What's Up? - 2 August 2016

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:45 AM, Tuesday, August 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding the implementation options for applying the sewer base rate by residential housing unit and commercial meter size (16-097)
   From the Agenda Packet description: "This [would be] a change to the Wastewater revenue philosophy that we believe can allow the City to fund needed upgrades and enhancements identified in the Wastewater Reclamation Plant Master Plan without needing to bond in the future...At the Council’s June 16th Budget retreat Public Works’ Master Plan consultant presented on the concept of structuring base rates to cover operating expenses and the impact of per unit and per meter size billing philosophies for both residential and commercial customers. The Council asked Public Works to return to discuss options for a phased implementation of sewer base rates per unit for residential and per meter size for commercial customers, with the eventual goal of having the base rate revenue cover the operating costs of the utility."
2. A discussion on the impact of proposed phosphorous and nitrogen effluent limitations on Provo’s Water Reclamation Plant and potential impact on Wastewater rates (16-091)
   From the Agenda Packet: "If the State implements the standards they are proposing it will require significant investment in the wastewater treatment infrastructure. The original 5-year sewer rate increase plan did not factor in revenue needed for these stricter standards, but we believe that changing the sewer base rate philosophy for multi-units now can help raise sufficient revenue to cover these costs by FY2025 without bonding...Through our participation in the Jordan River Farmington Bay Water Quality Council we have been funding scientific studies to help determine the impact of wastewater effluent on the chemistry of the lake. One of our biggest concerns is making millions of dollars in improvement to our wastewater infrastructure with no real improvement in nutrient levels in the lake." 
3. A discussion about Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) funding (16-092)
   From energy.utah.gov/utah-c-pace/ :"Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) is a low-cost, long-term financing option for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation projects on commercial buildings." 
4. A discussion regarding a resolution approving the proposed Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-094)
   From the Agenda Packet: "Duncan Aviation is the world’s largest privately owned business jet support facility. They provide maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) for a variety of business jet aircraft...In 2007, Duncan made a decision to establish a MRO facility in the intermountain west region and embarked on an extensive search that included Provo airport. Duncan’s site selection time vetted over 20 different locations and ultimately chose Provo as their desired location...Duncan will invest approximately $80,000,000 in two phases to construct and outfit hangers and paint booths at Provo Airport. They plan to hire 400-450 employees in phase one and an additional 200-250 employees in phase two. The average wage for these employees is expected to be $28-30 an hour. These jobs will help provide long-term, stable employment for families in Utah County and in Provo...The cost to construct the concrete apron is estimated to be $7,000,000. Provo’s Economic Development department staff has obtained a grant for half of that cost from the Economic Development Administration. Staff is proposing to use the tax increment generated from the Duncan facility in the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area to provide funding for the balance of the apron costs. Staff has estimated that the net present value of the tax increment stream to be approximately $4,000,000."
5. A discussion regarding proposed Interlocal Agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and Provo City, Utah County, Provo School District and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-095)
   See item above.
6. A discussion regarding an Impact Fee Funding Agreement for City View Apartments (16-099)
   From the Agenda Packet: "PEG Development, has purchased the corner of University Avenue and 200 South from Utah County and from some private landowners. They plan to build a 159 unit apartment complex in this area, increasing the viability of downtown Provo as a desirable place to live." I thought that the Council had already approved this deal. Perhaps some details have changed. I'll need to find out why we are hearing this again.
7. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Section 14.06.020 Definitions and Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, regarding yard definitions and required widths and setbacks for corner lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0008OA)
   This looks like a new revision of some definitions in the code to make things clearer, and to give more flexibility for building one-family residential on corner lots. I will ask if there are any other substantive changes.
8. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 2nd, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their concern with the recent proposed standards from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality related to the impact of the wastewater effluent on the chemistry of Utah Lake. (16-091)
   Wow, just a single item on the agenda?!? This item will be discussed during the Work Meeting earlier in the day, see item 2 above. In general, I'm in favor of acting responsibly in relation to the environment in which we live. If we are going to release our treated waste water into a lake, we should do it in a way that minimizes our negative impact on the lake. I think the algal bloom that sickened people and forced the closure of Utah Lake brings into clear focus the consequences of polluting our lake. With that said, the last time this issue was before the Council (which was before I joined), I believe there was some concern that the proposed standards would have a high cost and a low impact on water quality in the lake. Some studies were commissioned, and I imagine we will hear back on the findings of those studies. I am very interested in the results as well as the quality of the studies.

What's Up? - 16 July 2016

What's Coming Up?

JOINT WORK MEETING with AIRPORT BOARD

11:00 AM, Tuesday, July 19th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Airport Master Plan
2. Terminal update
3. Commercial Airline Status

(There are no supporting documents for this meeting.)

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, July 19th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an ordinance amending the notice requirements for certain public hearings before the Planning Commission to mirror State Code and allowing amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-wide Impact. (16-0007OA)
   With this being the first item on the agenda, we actually might get to it this time. This is what I wrote when it was on the agenda a month ago: "Utah Code requires a 10 day notice before the Planning Commission hears General Plan amendments. Provo currently requires a longer period: 14 days. Provo also restricts amendments to the General Plan to two defined times each year. General Plan amendments can be heard at other times, but only if the Mayor, a Councilmember, or City Staff are willing to sponsor the amendment.
   To understand the rationale behind the semiannual restriction, look to the high bar required to make amendments to our US Constitution. While our General Plan isn't as foundational as the Constitution, it should contain the blueprint for our future. Changes to our plan should be deliberate and carefully thought out. Our plan should be at a high enough level that it shouldn't need to change for every proposed development.
   I think the problem is that parts of our General Plan are too specific, particularly the land use map, and that some aspects of our future plan have been purposely left out of the Plan. In some ways, our General Plan has been used as a secondary zoning map, rather than a plan describing the envisioned future use of land. Because of this, too often development proposals which are aligned with our vision and expectations of how an area should be used, will not only require a change to the zoning, but also a change to the General Plan.
   I think that it is reasonable to restrict changes to our overall plan to just twice a year, but I don't think it is reasonable to restrict changes to our zoning to twice a year, but in many cases that is what we have have in effect. To get around this, savvy developers know to go directly to the Mayor or Councilmembers to sponsor the General Plan amendments.
   In my opinion, the requested amendment addresses the symptoms of the problem, but not the problem itself. I would prefer to fix the General Plan and Land Use Map so that it is sufficiently general and at a high enough level, so that development proposal that are inline with that City's vision don't require a General Plan amendment."
2. A report on the possible funding mechanisms for the infrastructure improvements at the Provo Municipal Airport for Duncan Aviation. (16-085)
   This is how I reported on this item after the last Work Meeting: "Several years ago we courted Duncan Aviation to be the location of their western operations. The negotiations were successful and their operation will bring several hundred well paying jobs. We committed to help pay for the infrastructure that would be needed for their expansion (as well as other development out by the airport). "After a delay due to the recession, Duncan is now ready to move forward. Some capital has been saved up for the infrastructure, but more is needed. The Council discussed three options for funding the construction: delaying other infrastructure projects, borrowing against future federal grant money (Community Development Block Grants), borrowing from other City funds.
   "After years of working towards getting on top of our pressing infrastructure needs, the first option looks like a non-starter with this Council. The second option makes sense as this type of infrastructure is one of the purposes of the CDBG program. But we are already making good use of the CDBG money each year funding things like sidewalk replacement. Another downside is that we would need to pay interest on the loan. And there are prepayment penalties. By borrowing against other City funds, we would be paying the interest to ourselves, and would have full flexibility about repayment.
   "The administration will be bringing back some funding options to our next Work Meeting."
   This will be their report on possible funding options.
3. A discussion on an ordinance amending Chapter 8.02 (Animal Control Generally) with regards to keeping of swine. (16-084)
   We heard this item as well in the last Work Meeting and asked for a couple of adjustments. This is how I reported on it: This item is a potentially complimentary or supplementary ordinance to the "farm animal adjacent to residential zones" ordinance that was discussed in the previous Work Meeting. Instead of addressing all farm animals, this one focuses solely on pigs. The proposal was to require all pig sties to be located at least 300 feet from any residence. This would include the residence of the property owner. After discussion, we are now contemplating language that would restrict sties away from any property line."
   Here is the new lauguage: "Swine shall be confined within a secure outdoor enclosed area located at least three hundred 36 (300) feet from any boundary line."
4. A discussion on how the Community Housing Trust is working in Park City. (16-083)
   No information has been provided.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 19th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Employee of the Month for the month of June - Tony Fieldsted, Energy 
2. A presentation by the Covey Center - OLIVER
   
   Public Comment
3. A public hearing on a resolution authorizing submission of a final Urban Deer Control Plan, authorizing implementation of the plan, and appropriating funds for the first year of the plan. (15- 076)
   We have around 500 mule deer living year-round in Provo. Around 150 of them are killed each year in Provo by being struck by automobiles. These deer are no longer wild and are a safety hazard and cost millions of dollars in property damage (mostly to repair vehicles). Provo is considering a program of controlled lethal removal (rather than the uncontrolled lethal removal that is happening now with our automobiles). This program has been successful in other Utah County cities.
   http://www.provocitycouncil.com/2016/07/urban-deer-control-program.html
   http://provomayor.com/2016/07/06/oh-deer/
   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657758/Provo-considers-killing-or-relocating-deer-to-tackle-growing-population-troubles.html?pg=all
4. A discussion on a resolution ratifying a letter of commitment to Duncan Aviation for the installation and construction of certain utilities and infrastructure at the Provo Municipal Airport. (16-085)
   This is related to Item 2 of the Work Meeting.
5. A discussion on a resolution adopting: (1) A Sewer System Management Plan, (2) A System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, and (3) The Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Self-assessment Report for Provo 2015.
   The State requires an in-depth plan and assessment for municipal waste-water systems. The presented plans and report are nearly 100 pages and give much detail on the current system, future plans, and looks at how well the City is implementing best practices and our plan. Overall I'm impressed at the professionalism and the care we take in managing our waste water.
6. A discussion on a resolution authorizing the preparation of a draft Parkway Plaza Redevelopment Community Reinvestment Project Plan Area. (16-087)
   This vote would just authorize the RDA to prepare a draft plan. There is no commitment involved. From the Staff Report: 
   
   • Plumtree Plaza has been a property in trouble for some time now. Located on a highly traveled corridor between Orem and Provo, its position makes it attractive for retail but that same position also makes it problematic for retail. The center has difficult ingress and egress and the layout and structures are showing their age. As retail transitions, older spaces developed to an earlier standard require more resources to try and bring them to a more productive reuse.
   • Recently, Plumtree Plaza has changed owners and the new owners, recognizing the need to reinvest in the center and the opportunity to address ingress and egress issues with the Bus Rapid Transit system design, have approached Provo City Redevelopment to discuss the center’s overhaul and potential rebranding. The new owners feel that focusing solely on retail is not a winning strategy for the center and are looking to add hospitality (hotel), residential and office elements to the center. They do believe retail uses will still have a place in the new center but those uses will be a supporting role and not the driving force behind the rehabilitation of the complex.
   • The new owners plan to completely demolish the portions of the center they own and begin to reestablish the center. They have requested help with the construction of the parking structures required for the project. Tonight’s action is the first step in creating a Community Reinvestment Project Area under the new provisions of the Utah Community Reinvestment Act.
   • It is important to note approval of this resolution does not commit the Agency or any taxing entities future tax increment to a project. Commitment of tax increment would require the affected taxing entities to enter into voluntary agreements with the Agency.
   • Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board approve the attached resolution authorizing and directing the preparation of a draft project area plan for the proposed Parkway Plaza Community Reinvestment Project Area" 
7. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the notice requirements for certain public hearings before the Planning Commission to mirror State Code and allowing amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-wide Impact. (16-0007OA)
   This is related to Item 1 in the Work Session.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending Chapter 8.02 (Animal Control Generally) with regards to keeping of swine. (16-084)
   This is related to Item 3 in the Work Session.

A Post Worth Reading

I am sharing a fairly poignant newsletter (by city council standards) by fellow Councilor David Sewell. He holds a city-wide seat on the Council, so if I'm your representative, he is too. After touching on a couple of other topics, Mr. Sewell dives into the revenue decisions involved in the latest budget adoption. He takes a thoughtful and introspective approach that I found very insightful and worth sharing.

Mr. Sewell sends out a newsletter by email as occasion and as time permits. I subscribed to his newsletter long before I began serving on the Council. His newsletters helped inspire my "What's Up" updates, though there is a noticeable difference in scope and style. I admire his style and have considered emulating it. I highly recommend subscribing to his newsletter, that way you will get both styles and different perspectives. You can subscribe by sending an email to davesewellprovo@gmail.com or by filling out this form.

Dave Sewell - City Council

Freedom:  I hope you enjoyed your celebration of Independence Day.  We live in a remarkable country where freedom and opportunity abound – though we have many challenges.  I join with you in expressing appreciation for the men and women who have fought to earn and preserve the freedom we enjoy today.  We can each do our part by getting involved in civic affairs, expressing our opinions, and voting.  I appreciate that you care enough about our city government to read this.  I do my best to study the issues and make good decisions, but when you and others speak up on issues you care about, I am aided in my decision making by your collective wisdom. Pigs:  Last year, we learned from sad experience that when pigs are raised in an agricultural zone adjacent to a residential area, substantial problems for the neighborhood may result.  It turns out that there is a state law (Utah Code 10-8-67) specifically allowing municipalities to regulate the establishment of, or control the location of, certain offensive activities – including pigsties.  The proposed new ordinance would require that pigs in agricultural zones be confined to a secure outdoor enclosed area that is at least 100 yards away from residences. Deer:  The city is getting close to implementing an Urban Deer Control Plan.  As the local deer population has grown, there have been increasing problems including collisions with cars – often resulting in death to the deer, significant damage to the car, and risk of injury to the vehicle occupants.  Other problems have included damage to property and foliage and even attacks on smaller pets.  The goal with the proposed program is to thin out herds that have taken up year round residence in the city. The presentation on the proposed program Tuesday is for information only – there will be no public comment.  An Open House will be held on Tuesday, July 12 (location TBA) to provide more information.  Then there will be a public hearing at the next Council meeting on July 19. Property Tax:   At the Budget Retreat before the last Council meeting, there was support from five Council members for the concept of doing an annual inflation adjustment to the property tax rate.  Mayor Curtis has advocated for such a policy for years and the Council in 2012 expressed a similar intent.  This time we got more specific and specified the western region Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year as the basis for the adjustment.  That would have put the increase this year at 1.8% (not the 3.0% originally asked for) – about 15 cents a month for a $200K home.  That modest increase would have provided about $77K in revenue – but it did not pass. I understood the concerns about even a modest adjustment in property tax during a time of steep utility rate increases.  So I offered a compromise whereby utility rate increases would be reduced by enough to offset the $77K in property tax revenues.  It was a revenue neutral proposal that would have reduced the overall tax and fee burden on our residents by the same amount as not passing the property tax inflation adjustment.  The compromise had the support of three Council members and the Mayor but I felt it did not receive the serious consideration it deserved. The main reason given for not following through on the Budget Retreat intent statement was political considerations stemming from recent news that the School Board may be voting on a significant property tax increase this year – their first since 2009.  Apparently there was concern that citizens would not be able to distinguish between a small inflation adjustment by the city and the much larger proposal purported to be under consideration by the School Board.  I actually thought the School Board news provided a strong argument for proceeding with the inflation adjustment policy.  Without such a policy, or rather without the political will to follow it, we may find ourselves in the same boat down the road – having to ask for a much bigger property tax adjustment to “catch up” to the effects of inflation. I was disappointed that we kicked the can for at least another year – missing an opportunity to establish a rational long term property tax policy.  But my bigger disappointment was that we missed an opportunity to come together on a reasonable compromise that could have potentially united most of the Council and the Mayor on this issue.  Missed opportunities often remind me of these words from a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier titled Maud Muller – that the saddest words of tongue or pen are these: “It might have been” Lessons Learned:  Here are my thoughts on lessons learned from this and other events this past year: Since I won’t decide whether to run again for nearly a year, and there is no guarantee of how that would go if did, I am resolved that my attitude should be that I only have 18 months left to make a difference in serving you in this capacity. Individual Council members cannot do much by themselves.  Communication and cooperation are crucial to getting hard things done.  I am resolved to do what I can to facilitate and encourage improvement in those areas.  A related thought from the Bible is found in Hebrews 13:16. Deeply split votes are fragile and can be overturned for a variety of reasons.  When there is a significant minority with strong feelings on an issue, it is worth extra effort to seek to understand, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and consider compromise.  If option A and option B are the only options, a split vote may be necessary despite best efforts to communicate.  But if there is an option C that addresses the concerns that are most important to both sides, it should be explored seriously. We have separate and independent branches of government for good reasons – robust discussion and debate between the branches are generally healthy.  May the best idea win.  But there should also be an attitude of cooperation.  Mayor Curtis recently told me he likens the branches to a football team with an offense and a defense.  The two units have very different roles but they cheer each other on for the benefit of the team.  I will do what I can to improve the level of cooperation between the branches and to encourage a more synergistic relationship.

What's Up? - 9 July 2016

The City is reaching out to the public on a couple of important issues. Please read over these descriptions and put them on your calendar if you would like to learn more and have some input:

#1 Council is considering an urban deer control program. An open house will be held at 6 pm on July 12 at Timpview High School to allow residents to learn more about Provo's urban deer issues and options for the control program. We invite you to attend, ask questions, and contribute your feedback.

#2 (Of utmost importance, IMHO) The City is hosting five open houses to present the proposed changes to Vision 2030 and solicit public input.

• July 14, 6 pm, Provo Recreation Center multipurpose room (for Northwest Area)
• July 26, 6 pm, Location TBD (for Northeast Area)
• August 3, 6 pm, Lakeview Elementary (for Southwest Area)
• August 11, 6 pm, Spring Creek Elementary (for Southeast Area)
• August 23, 6 pm, Council Chambers (for Central Area)

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:30 PM, Tuesday, July 5, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the proposed Keeping of Swine ordinance. (16-084)
   Council Member David Knecht moved this item forward to the July 19, 2016 Council Meeting. In addition, addressing the changes of use to be a distance of 300 feet from the property line. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 6:0.  Council Member David Sewell excused.
   This item is a potentially complimentary or supplementary ordinance to the "farm animal adjacent to residential zones" ordinance that was discussed in the previous Work Meeting. Instead of addressing all farm animals, this one focuses solely on pigs. The proposal was to require all pig sties to be located at least 300 feet from any residence. This would include the residence of the property owner. After discussion, we are now contemplating language that would restrict sties away from any property line.
   As some of the leg work has already been done, I'd like to review if appropriate buffers are in place between agricultural and residential uses generally, something that the previous ordinance was intended to address.
2. A discussion on the Parkway Plaza Potential Redevelopment Area. (16-087)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the July 19, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
   Many have lamented the closure of Shopko and the broader retail struggles in the Plum Tree Plaza. With new ownership and better access thanks to the BRT project comes a proposal to redevelop the Plum Tree Plaza. Here are details on the "The Mix" project. The investment of the new owners will revitalize this area and bring in new property and sales taxes. They will be asking the City to direct some of that increased revenue into helping pay for a parking structure in the development.
3. The funding of utility and infrastructure improvements at the Provo Municipal Airport for Duncan Aviation. (16-085)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to have a resolution to authorize Mayor John Curtis to sign a commitment letter on the part of the City for the infrastructure financing as defined in the Work Meeting today. This resolution will be prepared for the July 19, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 6:0. Council Member Dave Sewell excused. Note: This item will also be heard at the next Work Meeting to receive from Administration the low, middle and high option for funding and other possible funding mechanisms.
   Several years ago we courted Duncan Aviation to be the location of their western operations. The negotiations were successful and their operation will bring several hundred well paying jobs. We committed to help pay for the infrastructure that would be needed for their expansion (as well as other development out by the airport). After a delay due to the recession, Duncan is now ready to move forward. Some capital has been saved up for the infrastructure, but more is needed. The Council discussed three options for funding the construction: delaying other infrastructure projects, borrowing against future federal grant money (Community Development Block Grants), borrowing from other City funds.
   After years of working towards getting on top of our pressing infrastructure needs, the first option looks like a non-starter with this Council. The second option makes sense as this type of infrastructure is one of the purposes of the CDBG program. But we are already making good use of the CDBG money each year funding things like sidewalk replacement. Another downside is that we would need to pay interest on the loan. And there are prepayment penalties. By borrowing against other City funds, we would be paying the interest to ourselves, and would have full flexibility about repayment.
   The administration will be bringing back some funding options to our next Work Meeting.
4. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   Council Member David Harding moved to accept the 2016 Council Priority Sheets as currently formatted and to delete the section titled: “A budget in the following format” along with the bullet points underneath and to send to the Administration a letter reiterating this section as a formal request. The deleted section will be discussed further by the Council in a future Work Meeting.  Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused. 
   Early this year the Council selected nine Priorities that we wanted to address this year. We developed a "Priority Sheet" for each of the nine. The sheets were a bit rough and some were incomplete (I know because I wrote much of them), but it was a good start and we needed to turn our attention to other issues. When we adopted the budget, we listed a URL for the public to go to learn about our Priorities. We took this opportunity to revisit the sheets and polish them up a bit.
   Most of the revisions were straightforward word-smithing and hole filling. This was complete two weeks ago. Additional time was taken to address the "Budgeting to Priorities" sheet. This sheet was unique because of the level of detail. Instead of discussing why the Council wanted to address the issue, this sheet contained specific requests from future budgets. Instead of discussing how to format the sheet, much of our discussion centered around the policies outlined in the sheet.
   The conclusion was to remove the detailed portion of the sheet so that it better matches the scope of the other sheets, with the explicit understanding that removing it from the sheet does not indicate that the Council is rejecting the policies contained in the section, and then bringing the policy question back to the Council for further consideration as its own item.
5. A discussion on Council Committees.(16-088)
   Council Member Gary Winterton moved to approve Council Member David Knecht as Chair of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee.
   Council Member [Gary Winterton David Harding] moved to approve Council Member David Knecht as a member of the Development Review Committee. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
   This adjusted the leadership and make up of a couple of committees in response to availability of Councilors.
6. A status update on commercial trampoline gym facilities. (16-089)
   Update Only.
   It sounds like some good progress has been made in the stakeholders discussions. The County Health Department tried to address this issue previously, but the effort stalled as a consensus proved elusive. This second go-around has many of the same stakeholders, but the prospects of success appear brighter.
   I requested that they consider public reporting of injuries. Imagine a sign, right next to the list of prices, which show the type and number of injuries that occurred in the last month and year at the gym. I see two benefits from this. First, the public will be able to make a more informed decision about the risks of participation, and may be more careful during their participation. Second, gym operators will have a distinct incentive to make sure their gym and practices are as safe as possible. Safer gyms will have an advantage over less safe gyms.
7. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Provo's Bike Challenge Awards
   
   Public Comment
2. A resolution authorizing execution of the Fifth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County relating to the Ice Sheet Authority. (16-080)
   Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.From my write up after the Work Session: "This mostly is an update to incorporate new State regulations on interlocal agreements. It also recognizes the current way the facility is being managed. This is not expected to affect the operation of the Ice Sheet."
3. A resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to authorize Provo City's participation in the Utah Valley Home Consortium in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Home Investment Partnerships Program for Federal fiscal years 2017,2018, and 2019. (16-086)
   Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
   From my pre-meeting description: "This would create a consortium between Provo, Orem, Lehi, and Utah County to act as one local body to address the regional low to moderate housing needs. Provo City will act as the lead agency in the consortium."
4. A presentation on the process for implementing an Urban Deer Control Plan. (15-076)
   No Action. Information Only. [NOTE:  This item is information only. An Open House will be held on July 12, 2016 and the location to be announced. A public meeting will be held on this item at the July 19, 2016 Council Meeting at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers, and at that meeting the public will have an opportunity to comment on this item. Please submit comments to your Council Members. Urban deer (deer who have taken up year-round residence in the city) are not as big of a problem in District 5 as in some other districts, but this may be an issue that you want to stay informed about. The open house next Tuesday has been set for 6pm at Timpview High School. We are very interested to hear from the public on this issue.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.300 (Transitional Development Standards for Uses Abutting Residential Zones) clarifying restrictions on farm animals adjacent to Residential Zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0006OA) (Item to be Continued to July 19th Council Meeting)
   Gary Winterton moved to continued to July 19, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Dave Knecht. Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Sections 15.17.030, 15.17.040, 2.29.040 and 14.02.020 to reduce the notice requirements for public hearing before the Planning Commission for General Plan adoption and for General Plan Amendments from 14 to 10 days, as per Utah State Code, and to allow amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-Wide Impact. (16-0007OA) (Item to be Continued to July 19th Council Meeting)
   Gary Winterton moved to continued to July 19, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Dave Knecht. Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.