. Information on the candidate’s biographical background can be found here.

Here’s a quick summary of the questions asked and responses given. Please note that each candidate took two minutes to answer so this has been trimmed as best possible in order to briefly summarize the candidates response:

Are you in favor of the Northwest Connector currently being studied?

Howard: No position. Wants resident input.
Jim: In favor. Wants resident input, but sees benefits of developing road.
Kay: Leaning against it, does not see need.
Lindsay: In favor. Sees need for connectivity, believes negative impacts have been exaggerated.

What should be done to improve our East-West Corridor?

Howard: Should be addressed, but cannot be solved here and now.
Jim: Agrees with Lindsay, 820N could be used. Limit adverse affect, but sacrifices must be made.
Kay: No easy answer. Perhaps look to Center St. and Geneva road.
Lindsay: 800N perhaps. We need more freeway access like Orem.

Should Provo put in a third freeway interchange? Where?

Howard: Work with community to identify where. Takes sacrifice.
Jim: As Howard said, we should think outside box and meet with others. Perhaps have off ramp on Geneva Rd.
Kay: Involved with last process. 1700N was opposed, and I will continue to oppose putting one in our district.
Lindsay: Yes, don’t know where. Will use staff and need of residents to decide.

What’s being done right in economic development? What can be improved?

Howard: Planning commission has been handicapped by Council. Too much bureaucracy.
Jim: Excited about current council’s effort. Rooftop concerts and other improvements, walk-ability is good downtown. Proactive council, lets continue and do more.
Kay: New convention center, NuSkin, we need to keep visitors in the city. Make it easy to locate business downtown. Continue making it good for small businesses in Provo.
Lindsay: Previous administration perhaps did more than current. Focus is currently on central area of city.I will not turn developers and investors away as was done in past.

Would you support a small sales tax increase to preserve areas like open space next to Utah Lake?

Howard: Put it to the voters, but I will not support any new taxes. Tax burden is already more than we can bare.
Jim: We already have a conservation easement, no need for another tax. Tough times, only in favor of raising taxes when there is a need with no alternative.
Kay: I would not support that. Not prudent to raise taxes at this time.
Lindsay: Current council has recommended this, I’m opposed to new fees and taxes. Willing to put it to voters, but is against it.

What can be done for residents that don’t want iProvo services but seem destined to pay for them regardless?

Howard: Jim’s words about us having what we have are saddest ever heard in Provo, made same mistake with Library, Cover Fort, Provo Cable. We knew it would never make money. Lets privatize it and issue industrial bonds to help a private company buy it.
Jim: Unfortunate that it was a debt, but the infrastructure is a great asset. No easy answer, could discuss benefits and drawbacks all night. Great benefit to city, but wasn’t right time to do it.
Kay: We cannot go back, money is spent. Wish we could. I fought tirelessly against iProvo, but it’s a debt that must be paid. Try privatizing it again to recoup some of loss.
Lindsay: Echo Kay, it was a bad decision and has continued to be one. City is committed to paying the bond, we must pick up the tab regardless. 15 years of $100 a year is rough. Past council and administration is to blame.

Tonight at 6pm the city is holding a final meeting to address and vote on the proposed property tax increase. The meeting will be in the form of a public truth in taxation hearing with public input leading to a council vote on whether to increase property taxes, and if so how much (up to a 16% cap). Feel free to come down and participate – the meeting is at 351 W. Center St. Provo, UT.

I’d very much like to thank those who attended the four informational meetings held by the council to better explain how property taxes function in the city of Provo. I enjoyed attending and hearing the input from our residents on all aspects of the city’s tax policies.

As I have made clear from the beginning, I will be voting against the proposed tax increase tonight.

UPDATE: Victory! The tax increase was unanimously rejected by the council!

Those in my district and others interested are invited to attend a meeting at 351 West Center Street. The meeting will take place today, July 26th, at 6:30pm.

Other meetings will be held throughout the week in various parts of the city (click here to view when and where).

Keeping taxes low has always been a top priority for me as a city council representative. Shortly after taking office I was very proud that we as a council along with the Mayor were able to actually decrease property taxes.

This year, Mayor Curtis once again presented a balanced budget without the need for a property tax increase.

The council is currently in the process of taking public input to assist in the consideration of the increase which, beyond the mayor’s budget proposal, would allow the city to afford various ‘unfunded priorities’ such as additional policemen.

I support the mayor’s hard work to avoid an increase in property taxes for this year’s budget. As a city, we should first cut spending before looking to new taxes; I will be voting against the proposed property tax increase.

I have discussed property taxes with dozens of constituents, many of whom expressed concern over increasing taxes.  Whether you support or oppose the tax increase, I want to hear from you. Please take a moment to attend tonight’s meeting, email me, or message me on Facebook with your thoughts.