City Council - Regular Meeting

We'd like to welcome everyone to the Permanent Council, Provo RDA governing board and a regular meeting on 02/10/2026 at 05:31 p. M. Will do a roll call of the elected officials starting with councilor Rachel Whipple, councilor Jeff Whitlock, councilor Becky Bogdan, councilor Craig Christensen, myself, Catrice McKay, councilor Gary Garrett, and we have Marsha mayor Marsha Judkins. Travis, are you online? K. You could just let us know when he comes in. Alright. We will do we'll have a prayer provided by Julia Chambers, a BYU student.

Our dear heavenly father, we're so thankful for, this evening that we can be together. We are so thankful for, the city government and for all that they do to strengthen and support our community. We are so thankful, for the many blessings that we enjoy, and we're thankful to live in such a beautiful place. We pray that we can be good citizens and that we can notice the needs of our neighbors and, work to build the the future that we want to see. We pray that we can have open minds and sensitive hearts as we navigate the challenges of our day, that we can build bridges with the people around us and and truly peacemakers.

We love thee and pray for these things and bless this meeting in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Julia. We have the great honor to have the honor guard present the colors for us. So and then after that, we'll have the pledge of allegiance by councilor Garrett. So will the audience please stand?

Ready.

Green cover.

Just present. Well, audience, please join me in the pleasant meetings.

Thank you. And thank you to Bayer for doing that presentation for us. That was awesome. And I love those little voices I heard saying the pledge of allegiance. That made me so happy. K. First of we have a ceremony for the swearing in and badge pinning of new firefighters. So that will be presented by chief Jeremy Hedman.

Good evening. Thank you for giving us a little time to celebrate the, start of a new career for for four new firefighters. They're not new to the fire service. They're new to Provo Fire Department. Let's start off with, calling up firefighter paramedic Brian Courtney.

Brian was born and raised in Southern California, and he began his career in the emergency medical service in 2006 with a private ambulance service. After earning his paramedic license in 2015, he spent years serving in busy EMS systems developing a calm dependable approach to patient care grounded in experience, compassion, and sound judgment. That same year, he met his wife. They together began to build a family that remains the foundation of everything he does. After nearly two decades in EMS, Brian and his family relocated to Utah to be closer to family and to continue growing both personally and professionally, joining the Purple Fire Department marks a big a meaningful and humbling next chapter in his career, one that honors the years that he dedicated to paramedicine while embracing the responsibility Chimorkin pride of the fire service.

His pinning as a firefighter represents not a change in commitment, but an expansion of it. Outside of the fire station, Brian and his wife are raising two children and spending as much time outdoors as possible, especially camping, exploring together. He's deep deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve alongside the members of Provo Fire and considers it an honor for both him and his family to be part of a department rooted in service, integrity, and community. I'd like to invite his wife, Jennifer, to come up and pin the badge on him. Congratulations.

Next, I'd like to invite Trenton Batty, paramedic firefighter Trenton Batty up to the dais. Trenton was born and raised in this valley. He's proud and excited for the opportunity to come and work for Bravo Fire. He's been a paramedic, firefighter, and engineer for over twenty one years of service with Orem City along with fifteen years of dedicated service as a Metro SWAT member. He's been married for nearly twenty three years and is proud parent of four children, three daughters, and a son ranging in ages from six to 18.

Outside of work, he enjoys working on old Ford trucks and cars, watching football, shooting, hunting, fishing, hiking, and spending time in the mountains. Above all, he values his time with his family and church. He is honored to and thankful for the opportunity to serve serve the community of Provo in his next chapter of his career. I'd like to ask his wife, Amy, to come up and pin his badge. Like to invite firefighter paramedic Brandon Byers up.

Brandon has four amazing children and a beautiful wife. He came to Pearl Fire Department with nearly nineteen years of fire service experience, including service on the metro special response team and wild line land assignments. Along with qualifications as captain and engineer, he arrived ready to contribute immediately and help wherever the department needed him most. Provo Fire has built a culture and reputation strong enough to attract firefighters with nineteen and twenty years on the job, a reflection of a department that values its people, its professionalism, and its mission. Brandon is grateful for the opportunity to be part of that culture and is proud to continue serving the community of Provo.

I'd like to invite his wife, Aubrey, up to come and pin his badge. Like, address them all the time. And finally, I'd like to invite paramedic firefighter Ricky Fazbinder up. Ricky is a firefighter paramedic with experience in both wildland and structure firefighting, including four seasons on wildland crews and just over two years in the municipal fire service. A graduate graduate of the Utah Valley leadership Utah Valley University where he completed his bachelor's degree in emergency services leadership with additional training in wildland fire and paramedicine.

He's an avid hiker, long distance distance runner, and traveler, newly married, and dedicated dog dog dad. Ricky takes pride in caring for his community, building genuine connections with the people he serves, and approaching every call with empathy and the desire to keep learning. I'd like to invite his wife, Tyra, to come up and pin his badge. Heidi, come and swear these gentlemen in. I want them to come closer.

Okay. I

do solemnly swear

Solemnly swear.

That I will support, obey, and defend constitution of The United States

States. States.

And the constitution of the state of Utah

Constitution of the state. And that I

will discharge the duties of my office with

fidelity.

We'll have you guys standing in

the middle here for a bit.

Thank you, fire, for coming, and it was good to see everyone. We appreciate you taking the time. Alright. As indicated on the screen, a required public hearing will be held for certain agenda items prior to council action. After each such item has been presented, time to comment will be provided for all those who wish to speak.

Notice that item made on the agenda has been continued to a further future meeting, therefore will not be open to public comment at this time. For items that do not require public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to ten minutes. At this time, to fifteen minutes have been set aside for an open public comment period, which is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda, but are limited to topics regarding municipal business or within municipal council purview. Persons who speak during this time to an item that is on the agenda will not normally be afforded a second opportunity to speak during the comment period specific to that item. During any public comment period, each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes.

Due to noticing requirements, no formal action will be taken in this meeting on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Those with comments are invited to approach the podium. Those participating on Zoom will need to use the raise hand feature to indicate they wish to comment. The Chair may choose to alternate between in person and online commenters. Please begin your comments by stating your name and your city of residence. You'll have two minutes to speak. And we will now open public comment.

I need to do anything with these?

No. Yeah. That's good.

Alright. I sent you an email with a couple of graphics in it. If you would like to take a look at those so you can refer to them in my comments. The graphics are there's two of them. One indicates how Provost Boards and Commissions operate.

And the second is how Boards and Commissions should operate. I'm sorry, I've lost my page. At the present time, the mayor has the right to approve or to recommend appointments to boards and commissions, and the council has the right to approve them or to turn them down. You seldom do. In recent years, I can't think of any.

I respectfully advise you to be more careful on approving appointees to boards and commissions. Please make sure that the people that you appoint are knowledgeable, that they adhere to your policies and plans. And I have just just so you know, I have, in the past, applied for several appointments to boards and commissions. I've been turned down on each of them. I get that.

I'm difficult. I no longer want to be appointed to a board of commission. I've decided to do something else instead. I've created a website and all the paraphernalia that goes with it, Facebook, YouTube channel, all the rest, Instagram, all those things, called preserveprovo.com. I'll be doing podcasts as well as posting all of the correspondence I've had with council over the years about different issues. But I'll be doing a podcast too with for myself. Trying to get all this institutional memory that I have in my head out of my head before I drop down dead.

You're out of time. Thanks, Melanie. You're welcome to come up.

My name is Dallin Flake. I'm here yet again to discuss Provost's contract with flock safety. I want to first by, starting with acknowledge the, encouraging our sponsor received from mayor Judkins. She indicated that she's heard from a number of residents about their concerns with flock, and is gathering more information to address the concerns being raised. While I appreciate the concerns or I appreciate that the mayor is preparing to ask hard questions, the responsibility for how Provo handles surveillance and privacy belongs to the entire city government.

Interest in this issue is growing. I've been in contact with multiple local media outlets to discuss the privacy implications of these cameras. It's becoming clear that the public deserves and is demanding a more transparent conversation about this technology. To my fellow residents, it's all of you. If you have concerns about mass surveillance or the lack of oversight with flock safety cameras, now is the time to speak up.

City leadership is seeking input, and your voice is necessary to ensure our privacy is not an afterthought. Please speak to me after this meeting or find me on Facebook or Instagram. I'm happy to share why flock cameras or what flock cameras are and why they are a threat to our civil liberties and our safety. I hope that as more information comes to light, the council will take a serious look at whether the city's contract with flock safety actually aligns with the values on of the people of Provo. And, again, if you anyone wants to discuss with me exactly what is going on with these flock cameras, you can find me on Instagram.

My Instagram handle is at flake dot and dot shake. And then I'm also I'll be making a post on several Facebook groups as well related to the city, so you can find me there as well. If you search Dowling Flake, you'll find me. And I'm happy to discuss with anyone about, the serious implications about these cameras. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We have someone on Zoom. Aaron Campbell. You wanna speak? You have two minutes.

Yes. Thank you. I am also, I am my name is Aaron Caple. I am a resident of Clearfield, Utah. I was recently made aware of conversations in The States, regarding flock safety as well.

And I would just like to add my voice, you know, as not a not a prover resident, but as a resident of the state of Utah. It is of great concern that there are many of Utah cities that are engaging in, contracts with flock safety. More concerning is the presence of flock safety's national database, which basically turns all of the flock safety cameras that are registered under that database, into a nationwide index that is participating in dragnet surveillance that offers, in in a lot of cases, dubious benefit to law enforcement. I'm supportive of law enforcement, but I would like to see law enforcement, services that do not require what I would consider to be blatant, invasions of our Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment's rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. And I'm really glad to hear that the citizens of Provo are making their voices heard in terms of, voicing their concerns to to the mayor as well as to the city council.

And I would also like to urge a, a critical look at the contracts that, the city is engaged in. Thank you very much. I yield my time.

Thank you. Anyone else want to give public comment at this time? Alright. We'll go on to council business. First, we have a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of up to $20,000,000 of transportation sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of financing construction of the airport terminal expansion. This will be presented by Jimmy McKnight, our Public Works Administration Division Director.

Thank you.

In December, the city council approved a resolution authorizing the issuance of, $20,000,000 in transportation sales tax revenue bonds. Since that time, there have been two issues that have come up that have required us to return. One is because of the, our intent is to refi re repay these bonds early with airport revenues. There are certain IRS implications of of that that require a separate public hearing. So that's what this item is.

The second is, as potential lenders have, done their due diligence, they're a concern was raised about the, the county authorization of the sales tax revenue bonds. These are city revenues authorized by the county. In the county code, it stated that the county would review these, this revenue by 2028 to determine if it should continue. So, we worked with the county, and they have signed an interlocal agreement. The county commission has approved an interlocal agreement committing to maintaining the sales tax revenues at least until the end of our bond issuance.

So our public hearing tonight is to hear any comment about these bonds, and then we're the next item would be a resolution reauthorizing the bonds and approving the interlocal agreement with Utah County. I also have, Brian Torgerson, our airport director, and Eric Hunter, our bond counsel, if there are other questions about the funds that the project, the project the funds are being used for or the the tax ramifications or any any questions about the the finance.

Thanks, Jimmy. Any questions from the counsel for Jimmy? K. Thank you. We will open this item up for public comment.

Leland Gamut, George Stewart, Dave Gunn, Lewis Billings, Chris Cannon, Merrill Bingham, Steve Gleason. These are the names of the men who worked and planned and struggled for decades to make Provo Regional Airport a reality. And yet I had to watch John Curtis put on a hard hat and climb on an earth mover for a photo op and take credit for the project and listen to Michelle Caffusi give speeches without mentioning any of these people. I'm still peeved about that. There are other people who participate in making the airport happen, and I am one of them.

I alerted the oblivious neighbors when the airport master plan was originally passed. I organized the neighborhood when the city tried to exercise imminent domain to lengthen the runway, which helped get an independent and helped get an independent appraisal so that the farmers could be adequately compensated for their land. I watched Duncan Aviation get millions in federal, state, and local taxes on the condition that they not seek FBO status. So and compete with the city for fuel feeds. I objected when Dave Graves went door to door to inform residents that the city was taking their homes to expand Lakeview Parkway in order to get the access the city needed to expand the airport.

I investigated the FAA violations that Provo received that prevented the city from getting approval for the new terminal. I questioned the city staffers and airport board members when Steve Gleason left in what I think was an unfair termination. I think I know more about the airport than probably you do. In the last thirty years, I have asked three times to be on the airport board and been turned down. I plead with you to appoint to the airport board people who will give you an independent view of what's going on. Thank you.

Thanks, Melanie. Any other public comment? We have one online. Oh, alright. Not anymore. K. We will close public comment and open up council discussions or any discussion on this item. Becky Bogdan.

Samel, I just wanna say that Provo Bay and Fort Utah pushed back, and she's she's going. I'll say it for everybody else. And they've had a representative on the board up until last June. And in my conversations with Brian in the back there, are we still looking at having someone from one of those neighborhoods on that board come next appointment?

Brian Torgerson, department director for the airport. Councilor Baughan, I don't decide who serves on boards, but I am in favor of that. Obviously, we we want to keep our neighborhoods involved, and so that would be a recommendation from me to the mayor, obviously, who is ultimately responsible for appointing those positions, and then council obviously approves those.

So I'm I'm saddened that we didn't replace the one Prevost Bay neighborhood person with another resident, and I would love to see those neighborhoods represented on that board. There's not how many Westside people do we even have on that board?

I don't know for sure off the top of my head, where each member of the board resides, but definitely within Provo, but, certainly not like we have had in the past with direct representation of the West Side.

Yeah. It was it was

a big problem before, and that's why those neighborhoods fought really hard to get someone on that board. And I know that she just didn't she come off in January June, July?

Recently.

She just barely came off, and we didn't replace her with another resident. And I would love to see a resident or two on that board. Not necessarily of a broad West Side sense because it really does impact Provo Bay and Fort Utah a lot more than it does some of the rest of the areas on the West Side. Thanks. Thanks, Brian.

Any more council discussion? Councilor Garrett.

Jimmy, I should have asked you this when you were at the podium. You mentioned interest on the city's part to pay off the bond earlier than its full term. Could you remind us what the full term of the bond is? Fifteen years. Fifteen years.

And we're trying to trying to repay it in seven or eight years.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Jimmy. Alright. Next, an applied motion on a resolution approving the issuance of transportation sales tax revenue bonds and the execution delivery of an interlocal agreement with Utah County. And this is basically the same thing. Jimmy, anything else you wanna speak to this? Alright. We will open we're required to notice it and do a public like, we just have to say two different things even though it's really for the same thing. But, we'll open this item up for public comment if there's anyone who missed the first time. Alright. Council discussion on this item. Any council discussion? Councilor Bogdan?

So, Jimmy, I've had some questions about from people. What what are we giving up by giving this to the airport? And And so I just kinda want to have that addressed in a public meeting. What are we giving up in order to spend these funds? Instead, you know, instead of using these what

is it? The fifth of

the fifth tax transportation sales tax. Instead of the transportation sales tax being used at the airport, what are we giving up?

So the quarter cent sales tax that is being used is available to use for transportation projects, including roads, sidewalks, airports. And so by making this choice, we have, this and other, we have the fifth cent sales tax as well that goes for the same purpose. We have, TUF that we use for just the roads,

And then

we also have BNC funds that are available for authorized by the state code for the same same purposes. So there are multiple revenue sources that are available to fund transportation, this being one. And so it it's giving up those other opportunities, but we also have other revenue sources that are we continue to use to fund those items.

Thanks. And, also, I read in the packet that the county commission is going to go ahead and instead of review this tax, what is it, 2020 December by December 2028? Yes. They're gonna go ahead and leave this provision in because the airport is that important to them. So to me, when you look at trade offs, you know, if this is what's important to the county and the county is the deciding factor, I don't know that there really is a trade off after 2028 or whenever they would go ahead and revisit that to see whether it is a useful tax or not because this is something that they are you they're going to delay that until after we pay off our portion for the airport. Correct?

Yes. And I I'm not sure that there was concern that they would stop. It the the code just said they would review, see if it should continue. And so that just with some of that uncertainty, we wanted to make sure whoever buys the bonds, they're comfortable knowing that they can review it, but they just are are committing to not end it. So

Thank you. Hey, Jimmy. On that same note, this money isn't always allocated to Provo. It's county money. Right?

No. So the this we're we're referring to the the Provo portion of the

Oh, so it is Provo. It would have been Provo specific regardless.

Yes. It's money that we've been getting since 2019.

Okay. I thought we were getting more than our allotted share, so that's good to know. Thank you. Alright. Any other council discussion? Alright. Thanks, Jimmy. Alright. We'll call for a vote on the implied motion. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen?

Yes.

Councilor Whitlock? Yes. Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Hoban? Is excused? Councilor Whipple? Yes. And that passes six o. Next, we have an implied motion on a resolution to place 2.952 acre parcel of ground located at 351 West Center Street on a surplus property list. And this is presented to us by Tara Riddle.

Good evening, counsel. So this property we're discussing this evening is the old site of the city Center Block at 351 West Center. On the display, we have the lot consist of property that's just under three acres. We had the property appraised actually twice, and the combined appraised value came in at $6,800,000. We've done a request for proposals, which has been issued for the redevelopment of the block. And having this placed on the surplus property list is one of the steps that's necessary in order for us to proceed with that redevelopment. Are there any questions?

Any questions for Tara? Councilor Bogdan?

So, Tara, if we place this on the surplus list

Yes. And we get an RFP that we don't like, does that bind us? Absolutely not. What this is doing is just giving a notice that the city has no need for this property and we're willing to sell it. We can take it back off the surplus property list at any time. This is just placing it there because it has to be on the surplus property list in order for us

to sell it. So if we get an a request for proposal in RFP, because that's done through the administrative side, not us, the legislative side. Right. And the legis and you guys say, okay. This is the one we choose. The legislative side, us, the council can say, no. We don't like that. Too bad. Back out. It's okay. Right. Okay. Thanks.

Like, nothing will move ahead without another vote is the point. Correct?

This is just simply putting the property on the surplus property list.

Great. Thank you so much, Tara. We will open this item up for public comment. Alright. So no public comment. Council discussion. Is there any discussion on this item? Alright. We'll go ahead and call for a vote on the applied motion. Councilor McKay, yes. Councilor Christensen?

Yes.

Councilor Whitlock? Yes. Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Holborn is excused? Councilor Whipple? Yes. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

So that passes six o. Also, I'd like to recognize that we have troop seven twelve here. It's very cool to have a troop here, and you guys are young, and we love it that you're coming to a city event. So young. So thank you. Alright. Next, have an implied motion on an ordinance amending the Zomap classification of real property, generally located at 1560 South 1100 West from the A 15 and RA zones to the general commercial and very low density zones. This is a Lakewood area neighborhood, and it'll be presented by Aaron Ardmore.

Thank you, counsel. So this the history of this property, this application has gone through staff review and the planning commission. So that's what these slides are from. But let me orient you. On the south of the property on these maps is Lakeview Parkway and then 1100 on the West. So you could see the general plan map has mostly yellow, north of the parkway, which means residential. The the orange bubble is calling for mixed use, so a mix of commercial and and residential uses there. And then the green is open space or agricultural. And you can see what the current zones are surrounding the property. So the request would look like this.

The majority of the property would go to a general commercial CG zone, while the top portion there goes to a very low density residential zone. It'd be able to fit a couple dwelling units on that property. There's a concept plan that came through with the application to resell the property. But that's all I've got unless you've got questions for me.

Any questions for Erin? Alright. Thanks, Erin.

Yeah. Thank you.

We will open this item up for public comment.

Hi. My name is Terry German, and I own a property that's just east of this property that they're proposing to do the commercial right now. So it right now just has a bunch of cows on it, which is cool. But, my property used to be about twice the size, but because they were doing that, Parkway, then the city, you know, bought it under threat of condemnation, which is normal. You know? And so I understand

So just really quick. You are the one next to Lakeview Parkway then?

Yes. I back up to it. Thank you. And just east of the property you're talking about. So, I understand that the city has, designated that that area should be commercial, and I agree with that. The thing I would like to say is that I would like all of you to kind of keep in mind that that's a very small commercial area right now, and it might make sense with the main roads going past there and the fact that I had to give up part of my property so that they could have the main road, that if you would keep an open mind about perhaps increasing that area of commercial if it ends up being successful and makes sense. That's all. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Alright. We'll open this item up for council discussion. Any discussion on this item? Counselor Bogdan.

Okay. So I brought this all up in work meeting. I I'm not happy with this plan. I when this came to the neighborhood meeting, it was brought up that this is general commercial, not neighborhood commercial, which is what this is set up for. This area is close enough to East Bay that there is that there's there's lots of amenities there. So it's not like it's gonna attract anything from the northern neighborhoods or from the West Side in general. Right? It's too far south. We've heard from the West Side, and they said they don't want to go to East Bay for their shopping. They need something further west and further north.

So and I'm also I also agree with the comments of some of the planning commission members that the housing probably needs to line up with Karen's backyard. I we have a policy here that we don't allow driveways on a collector road in both eleven hundred and fifteen sixty yard collectors. So I I would like to see the VLDR integrated more with this. I would like to see this more of an s c one rather than a general commercial, and there's no transition piece from the three units to the acre to the east over to this parcel. So it just doesn't it doesn't flow well to me.

There's no buffer. There's there's not anything like that. And so I'd like to see a better plan for this, and so I I I'm gonna vote no on it because, to me, this just I mean, it could be a great plan. It's just not. And the zoning is all we have as a legislative body to say that something's coming in. Also, the junior high is just right up the street, and this is a big walking area for kids around here. So, anyway

I I should have asked. Is the developer here, and would a developer like to speak? I don't know if you have a specific presentation you wanna give us or if you just wanna, like we don't know how specific. We did see some renderings. I don't know how specific those are. If you wanna speak to it a little bit, that would help. And you can just lift up your mic a bit.

Thank you. My name is Andrey Christensen. We've tried to to make this fit the community. We have talked to to be honest, we'd like to have a c store or a gas station here as what we'd like and some restaurants. I know that we've we've talked to Chubby's restaurant and they have expressed some interest.

We've tried to because of the the constraints on the size when we get back towards, I can't remember what the street is, 550. Is that what it is? Anyway, we get to that point. That that Collector road actually comes from the the Epic Sports Park. It goes along and it comes out right there at 1,100 as a large road, and then it shrinks down to us to a smaller road right there at 1100.

So there is a transition from that point to a smaller commuter road from a commuter road to a more neighborhood road there. But what it is what it is now, and it's not going to change to a bigger road there. We've tried to follow the general plan and and keep this a nice area. We're gonna have, some of the same zoning across the street, and we'd like to to move forward and have a really nice community. We've got a number of homes that are gonna be built there, about 260 units.

And then this will fit in with that, and I hope that it's a good fit for the community because there is no

I'm sorry. Where are the 260 units? Where is that?

So there's about we have about 57 acres there.

So Oh,

so you own this side on the other side

of the road. Okay. So any any questions?

Any questions for the builder? Councilor Garrett.

So, Andrew, would the councilor Bogdan has opened the idea of an s g one zone, a different kind of s g one?

S c.

S c one, a different kind of commercial. Would that accommodate a gas station?

No. I'm not I'm not sure. I would have

to ask. Aaron says yes.

But what

so

Is there anything in your project that would not be accommodated by a c one zone as opposed to the c g zone?

I'm gonna turn that over to Aaron.

So I was looking at this earlier. Funny enough, a gas station is a conditional use in the CG zone that's permitted by Wright in SC 1. But there's there's other a variety of retail restaurant uses that are shared between the two zones. They're pretty similar in that aspect. Does that answer the question?

Yes. Can you give us an example of something that is allowed in the CG zone but would not be allowed in the S C 1 zone?

Yeah. Let me go find a couple comparisons and come back to you.

Okay. I know councilor Baghdan expressed concern about hotel properties.

Is a is a hotel one of those?

Let me look.

K. Okay.

What part would you what part do say? Oh.

Alright. Any other questions for anyone before Aaron comes back to us? Councilor Whitlow looks like he has a question.

Yeah. I have a question for the developer. I'm I know this is just kind of a loose site concept plan, but do you have do you wanna speak more to any thoughts on the housing? Like, I I appreciated the details on how you're looking for a gas convenience store or gas station type thing on the corner and then some restaurants in the, you know, the the Middle Port portion. Can you speak to thoughts on housing in the VLDR section of this?

How our housing is gonna look?

Just what type of housing, whether it'll be for rent, for own, who's gonna manage it, just details would be useful.

It it'll all be for sale. K. No rent. We've actually signed a an agreement with you guys to I am so sorry.

It's okay. No worries.

Thought I turned that off.

We love the for sale.

Yes. And so we've we've signed that, with you guys. We've tried to to follow the general plan and and follow your access plan. We really have. And I I think that our our subdivision is very livable.

It has it's a I think a very good community. We have, larger homes. We have we have you can can transition from a a small home to a larger home, stay in the same community so you don't have to move out of that community. I think that that brings longevity to two neighborhoods because now you're not just you know, I live here and then pretty soon I got to live over here and then sometimes I got to live over there. People love where they you know, for instance, it's my house.

We were gonna move into it thirty years ago and move out in six months after remodel. And thirty years later, we're still in the same place, we love all our neighbors. And and that's the way I think people are. They they moved in to somewhere. They love their community. And hopefully, this community is one that we can that can be built and people love their community. So

Thank you.

It helps me to know that you own the other land. Obviously, you're gonna be thinking about it as a whole. And you're gonna be thinking about the best use for that whole area, not just that area in and of itself, which I I thought you just owned that one little piece. So I do like that I do like that part of it. I think that'll be helpful. Aaron, do you have an answer for us?

K. So among uses that are permitted in the general commercial zone that aren't in the s c one, hotel, garden supplies, so larger kinda larger big box stores like that, gyms and athletic clubs. And then there's conditional uses from a variety of auto uses in the general commercial zone that none of those show up in the the s c one.

How

do you feel about changing your CG to an s c one zone?

I I would like to see what in the You can If it if it fits what we're doing, I'm fine with that. But if it's I mean, we want to have the options to put a gas station there, to put some restaurants there, to have some some amenities for the community. If that works in both zones, I don't see a problem.

You can do gas station or restaurant or both. The thing it would exclude is a hotel, which was our concern. We don't think that's an counselor Bogdan doesn't think it's an appropriate place for a hotel. That would be your exclusion.

Cool. And I know that you guys need hotels there, but I think that would be fine on this side.

And what about the VLDR? How do you feel about incorporating that a little bit more into the community? So it's it's maybe a rear loaded thing? So it's not got a driveway on 1560, but it's a rear loaded

It's it's hard because of the small constraint next to Karen's house to be able to let because of our the shape of that piece, it's hard to be able to to service that from the residential side. Once we turn it around and you're you're you're trying to access that from the commercial side, from the stores, from the businesses, and and I don't know if that is you talk about us trying to be part of the community. We don't feel like that is part of the community that that allows that. We we wanna keep it separate so that is a a buffer to the community, and that was why we did it that way.

I appreciate that except for more and more and more and more. As the West Side develops, as the East Side develops, as everything develops, driveways on collector roads become a problem Mhmm. Because you have people pulling in and out. That's why we have the rule, no driveways on collector roads. Right? This is on the corner. This is across the street from not just a church, but a stake center.

Mhmm.

K? So and it's on a corner of two roads. I mean, 1560 South is the only East West connection that this area has, period. Right? It's it's a heavily traveled road for elementary school, for church, for junior high, for everything. So I don't I don't think that it's it's grand for us to go ahead and and make exceptions, especially on a corner for a couple of driveways here. I would like to see this road develop so that driveways are off of it and you just have a subdivision entrance or a commercial entrance or something like that, especially on a corner. So I I'm not wild about that at all.

Mhmm.

I would like to see it more integrated, and then I'm really concerned about not having any buffer between there and the three units to the acre to the east, unless that portion of Terri's property is, say, like, adjusted on her master plan to, like, an LDR or something, her VLDR, to separate and transition from that. So those are those are my concerns. I don't want parking issues there, especially with it being a stake center. You have a lot of parking on the street anyway from, you know, from what happens with a normal stake center. I just like to get away from that, especially on a corner.

Councilor Whipple.

Yeah. So I'm actually really excited about this proposal. And like councilor McKay, I like that you own both sides of the street there. Conferences that I've been to have talked about the importance of having these kind of neighborhood shopping nodes so that you don't just have one economic center with commerce and everything, but you have little ones throughout the town that support the primarily residential areas and that you have kind of this bigger plan to do this commercial thing on both sides of the street to support all of the housing that you have here. I is is fantastic.

And to have restaurants there or grocery stores is absolutely, completely appropriate for this area, both in the context of the single family residential neighborhood around it and Lakeview Parkway. And because it's on Lakeview Parkway, this will also help support the Epic Sports Park and that economic development piece. Regarding the hotel, I don't have the same hesitation that some of the counselors do. I've sat in enough of our meetings with Explore Utah Valley economic development to know that we have an extraordinary hotel room shortage. And when we have any events at the convention center, we do not have enough hotels in the city and, frankly, sometimes in the county for the events that we're hosting, especially when we have large tournaments at the sports park.

So I would be fully supportive of hotels along Lakeview Parkway. And I think the way you have outlined how you would like this to be with a hotel if one comes along to be along the Parkway and then the other commercial areas more towards the neighborhood is fantastic. So I really, really appreciate that. I also like your your twin homes idea and that you would have that kind of step of density. You'd have this little buffer, but it would still be a pleasant place to live, desirable housing in our area, and that's that's really, really good.

So I'm grateful that you are looking holistically at this area, that you're not just wanting to put in houses, but that you're wanting to make it so it's more of a viable corner of our community. Thank you very much.

I agree a 100% with Rachel, and I love it that you own all of it. I didn't realize that makes a big difference for me. I I think you'll make a good overall project, and that you're doing them all for sale just makes my heart so happy. It's gonna be an awesome place to live. Thank you. And I do live by Days where we have houses right across the street from commercial, right to the back of commercial. People love it, and they love their kids. My kids walk there all the time. It's it's like the heart of the neighborhood. I moved back to where I grew up because Days is there. And, you know, those little commercial nodes are they're a huge quality of life thing, I think. Councilor Christensen?

I I could support this, and I would be more favorable to the SC 1 zoning, which would keep it more neighborhood oriented in terms of the the commercial applications there.

Councilor Garrett.

I support the developer in his interest in developing this parcel. We do need commercial along Lakeview Parkway, Recognizing that the parcel to the west on the Northwest corner is already zoned CG, I would hope that that could accommodate a hotel and that this parcel if rezoned for as s c one, could then act as a buffer between the west parcel and the residential neighborhood. So I support the developer and the project. I would hope he would come back with an adjusted proposal for the S C 1 zone.

I I have a question. Are we allowed to I know we have the implied motion. We can we we can update the motion. We can

do a substitute motion.

Yeah. We don't need to delay or continue. We can just do that. Correct? I would be in favor of that.

Yeah. I'm in favor of

Updating it to s e one.

S e one. Yeah. I I I would second that.

Does anyone have a substitute motion?

No? I

thought he just talked to.

Yeah. He he just say it, though.

I I'm this is my first motion, by the way. I would like to make a motion.

Ryan, do you wanna walk

Do you

wanna help me? It sounded like

I still got my kids gloves on. This is

to make a substitute motion to change the rezone designation to from c g to s c one.

K. I'd like to make a substitute motion to change the rezone designation from CG to SC one.

Right. Do we have a second on that substitute motion?

And I would second that.

Now we have Craig Christensen seconding that motion. Alright. Any discussion on the substitute motion? Alright. We'll take a vote on the substitute motion. Councilor Christensen? Yes. Councilor Whitlock?

Yes.

Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Hopin is excused. Whipple? No. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay, yes. So that passes five one.

Thank you.

Alright. Next, we have an implied motion on an ordinance amending the Zomap classification of approximately 39 acres of real property located at 2255 North University Parkway from RC and SC 2 zones to the Manager,

I'm sorry. We're not actually done with the last item yet. So we've passed a motion to change to make an amendment. We need to put the amendment up on the screen and have you vote on the final product.

I apologize. Thank you. It's filing through.

Scared all the scouts.

No.

If you'd if you'd like, you could go to the next item and come back to this, but it's not done yet. Alright.

We'll do that. An ordinance amending the ZOMAT classification of approximately 39 acres of real property during a located 2055 North University Parkway from RC and SC two zones to the VLDR, LDR, MDR, and SC three zones. This is the Carterville neighborhood. It'll be rep it'll be presented to us by Jessica Danniki, our city planner.

Thank you, council. Let me know. Yep. No. Do we have another one of these? Oh, okay.

In a moment, we'll have some slides to look at. There we

go. Cool. Okay. So we are here to discuss the rezone of the first station area plan at the 2230 North Station area. These station area plans were certified and adopted back in September.

So our final step is to go through and make sure that the land within the station area matches what was certified in the plans. Here's the visual. Here's our future land use map from the 2230 North Station area plan. Our approach for deciding land use was keeping dense and intense uses closer to the station and then graduating out as we got closer to the existing neighborhood so it would blend in as best as possible. Our proposed zones are rezoning the Walmart area to S C 3, which allows for commercial mixed use and then graduating densities of housing MDR, LDR, and VLDR.

During planning commission, we had two public comments, one from Beth Heddenbrand, who's a district co chair, who mentioned the concerns about the impacts of traffic, with increased density as well as providing for more open space with new developments. And then an additional comment from Eric Chase who was in favor of the rezones, but liked would have liked to see more changes. After discussion, the Planning Commission's final recommendation was to approve the rezones, but they did have an additional recommendation that the municipal council evaluate the boundaries that were drawn for the the proposed rezones. They felt that if we change the boundaries so they weren't going directly across the street, it would create a more cohesive neighborhood instead of having two different densities facing each other. To follow-up on some questions that were asked during the work session, If we make changes to the stationary plan, we do have to go back and recertify this with the state.

Specifically with rezones, our future land use map gives a land use, but it does not give a specific zone designation. So we have a little bit more flexibility in trying to choose the zone that best meets the need of the city and matches the land use that was in the certified plan. So with the proposed rezone and the recommendation from the planning commission, we do have some flexibility if council feels that they want to change where the boundary lines are. Planning commission's bigger concern was the MDR to LDR because there is a larger density difference there as opposed to LDR to VLDR. But as the MDR's proposed land use was stacked housing and the VLDR's proposed land use was also stacked housing, we do have some some room to make a change there without having to take it back to the state.

So give me an example of a change we can make. So, like, say, the square Mhmm. In the MDR area, then that orange square Yeah. Say we wanted to make that LDR. Mhmm. There was a project that came through. It's gonna be all LDR, all that pink plus that square too. Would that have to go back to the state?

We feel comfortable, that that would not have to go back to the state because the land use in our future land use map, it does show stacked housing, and LDR does allow for two to three stories.

Okay. So you're saying if someone came in to this MDR at the top Mhmm. That says four and wanna do single family homes, that would be would

have to change it and go back to the

But it could be LDR or VLDR or

or VLDR might be a bit too much because v d l VLDR's density is even lower than than LDR. Okay. But VLDR is more more focusing on twin homes, duplexes, and, like, triplexes where MDR and LDR allow for a slightly higher density.

So let's say a developer came around that wanted to do something that we were excited about and had to go back to

the state, how long would that take? I I'm not sure on that process. I don't think anyone has had a stationary plan that they have certified and then brought a change back to the state with. Okay. So I think that would be a first for the whole state.

Okay. Thanks, Jessica. Any questions for Jessica? Becky Bogdan.

Oh, I'm the question girl today. Okay. What happens if we just say no? We don't wanna rezone this.

It's it's part of the the state process. It was our directive from MAG. My understanding is we lose access to funding if we don't follow the the adopted state requirement to have our our stationary plans land use match what was approved in the certified stationary plan. And we do have to go back and report on when these things are completed.

So, like, what kind of funding do we lose out on?

My understanding is this transportation funding. I don't have the specific details of it's gonna be $30,000 here or $40,000 here. I I don't have those exact numbers.

Okay. Thank you. Council councilor Whitlock.

A few of these questions I'm asking just for the benefit of the public. So, effectively, the state passed a law required us to make plans around all of our station, our UV

The UV station.

Specifically, UVX stations.

Correct.

So we we already have submitted a plan to the state. The state has approved that plan. And now as part of the law, we now have to proactively rezone parcels to match that plan.

Correct.

When do we have to do that by? Is that specified?

Our goal and what is specified is by 12/31/2025. MAG has been willing to work with us because we had our first rezone application submitted before that deadline. We haven't gonna get been given a specific we need to have everything done. Or you're going to start see a a funding cut deadline, we're working on getting the other legal descriptions for the rezones from public works so we can continue bringing these to you.

And just I'm curious because we're doing this kind of in response to state law and not necessarily a developer application as we just saw in the last item. What do you do you have any sense, or does does city development services have a sense of what the practical implications of this? Are any of these properties likely to be redeveloped? Or I'm just curious if you can speak to that.

In general, as you mentioned, the goal is kind of to signal where we want redevelopment and what kind of redevelopment we want to have happen. This station area is a little bit unique in the fact that a lot of this area was just redeveloped. We I I mean, I can speak personally to the fact that I haven't been getting a lot of calls about parcels that are up for sale that people are are looking to to purchase. As far as I'm aware, no one has come into the department with any big plans for for any of this area. It's just gonna be as market forces allow, but there's nothing immediately on the horizon for for a big development coming in.

And if I could ask one more question. So to this this point of if we want if we need to rezone something that slightly doesn't match the plan, we now have to resubmit the plan and get it reapproved. What would happen, for example, if there's a developer that wants to combine multiple of these parcels, but it's incongruous with the current pre zoning that we're doing now?

If they want to go through and and combine the parcels into one and

Let's say they buy MDR, LDR,

and

v all these the orange, pink, and yellow.

Yeah. And they just have some

Some concept plan that where it would be incongruous with the LDR zone for some reason. We would have to then go through the whole process and update our plan?

We would have to take the plan back to the state to certify. I think, again, as far as I'm aware, no one in the state has has done this yet, so I don't believe we have any precedent to know the timing that that would take or how friendly the state has been to recertifying plans. If a developer came in, bought parcels in the MDR, LDR, and VLDR and had a a large concept plan, I think our first goal would be to work with them so that they were putting VLDR type disease in that area.

And I think that

would be our our first approach to see if we could work something that way.

But there's no in your mind, there's no, like, incongruency with what we're doing? For example, these little islands of MDR are just matching MDR all around it?

On the on the East Side of University Parkway, yes, there's a a variety of zones over there. There's it's predominantly s c two. There's MDR, and there's RC. So it will be bringing it all into one cohesive zone.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Councilor Whipple.

Yeah. I'm I'm still thinking about the planning commission recommendation to change where the the zone lines are. I I really don't see how it would be better to have the change in zone, like, mid block than it is at a street. A street seems like a really clear line for that, and we know where those boundaries are. But if we're doing it mid block, then we may have uneven parcel lines, and it could be really jagged.

There's going to be one zone touching another zone either way we do it. And I think the way that we've proposed is cleaner, and I don't see that there's any more or different impact to to the neighborhood, especially not where we've got an area that's already been developed recently and the odds of change happening in the near future are very low. So I'm not supportive of that recommendation from the planning commission. I I think that's all I've got on this one right now. Thanks.

K. Thanks, Jessica. We will open this item up for public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? Not seeing any public comment. We'll go back to council discussion. Is there any more discussion on this item?

Councilor Bogdan. Jeff's comment about the river really has me think a lot of, do we really want that MDR there in the corner along the river? Or you know? I don't know. But I guess I guess I'm just throwing it out there.

Then once we get the river plan done, there may be a need to go back and and revisit this and say, is this really what we want along this corridor and change some of these sections? I mean, right now, it seems like we're between a rock and a hard place and have to do that. But I once we get this river thing figured out, I really would like to swing back to this to see if this really fit our plan, or is this something that we really need to consider changing?

Councilor Whipple.

Well, it's my understanding that no matter what the zoning is, that 100 foot setback is going to apply for anything that's close to the river. So we've already got those protections in place, and I don't see that this changes the standards that we have for building near the river. I am curious if doing this adoption would prevent us from doing an overlay zone. If we're looking at doing an overlay for the river corridor, it seems like we could do that pretty easily and and still be consistent with the plan and have the protections that we want. But right now, that 100 foot setback is protecting our river no matter what zoning we put in.

Yep. I would also I had I I just echo councilor Bogdan's sentiments, but I think with the 100 foot protection, it's extremely unlikely that that parcel will be redeveloped within the time period that we're looking at. It would just be probably not economically viable given that I think it's I think we learned in the in the working meeting, it's much less than a 100 feet from the river currently.

Alright. I'm just gonna quickly say that I am voting no on this, on the principle that the state has made us do it and that we are being forced to rezone, and it takes away our power to work towards specific asks in a development. You know? Owner occupancy probably doesn't relate to this area as much, but, I'm just against the state preemption. So just wanna qualify my no vote. Any more discussion? Alright. We will vote on the motion. Councilor Whitlock?

Yes.

Councilor Bogdan?

I'm gonna vote no for the same reasons for Catrice.

Councilor Hoban is excused. Councilor Whipple? Yes. Councilor Garrett? Yes. Councilor McKay, no. Councilor Christensen?

No.

So that does not pass. So it's three three.

Yeah. Yep.

Alright. Alright. Now we have the adjournment of the municipal council. And if there's no objection, we will now recess the provincial council and convene

Madam chair, sorry. Can we go back

to to the the other one? Yeah. Thank you. Alright. Do I need to read the do I read the implied motion, Ryan, or not?

They're gonna put it up on the screen, I believe. The amended number four has changed. Yeah.

It's number five.

Oh, five?

Yes. Number five.

K. So we've gone so here is so the implied motion that you are now voting on is to approve this ordinance as it has already been amended, which as you can see at lines, seven or six and seven and sixteen, and down at 38, the references to general commercial have been changed to neighborhood shopping center s c one.

Thank you. Thank you, Brian. If we can go to the top of that, I'll read it. In ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property generally located at 1560 South 1100 West from the agricultural A 1 five and residential agricultural RA zones to the neighborhood shopping Center s c one and very low density VLDR zones, Lakewood Neighborhood. And we'll take a vote on this implied motion starting with councilor Christensen. Yes. Councilor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councilor Bogdan. Yes. Councilor Holman's excused. Councilor Whipple. Yes. Councilor Garrett? Yes. And councilor McKay? Yes. So that passes six o. Now if there's no objection, we will now recess the Pro Municipal Council and convene the RDA governing board by unanimous consent.

And I've asked Catrice if she would chair this, session of the RDA.

An implied motion on a resolution of the redevelopment agency of Provo City approving the project area plan for the Lakewood Parkway Community Reinvestment Area, and this will be presented by Melissa McNally, our RDA director.

Thank you, and good evening. This resolution is for a community reinvestment area plan for the Lakeview Parkway corridor. The intent is to help incentivize some commercial development along Lakeview Parkway. There are a few parcels specific that are outlined in the plan. They are the two parcels zoned freeway commercial that are just adjacent to the on ramp, off ramp at at University Avenue.

And another the third parcel is just south of the Epic Sport Park that is zoned. I think is it SC? It's one of the SC zones currently. So they're already zoned commercial, and that we felt like that would tie in well with the plan to enable tools to incentivize development in those in those spots. We feel like incentives are necessary for these areas just because of the the development requirements, the infrastructure needed, and to bring those areas up out of the floodplain takes a substantial amount of of earthwork also.

The the plan also took into account the the general plan and the goals for economic development within the general plan and the the plans for the Epic Sports Park and the expansion of the airport. Do we have questions about the plan at this at this point?

I just wanna clarify, Melissa, that we don't whatever even if we approve this plan today, it doesn't mean we're agreeing to any development of any kind, and it doesn't mean that we have to incentivize anything. To get anything incentivized down the road still takes a vote and all the particulars and and going into the details on that.

Correct? Yes. Apologies. The so any incentive that is offered, would be development specific, and it would require action by the council both as the council and as the RDA board to offer any kind of incentive. So this is just a tool. This is just implementing a tool so that if later down the road we want to offer those specific incentives to specific developments and organizations, we can do that. But it does not it does not create anything binding to anything.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. Any questions for Melissa? Councilor Whitlock.

Yeah. This is just a follow-up clarifying question. So all the parameters of the any incentives that we may create, like, for example, the period of time, that would all be defined as a separate proposal. This is just creating the framework to be able to do that. Correct?

Yes. It is. And and within the plan, it is stated that the intent for the area, if if any incentives are offered, it would be through post a post post performance tax incentive. So yes. So

that's the one thing we're pre committing to effectively is post performance tax incentives?

The possibility of the post performance tax incentives. And and we put it in there just to to rule out the expectation of any kind of property tax, incentive. Yeah.

Thank you.

Councilor Bogdan. This me, this is kind of this was a great idea at the time, and then we came up with a request for proposal for looking at what areas in the city are best to be for us to throw incentives behind. Right? So to me, at this point, we've kind of changed gears, and it's a putting a cart before the horse kind of a thing. Is this time sensitive? Is this something that can wait until after we get the RFP done for the economic development study?

You could continue it and hear it later. If you didn't want to pass it, that's it at your whatever the RDA board would like to do at this point in time.

So it's not really time sensitive No. Per se? We still have time to do our study and then come back. And

if

our study says, hey. This is the best project area that we should look at or best place in the city we should look at for these kinds of things, then we could come back to this. Okay. That would be my preference. Thank you.

Well, let me just I agree with one caveat, which is that you you've mentioned specifically, do we have time to get the whole study done before we vote on it? And and, yes, you do. So long as a specific proposal for an incentive doesn't come to you that you want to approve before the study gets done, which could happen. If if you if you get to the point where you're wanting to create an incentive, you'll have to create the area before you can create the incentive even if that happens before the study is done. Just

Any more questions for Melissa? K. Thank you, Melissa. We will open this item up for public comment. Anyone have public comment on this item?

We just need your name and city of residence, please.

My name is Jason Largeever. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. I'm a licensed real estate agent in the state of Utah. I represent the Bastian and Davis families who are the owners of used to be the northern parcel, but the southern parcel off the Lakeview Parkway. I decided to jump up here real quickly in regards to your thoughts on incentives and how to put the cart before the horse.

That is something, again, as we're trying to obviously grow tax and taxes for the city as well as create development for the city. That's something to consider as we are trying to lure, obviously, more money into the pro wall Utah County economic zones. So that's something to consider, and that's why I wanted to just jump up here. And as you're sort of contemplating, is it the cart for the horse or not? It is something that we do consider as we are talking to people coming from out of state looking to invest in the state of Utah, obviously, Provo and other areas. But that's our motivation for being here today was to find out. So I'm sorry what what the plan may or may not be moving forward currently.

K. Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? Alright. We'll go to board discussion.

Thinking about what Becky said, I see this, especially the one parcel by the sports park. I'm we purposely built the sports park as an economic driver. It was very purposely built for that. That's why the county invested so much money. It's why we gave so much money. And to make that successful, we need, you know, the hotel. The we need a hotel. We need the airport's gonna add to that. A convenience store, restaurants, gas station, whatever. You know, those things are gonna so I'm very interested.

And I think even beyond what comes out of our economic study, we know that we need that for this economic tool we've already built to be successful. So my two minutes are out. So I think that that's really important, and I think that's time sensitive. Like, I think we're already behind. Like, the faster we can do it, the better.

I wanna maximize all those fields for tournaments and revenue and bring people flying in, and they'll eat at our restaurants, and they will stay at hotels and Airbnbs and spend money in our economy and go bowling and go to the creamery and all that fun stuff. As someone who spent a ton of money in Mesquite, Saint George in Vegas on soccer tournaments, I know they spend a lot of money. There's a lot of people. So, that's why I will be a yes on this. I think it's important. Any other counselor Christensen?

Yeah. I'll also be a yes on this. I think the, the economic development I actually don't think this is in conflict at all with what we're doing with the the economic strategy. We've already placed these bets. The bets have been significant in the airport and the sports park, and the reason you make those strategic bets is to leverage them. And these are missing pieces. This is revenue that we should be collecting, And I think it provides good incentives for people who are visiting, and I think it will also provide incentive or good amenities for people who are resident in the on the West Side.

Councilor Whitlock.

Yeah. I I I agree with what has been said. And just the way I the way I think about this is this is essentially giving us the option to do it in the future. And if we don't like what's happened, we still have that choice. So I don't see this this is what I'd call, like, a a two way door or reversible decision.

So I'm not super concerned about about putting the cart before the horse here. And and I do agree that it's sort of incumbent on us to ensure and do to do what we can that the epic sports part gets successful because we've already we're already in it. And I don't think we've reached the place where where we would be doing a sunk cost fallacy. We still need to finish the finish the job, so to speak. I also like tax increment financing as a tool.

I think it's something that is be good for us to get some experience with. And and I think that, you know, I would love to maybe consider it for other types of things like potentially solving our housing bottleneck with condos and stuff. Again, that's forward thinking and potentially hard to do, but I I I'd like us to try to be creative and understand how we can use this tool.

Alright. Any more discussion?

Councilor Whipple? Yeah. I'd like first to go ahead and and vote on this. We had looked at this as a small area and then a more expansive area, and we're back to the small area after hearing some of the concerns of the people in the the locality. In some ways, I think the larger one would have been good because then the funds from it could have been used to benefit other areas and other parts of that larger area. And we're a little bit more constrained with the small one, But I can appreciate why we have the narrow scope for this project area, and I say let's go ahead and do it.

Also, Melissa, I noticed in the draft that I think I think it should have talked more about the need for the hotel and different things and how the airport feeds the sports complex and vice versa. So I noticed that that was kinda missing in the draft. Alright. We will vote on the implied motion. Councilor Bogdan? No. Councilor Hoban's excused? Councilor Whipple? Yes. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen?

Yes.

And councilor Whitlock?

Yes.

Alright.

We are now going to adjourn the RDA governing board if there's no objection and reconvene as a pro municipal council by unanimous consent. So now there's an implied motion ordinance approving the Lakeview Parkway Community Reinvestment Project plan area, the same thing, basically, that we just talked about. And this will be present Melissa, do you wanna present anything? Or k. It's the same thing we just talked about. If anyone wants to give public comment to this now, now that you heard all that other comment and you So we the RDA agreed to it in our last vote, so now the council has to agree to it. Correct?

Right. Yes. State law requires this particular, because the RDA is technically a separate legal body. State law requires approval by both the RDA board and the municipal council.

So we're just doing it as both bodies, so to speak, which seems redundant, but very important legally. So we'll open this number for public comment. Any public comment on this item? Alright. Council discussion. Any council discussion on this item? Alright. We'll take a vote on the applied motion. Councilor Whipple? Yes. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen? Yes. Councilor Whitlock? Yes. And councilor Bogdan? Yes. Oh, we got a six o. Alright.

I don't have any more notes, but I knew no. No. I know that we need to adjourn the council.

Yes. By a third

By unanimous consent. Thank you. Oh, wait. Councilor Garrett has a question.

For Brian. Yes. Is there a way for councilor Hoban to register a vote on item five that failed by a vote of five a tie vote of three? Not at this point. Post meeting?

Not at this point. We would have to have council leadership could elect to put the item back on the agenda for a future meeting.

Okay.

But we'd have to resolve it that way if if it want if they wanna bring it back.

Okay. I just I hate to see an item fail by a tie vote. I don't care how he votes, but if it's going to fail, I would rather have it be a majority.

Is We'll bring it back.

Is councilor Hoban on right now?

I don't think he is. He said he was gonna try to

Well, there is no prevailing sign. There is that

No. Problem.

Alright. Thank you.

Justin and I were over here debating the technicalities of motions to reconsider, but we'll we can do that later since he's not on anyway.

Recording stopped.