Council Meetings - 19 June 2018

We passed the budget for FY'18-'19, see items 7, 8 and 10 in the evening Council Meeting. The total is almost $225M. I have a genuine questions for you. Do you feel like you are getting a good value for your tax dollar? Are you satisfied with the City services you receive compared with the taxes and fees you pay? Why or why not? If not, what would you like to see changed? Are there services that we should cut? Are there services we need to improve or add?

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:15 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business



1. A discussion on tax increment funding (18-057)
   Recently, there have been a number of post-performance sales tax items brought before Council. The frequency of these items has caused some Councilors to question the use of increment as a tool. Specifically, how frequently should projects be approved? What type of project warrants the use of increment funding? What limitations has the County and School District placed on usage? This is an opportunity for Councilors to express their views on the use of increment as a tool. Economic Development has been invited to answer questions. Discussion only. It was a good discussion. I was able to advocate for my view that tax increment incentives are a good tool to partner with private entities to do something for the public good that they wouldn't do without the incentive. I don't think that giving away incentives for routine events in the ordinary business cycle makes sense.
   
   Unfortunately, the current state of things is that most communities around us are routinely offering these incentives, which puts us at a distinct disadvantage if we don't play the game. I am hopeful that we can discuss with other communities the responsible use of these incentives, kind of like arms control agreements but in our TIF race.
2. A discussion on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement for a medical school at the golf course (17-136)
   The Administrative Staff and the developers of the new medical school (being built on the a portion of the golf course property) have now exchanged draft agreements several times and are now ready to bring a substantially complete agreement to the Council for review, discussion and verification that the documents substantially conform to the direction and discussion that transpired in the January 2018 Municipal Council meeting. A motion for the Administration to negotiate the agreement then return to Council for presentation and discussion at consecutive Work and Council Meetings on the same day was approved 7:0. An early draft was circulated and there was some concern that it did not fully align with deal points presented when we last heard it in a Council Meeting. We discussed where we are at in the process and expect to see an actual proposed draft next month.
3. A discussion on police personnel levels (18-069)
   Provo is currently 15 police officers short of what was recommended in a 2012 report issued by the Police Executive Research Forum. While the FY 2019 Tentative Budget provides for four additional officers and a police analyst position, the Council is concerned that without taking additional measures, the City may continue to suffer an officer shortage. Chief Ferguson and Daniel Softley will present specific options for the Council to consider in effort to address these concerns. Several motions were made but were subsequently withdrawn, resulting in no action taken. A budget amendment is expected at a later date. Our police force is understaffed and it affects our officers and the service they can provide. The Cheif first proposed 8 new officers, but only 4 made it into the proposed budget. Now the Administration and the Cheif are proposing that instead of the new officers we put that money toward increasing the compensation for the officers we already have. We have lost a number of experienced officers to recruitment to other cities. The need for more officers is still dire, but the need to stem the loss of our experienced officers is more urgent.
   
   Rather than make substantial changes in the final hours before passing the budget, we decided to pass the old plan and look for an amendment next month.
4. A discussion on funding options for Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   Council and the Mayor’s office have been working out details for funding of the Miss Provo pageant and the Provo City parade float. In previous work meetings, the decision was made to have the float managed by Parks and Recreation and the necessary funding allocated in the proposed budget. Various options have been explored regarding the Miss Provo pageant and Council will be getting an update so any needed budget adjustments can be made. A substitute motion for the Council to sponsor the Miss Provo scholarship for the coming [fiscal] year [2019] in the amount of $5250.00 with that being the extent of the Council’s support of the program was approved 7:0. It's not everything that I wanted, but is a solid step in the right direction.
5. A discussion on Bulldog Blvd. construction (18-068)
   Council members requested an update on the project in light of receiving email from quite a few residents. The intent of the project is to prepare for increased traffic while providing a safer travel experience for all modes of transportation. Bulldog Blvd. has a crash rate 7.5 times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. Council members had a presentation on the details of the project at their last work meeting. Council had also asked for a public survey to get more public input on the project. A motion was proposed for discussion purposes that would formally recommend to the Administration that the Bulldog Boulevard project be amended to exclude from its scope the reduction from three lanes to two lanes and the addition of bicycle lanes. The motion failed 0:7, with all Council members opposed. It was a constructive discussion. We need to do a better job getting input from the public and the Council early enough in the process to use that input. The Bulldog project itself will be a great enhancement to the City.
6. A discussion on the approval of a Governing Body Participation Agreement with C-PACE (16-092)
   At the March 27, 2018, Work Meeting the Council discussed the updates to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program that is run by the State. The motion was that the Administration negotiate an agreement to remove solar restrictions in the previous agreement and return to Council. The revised agreement has been executed and the statute governing C-PACE may only operate at the written request of the Municipal Council, so this is a request for Council to approve the Governing Body Participation Agreement. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 19, 2018 Council Meeting. See item #4 in the evening meeting below.
7. A discussion on proposed Provo City Code amendments to the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) (18-072)
   Provo’s ordinance regarding information requests is being updated to provide continuity and consistency with state law. The language makes sure Provo is in compliance even when changes are made at the state level. Presentation only. This item was intended to return to the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. Simple code cleanup.
8. A discussion on Provo City Code amendments to the Deputy Recorder position (18-071)
   The City Recorder is allowed to appoint deputies to assist in their duties. Some changes are being requested in the guidelines for the Deputy Recorder. Presentation only. This item was intended to return to the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. This will add flexibilty to this office.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



9. A discussion on a proposed resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update (PLGPA20180142)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. Input from staff and the public was also considered when preparing the update. It has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is now ready for Council’s consideration. This item was already scheduled for the June 19, 2018 Council Meeting. A revised substitute motion to continue the evening meeting discussion to an unspecified future date to be determined by Leadership and to continue the Work Session discussion to July 17th, when Council Executive Director Cliff Strachan would be present and members of the Planning Commission could be invited to attend was approved 7:0. For several years the City has had two adopted guiding documents, the State mandated General Plan and Vision 2030. A new draft General Plan has been created which combines and aligns both documents so there is less confusion about which is the controlling document. There are some small updates to policies, but the vast majority of the update is formatting and alignment.




Closed Meeting



10. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. A closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for June 2018
   Presentation only.
2. Presentation by America’s Freedom Festival
   Presentation only.



Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.




Action Agenda



3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City to negotiate and execute a Post-Performance Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement agreement with The Shops at the Riverwoods. (18-066)
   This is a request for a post-performance incentive agreement for The Shops at the Riverwoods to offset certain costs associated with a $10,000,000+ investment to encourage additional improvements to the shopping center. Approved 5:2, with Kay Van Buren and David Harding opposed. I stated in the meeting that if I was the swing vote then I would likely vote in favor, but since there was already enough support for it to pass I was voting no as a symbolic vote. I want to don't want to signal to business owners and developers that the Council is excited to give away tax increment incentives for routine events in the business cycle.
4. A resolution approving the Governing Body Participation Agreement related to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program with the Governor's Office of Energy Development. (16-092)
   At the March 27, 2018, Work Meeting the Council discussed the updates to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program that is run by the State. The motion was that the Administration negotiate an agreement to remove solar restrictions in the previous agreement and return to Council. The revised agreement has been executed and the statute governing C-PACE may only operate at the written request of the Municipal Council, so this is a request for Council to approve the Governing Body Participation Agreement. Approved 7:0. Investments in energy efficiency and sustainability at the time of construction saves a lot of money in the long-run, but are expensive upfront. These investments are also good for the public. This program helps businesses access money upfront that will be paid back with the ongoing savings. I hope that many commercial entities take advantage of this program. We will all breathe a little easier.
5. A resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update. (PLGPA20180142)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. Input from staff and the public was also considered when preparing the update. It has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is now ready for Council’s consideration. Continued indefinitely. We will likely revisit this on the 17th of July. See item 9 in the earlier meeting.
6. A public hearing on transferring utility revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (18-005)
   This is a hearing required annually by the State of Utah. Public hearing only. The purpose of this State requirement is to ensure the transparency of these transfers. So here is a link to the disclosure. Our utility rates have been going up, but are still quite competative, collectively less than the average in surrounding communities. These transfers to the General Fund allow us to keep our properties taxes much lower than they otherwise would need to be to provide the services that we do.
7. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $211,626,977, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code related to Employee Salary Ranges and Classifications. (18-005)
   This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Annual changes to fees and employee salaries are also being adopted. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $212,100,024. Are you satisfied with the value of City services you receive for the taxes and fees that you pay?



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $7,377,462 . (18-062)
   This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $7,382,203.




Storm Water Special Service District



9. A public hearing on transferring Stormwater fund revenues to the General Fund and other funds (18-063)
   This is a hearing required annually by the State of Utah. Public hearing only.
10. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $4,713,241 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
    This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $4,763,091.



Adjournment

Bulldog Blvd Redesign FAQs (and answers)

The Bulldog Redesign Project is still generating some buzz. I'm hearing two questions asked frequently, and recently I received some information from our Engineering Department addressing them. Thanks to Shane Winters for compiling this information. Read on for the questions and answers.

Can Bulldog really handle all that traffic after one lane in each direction is eliminated???

Below is a table comparing the 2016 traffic count for Bulldog as well as some other streets in Provo which have two lanes in each direction. 

Traffic Volume Comparison
Year	Bulldog @ Between 500W & 200W	University Avenue @ South of Bulldog	University Avenue @ North of Pkwy	900 East @ University Parkway	500 West @ South of Bulldog	State Street @ South of 900 East
2016	26,000	35,000	28,000	26,000	36,000	26,000
Data comes from UDOTs Traffic on Utah Highways

Takeaway: We have other streets in Provo which handle higher volumes of traffic with just two lanes in each direction. It's my personal opinion that the third lane actually causes more chaos, more conflict, and makes the road feel like it is more crowded than it actually is.

Are there really that many more crashes on Bulldog???

Yes, based on both the crash rate and severe crash rate. These rates are based on mileage driven. Since this section of road is short compared to other streets and the vehicle volume is relatively low, the sheer number of crashes may be less, but your risk each time you use it is significantly greater than other streets.

Takeaway: This road is one of the most dangerous streets in the State, regardless of your mode of transportation.

Council Meetings - June 5 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. A discussion on funding options for Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   This was initially discussed at the May 1 work meeting. Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. A public survey was conducted to gauge public opinion and help with Council’s discussion. I don't believe that Miss Provo should be an official representative of the City. I do not believe that we should be using tax-payer money to sponsor scholarships for this program. I do believe that we should continue to have a float in order to participate in the various local parades and celebrations. I am okay with a transition period to get from where we are to where we should be.
2. A discussion on appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks and Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center (18-064)
   The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue.
3. A discussion on rental dwelling license fees (18-065)
   The Council has asked for regular reviews of City fees to assess how those fees compare to actual costs and determine if adjustments need to be made. Currently the cost of a rental dwelling license is $20 for one rental unit or $60 for more than one rental unit. Community Development will provide the Council with additional information, including a comparison to other cities’ rental dwelling licenses. Renting property is a business, and are licensed like most other businesses in Provo. Are the current fees for the license appropriate? Occationally I hear from renters complaining about unsafe conditions at their property. Could Provo inspect properties more regularly to ensure that they met basic standards?
4. A presentation on reinvestment for the Shops at Riverwoods(18-066)
   This is a request for a post-performance incentive agreement for The Shops at the Riverwoods to offset certain costs associated with a $10,000,000+ investment to encourage additional improvements to the shopping center. This seems like a routine refresh of a commercial center. Unfortunately, it is now routine to expect local governments to kick back new taxes for routine remodeling.
5. A discussion with officials from Utah League of Cities and Towns regarding State legislative items (18-067)
   Cameron Diehl will be discussing the final disposition of various bills from the 2018 State Legislative session. He will specifically address bills related to the utility transportation fund and free expression. He will also highlight anticipated bills for the upcoming legislative session. At our annual meeting with our representatives in the State Legislature, we brought up several issues that we wanted the State to address. In each case they asked us to work through the League.
6. A discussion on Bulldog Blvd. construction (18-068)
   Council members requested an update on the project in light of receiving email from quite a few residents. The intent of the project is to prepare for increased traffic while providing a safer travel experience for all modes of transportation. Bulldog Blvd. has a crash rate 7.5 times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. Studies show that installing center medians and removing unexpected midblock movements significantly reduces traffic incidents. In addition, the current average daily traffic amount is 27,000 vehicles, and it is estimated that average daily traffic amount in 2040 will be 31,000 vehicles. I wrote a whole blog post about my thoughts on this
7. An update on the proposed budget (18-005)
   This discussion will serve as follow-up to some of the motions the Council made during the May 22nd Budget Retreat, in addition to covering other budget-related topics. Topics include budget adjustments related events coordinator funding, Urban Deer Program, and Sustainability/Parking position; status of coming up with a police retention plan; and an update on the General Fund balance. I am hopeful that we can get to a better place in regards to funding our Police force. They have been understaffed and overworked for too long.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission


A presentation on a zone change from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Region Shopping Center (SC3) for property from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 180 E, to encourage commercial redevelopment. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a zone change for several properties in the East Bay neighborhood between University Ave and 180 East in order to attract more businesses to that area of the City and encourage redevelopment of the site. The current PIC zone limits sign allowances and permitted commercial uses in what has become a commercial corridor for Provo. Changing the zone to SC3 will open up the area to better uses and allow for more commercial signage and development to occur. This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it, it would reflect the current use, and it reflect the use the City would like to see there.
8. A presentation on an amendment to Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) to make the definitions of "Baching Singles" and "Family" consistent with Utah State Law. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180121)
   A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
   Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed. This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families.



Closed Meeting

9. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes



Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.

Action Agenda



1. A resolution approving the Program Year 2018 Annual Action Plan, Fourth Year Update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, including CDBG and HOME Funding recommendations (18-056)
   This is the approval following the two required public hearings and public comment period for the 2018 draft of the Annual Action Plan on proposed usage of CDBG and HOME funds. These are federal funds provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funding amount from the Federal Government was greater than expected, and some of the applicant/partners are receiving more funds than they requested. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that.
2. A resolution appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks And Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-064)
   The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. From the earlier meeting, "The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue."
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 43 acres of real property, generally located from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 190 E, from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Regional Shopping Center (SC3). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
   The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a zone change for several properties in the East Bay neighborhood between University Ave and 180 East in order to attract more businesses to that area of the City and encourage redevelopment of the site. The current PIC zone limits sign allowances and permitted commercial uses in what has become a commercial corridor for Provo. Changing the zone to SC3 will open up the area to better uses and allow for more commercial signage and development to occur. From the earlier meeting, "This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it, it would reflect the current use, and it reflect the use the City would like to see there."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make the definitions of “baching singles” and “family” consistent with state law. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
   A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
   Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed. From the earlier meeting, "This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families."
5. CONTINUED TO JUNE 19 COUNCIL MEETING: A resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update. (PLGPA20180142)
   Previously noticed for the June 5 Council meeting, the item was not ready to be heard at this time.
6. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $211,626,977, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (17-067)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Take a look at this Citizen's Guide to the Proposed Budget.



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, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $7,377,462 . (18-062)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.



Storm Water Special Service District



8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $4,713,241 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.



Adjournment

Provo City, Welcome Home, Even to Our Young, Single, Professional Neighbors!

I have wanted to publish this blog post for more than a week, but I've really struggled to write it. There is so much to say. So much misunderstanding. What should I address? Which criticisms should I respond to? Which incorrect assertions should I correct? This post could get very long if I get down into all of the weeds. I decided instead to just focus on the most critical point and save any specific responses for a future post.

The claim that young, single professionals are not welcome in Provo is wrong. I apologize to anyone whom I have given this impression. I recognize that I can do better at communicating and cultivating understanding. Young, single professionals are an important, valued, contributing part of our community. You are wanted. You are needed.

Emotions are high. Feelings are raw. Frustration is building. Right now we need to be building bridges. Unfortunately, some are driving wedges instead. This is a wound that has festered for far too long. Our community needs to heal. I ask everyone involved to listen actively, speak responsibly, seek to understand, and not assume the worst in others.

The still unfinished Welcome Home Resolution concludes with, "To all people of goodwill, we say: 'Welcome Home.'" This includes young, single professionals, this includes college students, this includes married couples with and without children. This includes all people, regardless of the stage of life you are in. This includes everyone who wants to contribute to and be a part of a great community.

We do expect everyone to follow the law. No group should be exempt, and no group should feel unwelcome for being asked to follow the law. Where laws need to be improved, let's work together to get it done, balancing the interests of all affected. I believe in the rule of law, it is part of the social compact and is critical for living together in harmony. I believe in our system of electing representatives to create laws that reflect the will of the community.

The wound that is now afflicting our community formed when, for whatever reason, investors came to believe that certain laws wouldn't or shouldn't be enforced and therefore didn't need to be obeyed. This created conflict with those who expected the laws to be followed. Over the years, frustration grew in people who felt the City should be doing more to enforce, as well as in those who were the subject of the complaints being filed. I have heard stories that the City sent mixed signals about whether the laws were going to be enforced. (Though at least some of these stories originated from people with something to gain by others believing the City wouldn't enforce.) By allowing this conflict to fester, the relationship between neighbors devolved into acrimony and distrust. Many people have been hurt, many are angry.

We need to treat this wound so this rift can heal. We need wise laws, and we need people to choose to follow the laws. We need to forgive our neighbors and to be willing to look at the situation through their eyes. We need to rebuild trust and goodwill.

Young, single professionals are an integral part of our community, now and in the future. I invite all to build bridges of understanding, and to work together with civility and goodwill to address the challenges we are facing.