Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhoods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighborhood districts report rising attendance, broadened projects; staff to add tradition to handbook
Summary
Provo’s neighborhood district program reported rising attendance and a year of service projects; staff will add a long-standing practice — that planning-commission appointees step down as neighborhood chairs — to the program handbook rather than changing city code.
Rachel Green, Provo’s community relations coordinator, told the City Council that attendance at neighborhood district meetings has climbed from the twenties in the program’s early years to an average of about 80 people this year.
The increase accompanies a large array of volunteer projects and local matching-grant work, Green said. District 1 reported more than 700 service hours for pruning, park cleanups and other work; districts used matching grants to buy traffic-calming signs, benches and other neighborhood infrastructure. Green said districts rolled over previously unspent service hours (about 300 hours) and roughly $1,000 in unused grant funds; some districts combined that rollover with current-year budgets to create larger funds — one district now has about $11,000 available (about $7,500 for the current year plus roughly $4,000 rolled over).
“Every year, the attendance has about doubled ... we’ve been averaging about 80 people,” Green said.
Why it matters: Council members said the program gives residents a direct channel to city staff and a way to deliver neighborhood-level improvements without large central staff investments. Councilors and Green described a mix of outreach methods — in-person meetings, email newsletters and social media — that account for varying preferences across districts.
Details from the report: Green described projects and outreach by district: District 1 focused on neighborhood speed and crosswalk education and purchased slow-down signs; District 2 redirected a canceled parks project by rolling over grant dollars, cleaned up mud after storm events and is considering a community mural to address graffiti; District 3 used funds to stabilize a UDOT frontage road used by delivery trucks and to buy “no dumping” signage; District 4 partnered with the fire department on an every-other-year hillside cleanup and purchased radar speed signs; and District 5 used matching funds for water-wise landscaping near a roundabout and tree plantings to create shaded walkways.
Green said the program’s email newsletter open rate (60–70%) is well above the industry average she cited (about 23%), and she described neighborhood social-media posts that receive many views relative to official follower counts.
Councillors asked staff to document longstanding practices: One recurring question was what should happen when a neighborhood district board member is appointed to the planning commission. Green said the practice has been for that person to step down as a neighborhood chair but that the practice is not codified in city code. Council members agreed that adding the practice to the neighborhood program handbook and training materials, rather than amending the code, was sufficient.
Next steps and context: Councilors asked Green to run proposals for neighborhood boundary adjustments through district boards before the council considers any map changes; Green said she would do so. Councilors also encouraged continued promotion of district meetings and cross-district collaboration on recurring projects.
Ending: Council members praised the program’s volunteer energy and asked staff to return with any needed clarifications in the neighborhood handbook so the council and residents have a clear, written reference for customary practices and rollover procedures.
