What's Up? - 4 August 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A discussion on noticing requirements for Land Use items referred to the Municipal Council by the Planning Commission. (16-100)
   Council Member Dave Sewell moved to have the two Planning Commission items mentioned at this work meeting be placed on the August 16, 2016 Work and Council Meeting agendas. He also moved to refer this item to the Development Review Process Committee for further discussion. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   State statute requires that 10 days of notice must be given before land use items are heard by the Planning Commission. Provo code requires 14 days. These requirements do not apply on the same items going before the City Council, but it has been our long standing practice to give 14 days notice. So long standing, in fact, that everyone just assumed it was required. In researching whether we had any options to get a couple of land use items on our 16 Aug meeting agendas, Brian Jones (re)discovered that technically only 24 hours of notice are needed. So we decided to put the items on the agenda (we will be able to give 13 days of notice), and to send this issue to our Development Approval Process Review Committee to study and recommend to the Council a policy that will be in the best interest of our residents.
2. 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 item will be heard at the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting.
   This amendment is broader than I originally thought, but it appears to improve our code in a number of sections. It defines these terms in a more straight-forward manner. It doesn't reduce restrictions, but it does allow for more flexibility, particularly for corner lots.
3. 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)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
   This item, and the next, will allow for tax increment financing to be used as our portion of a matching grant that will pay for infrastructure at the airport.
4. 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)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
5. A discussion regarding an Impact Fee Funding Agreement for City View Apartments (16-099)
   Council Member David Harding moved this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0
   This simply directs our RDA to use the generated tax increment financing to pay the impact fees. This was already the plan, but this agreement formalizes it.
6. A discussion about Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) funding (16-092)
   Council Member George Stewart made a motion requesting Mayor John Curtis prepare the current agreement leaving energy efficiency, water conservation and charging stations but striking renewable energy, and to present it at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   This is a national program, implemented by the states, and administered by municipalities. It provides capital to companies to build or retrofit more sustainable buildings. These improvements should provide more savings each year than the payments on the loans.
7. A discussion regarding the implementation options for applying the sewer base rate by residential housing unit and commercial meter size (16-097)
   Council Member David Harding made a motion to move this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting and that the Administration develop a model that implements the base rate increase on multi-family units to be 10% increase in the first year, 50% in the second year and 90% all subsequent years. Also, to modify the commercial rate as presented by the Administration at this work meeting. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
   Currently a household in a single-family dwelling may pay the same base rate for sewer as an entire apartment complex. If this proposal passes, multifamily housing will be assessed 90% of the regular base rate PER UNIT, rather than 100% of the base rate PER CONNECTION (often whole complexes have just a single connection). We are considering a phase-in of this change to allow everyone time to plan for the impact.
8. 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)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting. Council Members would like to hear from DWQ in the near future.
   See my description below.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.
   To fit everyone's schedule, part of the closed portion of the meeting was held at the beginning of the meeting, and part at the end.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 2, 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)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
   Utah Lake is not known for clean, clear water. The water quality has been impacted by the communities that have grown up around it. Recently the State has designated the lake as being impaired, and is proposing a plan to address the water quality issues. A major aspect of this plan is to restrict the amount of nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) that can be released into the lake from our water treatment plants. Nutrient level is one factor that leads to algal blooms. Meeting the nutrient standards would cost millions of dollars for Provo City to implement. (Provo is planning to do some major renovations to our water treatment plant, which is why our sewer rates are going up. If these restrictions go into place, even more money will need to be spent on water treatment equipment). Some scientists and water experts do not believe that the report on which these proposed restrictions are based has sufficiently strong scientific evidence to justify these restrictions. The Administration is worried that millions of dollars will be spent on something that may not have a significant impact on the water quality of the lake. In the joint resolution we declare, "The data collected for, and presented in, the Integrated Report is inadequate without further scientific studies and vetting by the scientific community to conclude that the quality of Utah Lake will be significantly improved by the proposed regulations."
   The reason I did not vote for the resolution is that we only heard from one side. We heard from scientists and water experts saying that the data is lacking. I wanted to hear from the other scientists and water experts who are proposing the restrictions. We had time to hear from the State DEQ/DWQ and still pass the resolution during the public input period, but chose to act before hearing from them.

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.

What's Up? - 30 June 2016

I wish you all a happy and safe Independence Day celebration.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. A discussion on the proposed Keeping of Swine ordinance. (16-084)
   It is proposed that "Swine shall be confined within a secure outdoor enclosed area located at least three hundred (300) feet from any dwelling." The keeping of swine is not always a complimentary use to residential, as we had so clearly illustrated last year. 
2. A discussion on the Parkway Plaza Potential Redevelopment Area. (16-087)
   Some of you may remember when "The Mix" project was announced earlier this year, for the troubled "Plum Tree" shopping center. The developer is asking for assistance with the structured parking for the project.
3. The funding of utility and infrastructure improvements at the Provo Municipal Airport for Duncan Aviation. (16-085)
   In the hopes to persuade a high-tech, high quality aviation company to locate an important operation in Provo, we promised to build some infrastructure to support the operation. Now it's time to pay the piper. I didn't follow all of the documents and possible funding options, and am interested in having my questions answered in the work meeting, but it appears that the deal is only getting sweeter for the City as the operation that Duncan Aviation is bringing is even bigger than originally envisioned. This will add hundreds of high quality jobs to the area.
4. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   This will be a second look at a proposed refined version of our Council Priority Sheets, which help explain the background and objectives of the nine Priorities selected by the Council this year.
5. A discussion on Council Committees.(16-088)
   I believe this has to do with a proposal to change an assignment on the Development Approval Process Review Committee. But there is no documentation on it yet, so it could entail a broader discussion.
6. A status update on commercial trampoline gym facilities. (16-089)
   There is no documentation on this yet either. A number of local physicians have been alarmed at the number of trauma patients they've seen who have been injured at our local trampoline gyms. Members of the Council have been convening discussions with various stakeholders to address the problem. I suspect this is an update to the rest of the Council on this topic.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 5th, 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)
   Information from the last two "What's Up?"s: "The Agreement was last amended in 2000. There are several changes proposed, perhaps the most important is (from the support documents): "Addition of a section...addressing the method by which either Provo City or Utah County could terminate the Agreement and/or sell their interest in the ISA. (Please note that neither party has expressed a desire to terminate or sell. This section has been added for the mutual benefit of the parties, but also because state law now requires such a section in all interlocal agreements.)" and "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)
   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)
   About a year ago the Council voted to begin the process of implementing an Urban Deer Control Plan to address the "significant damage to landscaping and vegetation on private property 10 and threatening public safety on roadways". This is the next milestone in that process.
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)
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)

What Was Up? - 30 June 2016

It took me more than a week, but here is my report for last Tuesday's meetings. They were a particularly difficult set of meetings for me.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation from Envision Utah entitled "Your Utah, Your Future."
   Report Only. 
   The main point of the presentation is that "centered" communities are more livable, cost less to service, and a vast majority of Utahns want to live is such communities. I support a smart approach to growth, and agree with these principles, but have to acknowledge that the questions in the surveys were written in a way to lead to the answers they were looking for.
   
   
   
   It costs 20% less to create infrastructure for "Centered" communities. Their vision of "Centered" communities still calls for 65% of new housing to be single family residential.
   
   
   The graph on the right really drives home the benefit of "Centered" communities. 85% of our households could live within a mile of a center which provides daily-type services. To illustrate why this is important, consider the impact of Days Market in Northeast Provo vs. the impact of not having a grocery store in West Provo. Smart growth can help provide convenient access to amenities for all of our residents. The graph on the left shows that we can preserve open space and save developable land for future generations.
   
   
   
   This is the graph I struggle with the most. Of the Provoans surveyed, 81% said that they want to live in communities designed for walking, transit, short drives, and housing variety. Not surprisingly, few wanted to live in the other scenarios described with phrases like "long driving distances". I personally think that centered-community principles will help us to grow smart, but I think this question was very leading and the loop-sidedness of the results are in part attributable to that.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.01 (Form of Government) to define when a City Officer is unavailable under the Utah Emergency Interim Succession Act. (16-069)
   This item needs further discussion. 
   See the last "What's Up?" for my description of this item. The Mayor suggested that two hours is probably too short of a time to become impatient and empower an interim mayor (who would only function until the elected mayor became available). I think that most of the Council feels that 48 hours (the current period) is too long. We are kicking this back to committee to find the sweet spot between 2 and 48.
3.  A discussion on the creation of a Council Audit Committee. (16-077)
   Approved to set-up the Budget and Audit Committee 7:0
   The Budget Committee is already familiar with the Budget so there is some synergy in asking them to also review the findings of the independent audit of City finances at the end of the year.
4.  A discussion and review of the Cost of Service Study for the Energy Department. (16-075)
   Travis Ball will bring this item back to a Council Meeting next Fall after discussing with the Energy Board. 
   The main takeaway was that our current rates were not quite sufficient to cover the costs to provide power, but that they planned rate adjustments (which we began implementation later that night) will keep us balanced in the medium term. The structure of the rate increases also will help reduce the "interclass subsidization" (commercial and industrial users paying more than it costs to service them so that residents can pay less than it costs to service us). The last part of the discussion focused on distributed generation (i.e. roof top residential). Much of the cost of providing electrical service is independent of the volume of electricity used, but much of the revenue is derived from the number of KWH used. This is fine when most users have nearly the same "load factor", but some users (most importantly roof-top solar customers) cost about the same to serve (they want their light bulb to go on regardless of whether the sun is shining) but will substantially reduce the number of KWH they use. I support a rate structure which balances simplicity with the principle that everyone should pay their fair share. If we want to create incentives or hardship breaks, it should be done outside of the rate structure.
5. A discussion on the fifth amended Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for the Ice Sheet Authority. (16-080).
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the July 5, 2016 Council Meeting.
   (Meaning that this item was moved forward to the next Council Meeting where it can be voted on). 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.
6. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   Moved to July 5, 2016 Work Meeting.  
   (Meaning that it was continued to then next Work Meeting) Some Councilors wanted more time to review the proposed changes.
7. A follow-up discussion on the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget. (16-054)
   Motion to bring the ordinance without the tax increase to the Council Meeting tonight. Approved 4:3. Council Members Gary Winterton, David Sewell and David Harding opposed.
   Five days before, towards the end of our day-long budget retreat, the Council voted to reaffirm and refine our Budget Intent Statement to hold truth-in-taxation meeting each year to consider adjusting the Property Tax Rate to compensate for inflation. We even selected the local index which would be used as the baseline. Now five days later, which this vote, the Council signaled that they would not carry out this budget intent. I feel that this Intent Statement is good fiscal policy and was disappointed that we are unwilling to follow it. I imagine I'll talk more about this when I address the budget vote in the later meeting.
8. Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.34.300 of the Provo City Code to clarify restrictions on farm animals adjacent to Residential Zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0006OA)
   Bill Peperone will bring this item back to the Council when he has addressed the questions. 
   This proposal has received some critical feedback as it has made it's way through the approval process. It will be brought back after some provisions are tweaked and clarified.
9. Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the following code sections 15.17.030, 15.17.040, 2.29.040 and 14.02.020. The proposed amendments relate to reducing the notice 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)
   Continue to the July 5, 2016 Work Meeting. 
   We were running out of time, so this was pushed off to the next Work Meeting.
10. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

 *** PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Redevelopment Agency of Provo Regular Meeting Agenda 5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Room 200, Municipal Council Chambers 351 West Center, Provo, Utah Summary of Action Decorum The Council requests that citizens help maintain the decorum of the meeting by turning off electronic devices, being respectful to the Council and others, and refraining from applauding during the proceedings of the meeting. Opening Ceremony Roll Call Invocation and Pledge Approval of Minutes Presentations, Proclamations and Awards 1.

1. A presentation by the Covey Center
2. Employee of the Month for the month of May, 2016 - Chad Roscher
3. Miss Provo and Royalty presentation
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $201,794,044, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)
   Approved the ordinance with no tax increase 5:2. Council Member Gary Winterton and David Harding opposed.
   I saved this description for last, as it will be the hardest to write. I have a separate, multi-page blog draft that I've been working on for more than a week. In that post I'm struggling with the balance between being concise, and being detailed enough to catch the nuances. But in this post I'll definitely err on the side of brevity. The one line report-of-action doesn't come close to capturing the wrestle that occurred before the final vote. I advocated hard to follow through with our Budget Intent Statement, reaffirmed just 5 days before, to adjust our property tax rate to account for inflation. (I'll skip the details, but should at least note that even with the adjustment, the property tax rate that we would have paid would still be less than the rate we paid last year, see here for an explaination). The majority of the Council were not willing to follow through with our stated intent. Councilor Sewell proposed a revenue-neutral plan that would see the inflation adjustment happen, but would offset it with a reduction in the utility rate increases for next year, and then would offset the reduction in utility rate revenue by directing the increased property tax revenue to the utilities. It was a bit of a shell game, but it would have allowed us to follow through with our intent, and would have helped establish a precedent and a practice of routinely considering property tax inflation adjustments through the truth-in-taxation process, without actually increasing the burden on residents over the proposal to not adjust the property tax rate.
   So that explains what happened. My forthcoming blog post will explain more of the "why" I was advocating for the adjustment, but I feel I should touch on it a little bit here. Sales tax is collected at a fixed rate, it stays the same unless legislative action is taken to adjust it. A candy bar might cost $0.05 fifty years ago and $0.50 today, so the sales tax on the same item will go up with inflation, even though the rate may stay the same. But inflation also affects the cost of the services we provide, so the $0.03 collected on the candy bar today will pay for about the same amount of services that the $0.003 collected on the candy bar 50 years ago. Property tax rates do NOT work in the same way. The property tax rate is automatically adjusted to compensate for appreciation (which is affected by inflation). The rate decreases (assuming there is some appreciation) unless legislative action is taken to adjust it. The way it is set up, the same number of dollars you paid on your house that was worth $100k 25 years ago is the same number of dollars you pay for the same house, even though it is now work $200k, assuming that your home experience average appreciation, and that no legislative action was taken to adjust the rates during that period. Clearly a dollar today has less buying power than a dollar 25 years ago. Clearly inflation would have eroded the value of the property taxes collected during over that time. As crazy as that scenario sounds, that is pretty much what has happened in Provo. We have had a single inflation adjustment (2.2% last year) to our property tax rate in the last 25 years. The buying power of our property taxes have eroded significantly over that period.
   Taxes aren't enjoyable, but help pay for our services. Low taxes are great, as long as we are sustainably funding the services that our residents want. I'm fine with cutting services and reducing taxes, if that is what the residents want. I'm fine with providing more services and raising taxes, if that is what the residents want (and recent ballot measures like the Rec Center and RAP suggest this). What I'm not okay with is not appropriately paying for the services that we use, basically living off the investment of previous generations without making our own contribution, or pushing off to the next generation the payment of the services we use now. I believe we have been irresponsible over the past quarter century where we have not raised property taxes or utility rates. I applaud the former Council for creating a plan to put us on a path to sustainable utilities and the current Council for continuing to implement that painful but necessary plan. I am disappointed with the current Council for not having the political will to even begin to address the parallel issue with property taxes. We've dug a hole for ourselves over 25 years. This year we considered a budget that would not have started the climb out of the hole, but would have at least stopped us from digging deeper. It would have cost the average household $0.15 a month, or $1.80 a year. To me that is a small price to pay for fiscal responsibility. You can decide for yourself if paying for what you use is a principle that you think our community should live by.
   [Imagine if I wasn't trying to be brief!]
   P.S. I should also mention that I moved to take out the $10k increased funding for the Miss Provo Scholarship Pageant. I don't question whether these young women are talented, or if they are an asset to our community. I just question if it is in the best interest of our community to spend tax money on their scholarships and program expenses. My motion failed to gain sufficient support.
5. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo authorizing the use of tax increment to facilitate the development of Cityview Apartments. (16-081)
   Approved 7:0. 
   I wrote a fairly extensive preview on this issue (items 5 and 7) in the last "What's Up?". I made the case for reducing the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) on this project from 95% down to 90%, as a signal to the development community that Downtown Provo is on its way to being able to stand on its own two feet and we will be easing off on the incentives. It should be noted that the 5% change would amount to roughly $13k on a $20+ million dollar project, and that the other taxing agencies (like Provo School District and Utah County) are participating in the low to mid 70% range. The sentiment on the Council was that we shouldn't make this change at the last minute on this project, but should consider reducing the TIF on future projects. As the Vice-Chair of the RDA board this is the fourth time I've met with the applicant about this project and every time I explained that I would be exploring the wisdom of reducing TIF rate, so I disagreed that this was last minute.
6. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $4,292,168. (16-055)
   Approved 7:0.
   The RDA portion of the budget.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Utah Water Conservancy District authorizing the collection of tax increment related to facilitate the development of the Cityview Apartments. (16-082)
   Approved 7:0.
   Related to item 5.
8.  A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   Approved 7:0. 
   The Storm Water portion of the budget.
9.  A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County relating to the 2016 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. (16-079)
   Approved 7:0.
   From the last "What's Up?": From the support documents: "Provo City has been awarded $23,500 from the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) for law enforcement purposes. The Police Department will be using the funds to purchase tazers (CEW's) and to help fund their computer replacement program. The BJA requires submittal of a resolution approving the grant and an interlocal agreement with Utah County before funds will be released."