City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Provo Municipal Council and the Provo RDA Governing Board and the Stormwater Service District Governing Board regular meeting. It is June 9th, 2026, and it's 5.31 p.m. We'll have a roll call of each of the councillors. Jeff.

Jeff Whitlock.

Becky Bogdan. Rachel Whipple.

Craig Christensen.

Catrice McKay.

Gary Garrett.

Today's opening prayer will be provided by our state rep, Brant Pace, and they will have a Pledge of Allegiance by Councillor Whitlock.

Our gracious Heavenly Father, we come before the commencement of the City Council meeting and pray as always thy blessings upon those chosen to perform important duties for the wonderful city in which we live. We thank thee for thy many blessings. We acknowledge them and pray that thou will send rains of which thou knowest we need. We pray for wisdom and judgment, for protection and and the distant vision to make those decisions which will serve us in our community now and in the future. This we pray for humbly in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thanks, Grant.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

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. For items that do not require a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to 10 minutes. At this time, up to 15 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 wish to 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 and 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 in the city of residence you will have two minutes to speak do we have any public comment right now all right see no public comment we'll move on to council business First of all, we have an implied motion on a resolution to place 5.079 acres of real property generally located to the south of the FX Sports Park on Lakeview Parkway on the surplus property list. This will be presented to us by Cody Hill. He's our Division Director of Economic Development. Chair, we skipped item number one, the presentation. Yes, we did. Thank you. All right, sorry, Cody, you're delayed. First of all, we're gonna do a presentation regarding the 2027 Provo City Citizens Budget. And this will be presented by Britton. Yes, he is our new council office intern. And the citizens budget is something that we choose to do as a council to kind of just do an easy to understand overview of the entire budget.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you. Counselors, I'm here to present the Citizens Budget today for the fiscal year 2027, which will begin July 1st of this calendar year. And this Citizens Budget is meant to highlight some of the key components of the full tentative budget and is based off of that document, which is linked at the bottom, which we'll get to in a minute.

Here's my clicker, perfect.

Okay, so the first page here is the revenue summary. And for total revenues and transfers in projected for the fiscal year 2027, we are anticipating approximately $334.62 million. And that's derived from three main revenue sources, which include the sales of utility services, fees, and sales tax. And below, there's a graph showing the total revenues and transfers in from the past five fiscal years, from 2023 to today. There's also a section to the right explaining a little bit more about the taxes and fees that Provo City charges, as well as how some of the transfers work. The bottom paragraph explains briefly our sales tax revenue projection. And I'm pleased to announce that there's about a 14% increase from what was budgeted for the fiscal year 2026 and what we anticipate actually receiving. So that is also shown in the budget for fiscal year 2027. We have a little bit higher sales tax revenue projection, which is approximately $30.26 million. Onto expenses, our total expenditures and transfers out projected for fiscal year 2027 is $341.6 million. And to the left is another graphic showing total expenditures and transfers out for the last five fiscal years. The most significant expenses come from enterprise funds, so our airport and utilities, the general fund, and then internal service funds. Below that is a little explainer bubble talking about the six different funds that comprise the entire city budget. which you can read about. As well, we have an explainer about general fund expenditures and transfers out that are being recommended for fiscal year 2027, which is approximately $94.22 million, as well as a graphic to the right of all the different departments and their general fund expenses. expected in fiscal year 2027. The top three being police at 27.9 million, fire at 16.8 million, and parks at approximately 15.3 million. The capital projects page here shows our capital improvement plan budget, which is approximately $57.79 million for this upcoming fiscal year, as well as a breakdown of the different departments and their anticipated capital project costs. The top three being wastewater at approximately $14.8 million, energy at $13.03 million, and our water department at $7.88 million. Below that, we have given a little explainer on some significant capital projects that you can expect to see in fiscal year 2027. All of them have to do with water in some way. And one that I specifically wanted to highlight was the drinking water treatment plant that is entering its final phase of construction here in fall of 2026 with the plant. projected to be open next calendar year. And it will transform water into drinking quality water, which we all need. And if you're interested in learning more about additional capital projects in the future, they usually span more than a year, the full five-year capital improvement plan can be viewed at the bottom of the page. Utility rates and rebates is the new page that I added this year, or I should say the municipal council staff. And on the page, it explains a little bit about some utility rate adjustments that are proposed in the tentative budget for fiscal year 2027, including a 6% increase for residential water rates, as well as a 4% increase for small commercial, 7% for large commercial, and 10% increase for industrial power customers to electricity rates. I do want to note, though, that no increases are expected for residential power customers this upcoming fiscal year, which is great. Additionally, on this page, there are some resources for residents and business owners for utility rebates and sustainability programs to help offset some of the increased costs of providing high quality utilities. to the city. Some of those include discounts on sprinkler controllers to help save water during this drought season, shade trees that are absolutely free once every three years, any residents eligible for that, and then rebates on sprinkler heads. The funding and saving page analyzes some ways that Provo City is trying to operate more efficiently by cutting on expenses and improving revenue. And I've chosen to highlight five of the things from the budget that both the council, the mayor's office, and city staff I've attempted to do. One of those is a stricter approach to supplemental appropriations. So department directors are now being asked to identify potential funding sources for every proposed project ahead of time, which is a big deal. Secondly, is establishing an annual vehicle fleet budget that wasn't a defined budget previously. Addressing operational overtime in the fire department. We've been able to hire more fire officers or firefighters, excuse me, and lower their overtime costs, saving the city money. um investing in an economic development strategic plan has been one of the priorities of the council that i wanted to highlight and then lastly is improving building permit processes and we've been able to add a new building inspector under this proposed budget at no cost to the general fund Moving forward, Provo is a great city and that's been recognized by others. So there's a little section about some achievements and rankings for the city of Provo, as well as the community vision that was created in 2010 by the Vision 2030 Steering Committee and Provo City staff. And then at the very bottom is a little looking ahead paragraph talking about how this proposed budget meets those community aims. And then lastly is contact information for all the counselors and the mayor, as well as a little explainer on how to get involved in the budget process if you are a citizen interested in learning more. And at the very bottom is a link to the full fiscal year 2027 tentative budget. I'll now welcome any questions if you have any. Thank you.

Any questions for Britton? I think we're good. Thank you so much for doing that. We'd like to recognize that we've been joined by Councillor Travis Hoban and the Mayor Marsha Judkins. Next, an implied motion on Now's Your Chance, Cody. A resolution to place 5.079 acres of real property generally located to the south of the Epic Sports Park on Lakeview Parkway on the surplus list.

Thank you. I also appreciate it. So yeah, I'm here to discuss the surplusing of this property. It is located just south of the Epic Sports Park. It is about 5.079 acres. It was originally included in the purchase for the land for the Epic Sports Park, which is just over 100 acres. And then looking ahead, the development services department worked with Parks and Recreation to zone the bottom portion of it, that five acres on the bottom as SC2. So commercial for that area. And we've been discussing this in the previous work session about the RFP that went out for it. And so the city is contemplating its development and looking at surplusing it so that it could be sold and developed. And I'm happy to field any questions, additional questions that you have about this property. But I feel like we've been talking about it quite a bit lately.

All right. Any questions for Cody? All right. Thank you. Brian, I did do open public comment before I went back and did Okay, one.

Gotcha.

Thanks for checking.

I asked. Well, nevermind. Go ahead. Great.

Okay. Is there any public comment on the surplus property of Lakeview Parkway? All right. See no public comment. Any council discussion on this item? All right. We will do a vote on the implied. Oh. Councillor Whitlock.

If I may, just because I think sometimes the way in which these things get decided, the surplus property action happens sometimes before everyone has the full context. So this is just by the airport. And if you look in the work meeting, there's a really nice plan for a hotel and some restaurants next to the Epic Sports Park. So we're putting this as a procedural thing we need to do in order to make that happen for people who use the airport and the Epic Sports Park.

Thank you. All right. Next, we'll do a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Garrett.

Yes.

Councillor McKay. Yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

And Councillor Whipple. Yes. That passes 7-0. Next, we have an applied motion and ordinance submitting the zone map classification of real property, generally located at 5568 North Canyon Road, from the medium-density residential MDR zone to the Arbors on the Avenue Pro A10 zone, North Timpview. And this will be presented by Aaron Ardmore, our planning supervisor.

Thank you, Council. So this is maybe the third time you've seen this property come before you. So if you recall, those of you that were on the Council last year approved the medium-density residential zone that's shown on the map on the left, along with a development agreement to tie it down to 16 townhome units. So the developer has come back now with a new proposal to produce 46 condo units using the Arbors on the Avenue zone. So this has gone through staff review and planning commission. The concept essentially shows that it can meet the zone if approved. Part of this is also an amendment of the development agreement on record that's recorded at the county. to reflect the changes with this proposal. So that's what's before you, and I'm happy to address any questions, and the applicant is also here to address any questions you might have.

Thanks, Aaron. All right, any questions for Aaron? Counselor Christensen.

So it'd just be helpful to know about the sewer capacity that we did not talk about in the work meeting. I'm just curious as to how this now works and it didn't before.

I can't speak to sewer capacity, but if there's someone from Public Works here that can. Looks like there is. Okay, great.

We have Gordon Haight joining us. He's our Public Works Director.

Thank you. No, that's an important question. So when they first came through, the city had gone through with its master plan and looked at the city master plan and allocated for undeveloped property. How many... sewer spaces or connections would be allowed on each of those properties. This property was in the general plan of 12 units per eight or total of 12 units. And so we had allocated all the capacity in the Southwest knowing that we had some, excuse me, the north.

Northwest.

Northeast. Northeast section. Based upon some capacity restraints. Since that time, we have looked at some properties that we have, we had large apartment projects and others that did not come through that had different zonings. And so we were still, we were able to allocate units to this area after we did the mask after the master plan was adopted by the city and we looked at that and said okay let's pull some of these and we have we have the capacity for this it's still tight i think we've we've ended up with um after this project 150 connections but some of those again are allocated for undeveloped property that we say will develop in the future so we, if there's an up zone on some of those properties, it could be a real challenge for us. And we may not be able to do that. So this project is taking more than the 12 we'd allocated for it. We can do that because of allocations that we now believe are what's really going to happen with the master.

So initially it was 12 and now it's going up to 48. Um, So does that put in jeopardy these? I'm just wondering how tight that threshold is. What are we trading on?

We believe that going ahead and proving this is going to be fine because we've looked at all the properties based upon the master plan the city council adopted, and we have the capacity to meet that. Now, if something comes in and zones over that, that would be a challenge.

Okay.

All right. Thanks, Gordon.

All right. Any other questions for Aaron? Councillor Whitlock.

I just had a question. So this was previously, there was a previous development agreement that was associated with this project, correct?

Correct.

And are we still operating under that previous development agreement?

As of right now, we are.

So just some questions about that. So one, was there any owner occupancy stipulated in that development agreement? There was. Can you explain that?

Yes, so it's that portion of it has been continued in the proposed development agreement for tonight, where the developer has committed to provide at least 50% of deed restricted owner occupant units within the project.

And answer this as you're able, but part of the, I guess, justification to the public for more units but smaller is that these would perhaps be more affordable. Can you speak to maybe what the cost of these would be?

Yeah. David, Brigo and Jay can speak to that much more than I can. But yes, the units that they were looking at before were going to be quite expensive and be kind of counter to what the city has focused on with affordability.

And then in the neighborhood meeting, it seemed the primary concern for those who didn't want this development was traffic. What in the development agreement would address those concerns?

There's road improvements tied to this. There's infrastructure utility improvements tied to this. So it'll actually be a benefit to the area in that regard.

So it'll actually improve the overall system?

Correct.

And then, sorry, I said last, but one more. And then the current property is effectively like a discontinued gravel pit. Hot topic lately? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. Councilor Christensen.

And so what was the answer to the current development agreement in terms of owner occupancy?

I believe it's the minimum of 50% of the units.

The existing?

The existing. Okay.

Is my understanding that that was actually 100% owner occupancy?

I can look up the county record and double check that, but I believe it was the 50%.

Okay, that would be helpful to know. Okay.

Okay, Aaron. So this includes the trails too, if I remember right, that existing agreement, he's going to develop the trail.

Yes, develop the trail to connect up to our current trail system.

And then parking was also brought up in the neighborhood meeting. So they were concerned that it didn't have enough parking. There'd be parking on the trailhead up above.

There were some concerns about parking, but the proposal, the concept plan meets the parking standard for the city, for the zone.

Right. But how many, what is it, 2 point something?

2.25 per unit.

And then there's their three bedroom units. Yes. So if you stick three students in there with three cars, it's still 2.25, still not going to meet the demand.

That's the city standard.

Yes. And so where, where would a third car sit theoretically? Is it going to be parked on the road on Canyon road? Is it going to be parked upon a trailhead?

You're talking about theoretical cars. I can't respond to that. I don't know. It meets the city standards, so that's what we review.

Right. But where do we project some of this over? I mean, it couldn't probably go up to the trailhead because trailhead would be no parking from 11 to 5, right?

Right. And there's no parking on the adjacent streets.

There's no parking on Canyon Road?

No, in that section of Canyon Road, no.

Okay, so that should take care of that issue.

I would believe so.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Whipple.

Yeah, I was just looking at the numbers. So 19 townhomes, even if all of those had been owner-occupied, the proposal now for 46 condos with half would give us 23. So we would be getting more... owner-occupied units for sale with this change than we would have with the earlier one. And the price for each of them would probably be a little bit more affordable. I also just note that this was a difficult property to work with with the substation and the other issues that were going through and next to the property. I think that there... There was support for it earlier, and it was just but for that sewer capacity issue that we weren't able to do this. But I think this proposal is probably better than what we were looking at in that earlier iteration.

Yeah, what's that?

Councilor Christensen.

Well, yes and no. The concern is also the There was discussion about the density at this point coming down the canyon road parking all those things So again the challenge it may meet the city standard the question Aaron is not just doesn't meet the city standard But like where do you park in the other place you can part on, you know surface streets There are no surface streets here. So that could be a problem and also the Just the the density of this can be an issue, especially in this location You come down off that street It's a very challenging spot for, I think, this kind of density. We also talked about that.

Do you want to talk to us, David, as the developer?

I want to talk about theoretical parking. That's how we're going to start today. I can't opine on that. I know it's a big concern. So I just want to walk you through what would happen here. So somebody comes in, buys a condo. They get two parking spots, one underground and then one surface. with about, I think it's like eight or so would be able to pay an additional fee and they would be able to have two spaces underneath. That's how it sets up. That's how it's set up. Then there'll be, I forget, 10 or 11 visitor parking spots right there. um so if somebody did that and they come they say well i'm going to put my three college students in this place the first thing they would have to figure out is are they carpooling or where are they going to park and as we walk through here there's not somewhere to park in this area all of the places that are available you could walk across the street in university avenue there's a new crosswalk there and try and get away with it there for a while you could try and get away with it in the you know, up top in the trailhead parking for a while, none of these are great long-term solutions. And so in the end, you just couldn't do it. If you're parking in the visitor parking provided on site, same thing, neighbors, HOA, they're going to squash that as well. So in the end, people who buy here, they're going to be limited to two cars. That's going to limit the people who go there. I think that's good. If you're looking for a place where students aren't going to be able to go and live and take over an area, this is it. There's just not a place for them to do it. So that's how I see that. I don't see another solution there for them to park.

So you are going to be managing the parking closely and doing assigned spots or assigned stickers?

Yes, everyone will have two assigned spots and visitor parking spots. There is an option if somebody, this is another theoretical, If somebody wanted to have three cars in there and you might, you might have somebody, maybe someone's turning 16. Maybe someone is trying to put a third adult in there who drives. You could go to the HOA and try and rent a parking spot from another tenant in there. That happens in a condo project. That's an option. It's not a guarantee. It's a limited option. You're renting the parking spot. You don't own it. So maybe you could do that.

Could you speak to the pricing? I think someone asked about the pricing.

Yes. So the previous townhomes that I have designed on this site, they're all 3,000 or 2,500 square feet. They're larger. They're going to be priced higher. These are just going to be less because they're condos. The square footage, as it's designed up there, is about 1,525 per unit. That's a really good size for a three-bedroom home. condo. In there, we have eight two bedrooms as well. They can be two or three bedrooms. It's going to be mostly three bedrooms. That's what the market wants. There is some demand for a two bedroom, you know, double primary kind of setup. So we have eight in there in the proposal, whether it's eight or four or zero. I guess we could change that. But so I don't have any. These aren't going to be entry level condos, just given their location. The underground parking is premium. That's an expensive feature. That's something that people want. But again, I see I've always thought that this will entice more people from the area who are moving out of older homes who are aging out of their homes. I always thought that would be more of the market. You'll be able to trade out an older home in the area for a new condo here.

I was thinking that's going to be a large part of the market too. I'm curious, is there going to be an elevator in the building?

Yep. You'll be able to drive in, park underground. in whatever kind of weather and get right on an elevator and go up to whatever floor you're on. That'll be pretty nice for a lot of people, especially people who are, you know, they're aging out of their home, but they're not going to an assisted living place. They just don't want stairs. They don't want a yard. They don't want an old home.

Um,

Councillor Christensen.

David, I asked the question of Aaron. My recollection was 100% homeownership in the current development agreement.

It's 50% is what we agreed last time we were here. That's in there. Aaron told me he just verified it. I have it. I've read it. It's 50%.

I'm proposing that. Thank you for verifying that. Can you tell me how you're thinking about where homeownership would be and where rental...

Rentals would be? Yes. So the 50% will make it a condo. So it won't be an apartment building. This will be a condo project. That's minimum for FHA standards anyway. You have to go through the whole FHA process if you want to provide that kind of financing there. That also puts long-term... uh limits on the project as far as owner occupancy you have to maintain certain owner occupancies over time otherwise it can get hard for people to to sell their condos if they refinance so again for me the the 50 percent is a would just send a minimum floor for owner occupancy um uh you know as far as how many above that i've I don't plan on owning anything in there. So who knows how high it will be. It is important to keep some flexibility in it as well. When you build, this project has to be built in one building. That's 46 units at a time. Hopefully you can pre-sell during construction. Hopefully you can sell most of them within the year after that. So there is some, to make the project work, it's helpful to have some flexibility there.

Thank you.

Could I, if I have one other, I think I have some slides in here. Oh, applicant slides. There we go. Okay. Oh, height. I was going to talk a little bit about height. That comes up often. The change in zoning, I don't need for any height requirements. This building, as it's shown here, meets the current MDR height. It's also lower than the bottom of the substation. So the top of this building, lower than the substation, which is my closest neighbor. The change in zoning is needed to allow parking to be in front of the building. The way the building's designed, the parking structure would help retain the hill behind it and allow for more parking on the front. The sewer capacity that's been talked about. There's more sewer capacity out there and available than what I've requested for the project. It's just parking. That's the limiting factor here. How much parking can you get? So this meets the requirement that allows for two parking stalls per unit plus visitor parking as well. That's why the zone changes in there. Also, as far as heights concerned, the current plan has townhomes backing up to Canyon Road. In my mind, this is just a better project for the area. The front of the condo building is going to be better than the back of townhomes, no matter how nice you make the back of the townhomes. Units are under, let's see, I think these are my slides from the previous one, or from Planning Commission. Anyway, there you go. Any other questions?

I have a question for you, David. We had a presentation this morning by a condo developer. And he mentioned that it's their standard that they do 80% owner-occupied, 20% rentals. And he talked about the FHA. And I know I've spoken to a few citizens in Provo who live by condos. And people can't resell them or refinance or buy it because the percentage of ownership is so low. And I'm wondering, it would meet our goals as a council, if you'd be willing to like up who do more than 80% there.

Um, you know, I'm not opposed to 80% owner occupied or a hundred percent owner occupied. Again, I'm requests just that I have the flexibility that I can. I think also you could have some people buying a second home up here. I don't know how that would fit in to the requirement. Second home is still owner occupied. Okay. I think that that's a group of people, you know, from ties to Provo live in places south of us that are terrible in the summer.

Yeah. Council Whitlock?

Yeah, if you could just kind of paint for us the picture of what will happen to the hill. Because right now, you know, it's sort of like you have this narrow gravel pit area.

Could you just help us kind of visualize it? Because it doesn't look like this right now. Correct. There's a couch on it right now that's not shown on the current pictures. That's a recent addition to the property. Someone else did that for me. I didn't have to pay for that. So where the building itself sits, it sits pretty much in the footprint that's there. There'll be a little bit of retaining into the hillside there. The current slope that's in the area was designed by Northern Engineering. It's two to one. And so this building would... retain a little bit of there. Most of the change would happen on the south, the entranceway in between the Canyon Road and the substation. That's another thing I know we're talking about, just the road and access there. I had another picture I wanted to show, but we don't have to see it. It was just what the property looked like when I acquired it. It was seven parcels overlapping, overlapping with the substation as well. I owned property inside the substation. I owned where the new substation access is right now. And this was a couple years ago. We sat down and renegotiated all the boundaries. I paid for a joint survey with the city so we could identify everything. We negotiated that. And now the substation has its defined boundaries. It has its new access. They've abandoned the current access road. And also, I have an agreement with the city, a signed agreement with the city to swap the parcel where this road expansion that's one day will happen there. And that's on property that I own at the moment. But I already have a signed agreement with the city to transfer ownership to the city. The city works is going to do some work on site to offset that.

Councilor Ripple.

Yeah, just following up on what you were saying, Councilor McKay, about the presentation we had from EDGE, one thing that they noted is that they had to work really hard to sell six condo units in a development in a period of a year.

A month.

A month. And so what we're, yes, so we're looking at, you know, they could only do that when they were doing significant incentives like interest rate buy down and things like that. And if we're asking him to sell more than half of this, that's a significant amount of time that he's going to be probably holding some of these properties. And I don't know if you have those same kind of financing options for the people who would be looking at purchasing these properties. these things that was for first-time homebuyers though that's not really his market right and so that may make it harder for him to sell these as quickly easier you think it would be easier i don't know but i was just wondering like how quickly do you anticipate being able to sell the for sale units as opposed to how long do you think it would take to fill the rental units

I'll respond to that. One thing that matters a lot is interest rates. Right now, we're definitely in an environment where interest rates have ticked up when everyone was hoping they would go down. Interest rates were ticking down and they were at a multi-year low just before the Iran war. Unfortunately, they've ticked back up. That makes it harder, especially for first-time homebuyers. That's a very interest rate-sensitive segment of the market. If we're talking about people selling their homes and moving into these, they're not getting loans, so that's helpful. That would help us out as well. Definitely, there's a concern. There's an absorption rate. The market's only going to absorb so many of these a month, a year. So there's a little bit of a roll of the dice there when you build something like this. And again, this is in Provo. Some of the starter homes are in other areas of the county that maybe aren't as desirable.

But didn't he say that somebody that didn't try as hard as he did could sell three a month? And so that's still 36 units. That's how many units did you have? 45? This is 46. Yeah. So I don't see it as a problem.

And you don't have to, you know, if you sell 36 of these in the first year, then you're doing pretty good at that point. I mean, at that point, your carry cost is much lower. It's a much more manageable. You've been successful at that point.

Counselor Whitlock.

is uh so it's been great to help uh you help us refresh our memories about this development agreement i'm just wondering is there anything else uh from the development agreement that would be helpful to highlight for us and for the public that people would appreciate like for example i think you that behind this condo there's going to be a trail connecting to indian trailhead or indian trail so i i have that in the drawing i didn't propose that specifically as uh something that would be in the agreement

It hasn't been designed yet. It looks very feasible. There's companies out there that just come and cut these trails in the hillside. I wasn't going to include that in the development agreement. For example, if for some reason we didn't have access off the back of the property, which I think is unlikely, then all of a sudden you've got to figure out how to do a trail around it. I think it will happen. Obviously, that would be a great amenity for the condo to be able to get right up on the trail.

Are there any other things you would highlight?

Yeah, I think something that's important to note when the project goes in, water will be looped in this area from Canyon Road to the other side of University. That'll be a benefit to everyone who uses water in this area. Same with sewer will be brought across University Avenue as well in this area for the first time. We'll connect there. Gas as well has to be looped in this area. That'll improve gas pressure for anyone who, obviously for the development, anyone who lives there. Google Fiber will be brought over to the area. So there's lots of, there's kind of a dead zone for utilities. So lots of improvements will happen when the project goes forward.

Is this an accurate representation of the building or is this just like AI generated? We've gotten a lot of AI generated ones lately. Yeah.

I used AI to reskin this. I paid an architect a lot of money to draw something up and get everything exactly right. And when it was, but we've been working on that for years now, right? When I started working out, there was no AI generated anything. It's hard to just generate an accurate building from AI. If I just go and say, build me a four, you know, a four story high building, then it can't do it.

So is this pretty accurate?

Yes, this is very accurate. This is what the architect drew up. And then it's been reskinned with AI. So the finished materials on it are different, you know, the some of the roofs and stuff. But now this was an architect, I had to pay him a lot of money.

And what does the build-out look like? Are you building through the whole thing at once, or is there phases to this?

It's going to have to be built all at once. You'd have to build the parking structure either way. By the time you built the parking structure and did everything else and built half the building, you might as well build the second half. The underground parking structure could be a quarter to a third of the cost. It's expensive. Yeah.

Okay, I just need to clarify Aaron and David. I did remember, like Jeff, that there was a trail included in the development agreement.

Well, we never moved forward with that condo project. And so there wasn't in the townhomes. We didn't have it.

I think the section that you're remembering might be this. The developer must cause the ownership of the Indian Trail, Bonneville Shoreline Trail section running through parcel 2014-111 to be transferred to the city via de-transfer or easement prior to the issuance of the building permit. Maybe that's the trail commitment that you remember.

So effectively, it transfers that portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail to the city. That's on his property. Thank you.

Thanks, Aaron. Councillor Garrett.

Jason, to whatever extent this project is public, is there presale interest? Have you had people contact you with interest in being owners or renters? What kind of interest is there?

No, not in final end users. I think it's a little early. It hasn't been marketed that way. Obviously, as you mentioned, Once the zoning's in place, then there's a lot of things that need to happen. And as the design was finalized more, you'd definitely start doing that.

You've had the for sale sign up there forever. Are you planning on just entitling it, then selling it? Or are you planning on doing it?

Entitling it and selling it. I would stay on as a partner. But you just need someone who's built this before. I know a lot about it. And I know enough that I shouldn't build it myself. And if I, again, if I could go back to, to when we had seven parcels, an experienced developer, they were out there, you know, they just walked away. They're like, well, that's a mess. I don't want to deal with that. All right. But third time's the third.

No more questions. Okay. We're going to open this item up for public comment then.

Hi guys, I'm David Chappell, live in Joaquin. So I'm not nearby, but I just had some thoughts. I support the higher density. I think that's good. I would even support more if they could make some of the units affordable. I think it would be good to have a mix of units because it could also be more marketable that way. I also think that 100% would be easier to enforce, 100% owner occupancy. I think 50% is pretty hard for an HOA to enforce. and maybe the city through some sort of de-distriction or like code enforcement could enforce 50%, but I think 100% is wiser. So I think what we could do is offer like a time period, maybe five years for the developer. They can rent in the meantime so that they don't go under, but then within the five years they have to sell all the units so that it is eventually 100% owner occupied. And I think the parking appears fine. And that's all I have my thoughts.

Thank you. Any other public comment. All right, we'll open this up to council discussion. to expound on what that gentleman said. We do deed restrict it because it is really hard to enforce. So Erin, per the development agreement, it would be deed restricted at the 50, correct? And the HOA would also have to, is that also in there that the HOA language would have to manage that too?

Yeah, it says it's implied because it says through deed restriction and CCNRs on the property, CCNRs would be enforced by an HOA.

Great. Thank you. Any council discussion? All right. We'll vote on the implied motion.

I'll just make a comment while you're doing that. I just want to say thanks to the developer for sticking with it. And it's been a long haul for you. So happy to see you're at this point. Well, hopefully where you'll get an approval here.

Counselor Garrett.

Yes.

Counselor McKay. Yes. Counselor Christensen. Yes. Counselor Whitlock. Yes. Counselor Bogdan. Yes. Counselor Hoban.

Finally. Yes.

Counselor Whipple.

Yes.

Seven Elm. All right. Next, an applied motion ordinance submitting the Provo City Code regarding floodplain management and development standards. This will be presented by Thomas Schriebel. He is our engineer floodplain manager. You get your first work meeting and your first council meeting in the same day. Yep.

Thank you for having me. My name is Tommy Scherbel. I work for Provo City Public Works as a stormwater engineer, as well as the floodplain manager at Provo. I am accompanied today by Benjamin Root. He is on Zoom. And then he's from WSP. He is the contractor that helped write this ordinance. And then also Shane Winters. So this stems from FEMA, first of all. We are part of the National Flood Insurance Program through FEMA. We had to apply to be a part of this program and we had to adopt a resolution of intent to participate. And so this is all stemming from FEMA and changes that have been made to our floodplain maps. So we are currently trying to adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds FEMA's minimum standards. And these will change basic language that are currently in our standards to better meet FEMA's minimum standards, as well as using their floodplain maps that they have changed in the last few years. This is a long time coming. Some of you may have been hearing it for over 10 years from my understanding. And then this ordinance will help enforce development regulations within flood hazard areas. So the ordinance itself, like I said, is meeting the FEMA standards and is changing minimally as far as what our current standards are, but it is broadening those standards so that there is less confusion when building within floodplain areas. So that's basically what is changing within the ordinance itself, just being more additional definitions. There's more authority from an administrative perspective. There's more details for the permits and floodproofing, etc. So what I have next here are maps from FEMA showing the changes in the flood plains within Provo City. These maps are just a few of them, and they're where the changes are greatest. So if we look at these two maps, the one on the left is what is currently adopted for Provo City, and it was created in 2020. And it shows this blue area that you can kind of see. It's kind of hard to see, but the blue area is what we call the one percent flood area. And it is changing with the new maps. If you look on the right, this is what we'll be hoping to be adopted. to be a greater area within this map area. So the 1% is all the blue area, and this is what is required for FEMA to have a flood insurance for federally backed mortgages. All the orange area is a 0.2% chance flooding area, and these are not ones that are restricted for those flood insurances from federally backed mortgages, but they're still shown there and I want to make sure that that is understood. You can't see that same kind of area in the left map that's hatched and it's harder to see but it is there as well. So we have just three maps here showing the west side of Provo and how it is changing. As you can tell on the first map there's a greater area of one percent chance of flooding and then here on this next map it's basically the entire airport that is going to be now in the flood hazard area as well as this map here. So that is again just to reiterate this is a directive from FEMA. We worked with FEMA. We worked with the Department of Emergency Management with Utah, as well as Benjamin Rood from WSP to make these changes for our ordinance to follow FEMA's standards.

Okay. Thank you, Thomas. Any questions for Thomas? All right. Thank you. We'll open this up for public comment. Is there any public comment on the flood plane management? This is something that's really not up to us. It is federally mandated. All right. Council discussion. All right. We'll take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor McKay. Yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. Councillor Whitlock. Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. Yes. And Councillor Garrett. Yes. So that passes 7-0. Next, a public hearing regarding the year-end 2027 budget for provost city not year-end i don't know what fy stands for thank you fiscal year 2027 budget for provost city it'll be presented by kelsey zarmak

Good evening. I'm Kelsey Zarbock with finance and two weeks. Sorry. On May 5th, the administration delivered the tentative fiscal year 27 budget. Did I say May 5th? Delivered that budget to the council. And this is the first of two public hearings on that budget. It can be accessed by going to probo.gov and then there's, if you scroll on the homepage down a little bit, there's a transparency portal. You click on financial and then budget and financial reporting, annual budget, and then you can just click right into that 2027 tentative budget. A few pages that might be of interest to the public. Pages 5 to 6 is where you'll find the mayor's letter that kind of shows what her priorities were. And then on pages 9 to 10, there are the council priorities listed there. Page 16 and for several pages after that, there are budget highlights so you can see what was added and just what some of the revenue sources are and so on. So hopefully the public has had a chance to already look at that document, but if not, it's there. And there's another public hearing on the budget on June 23rd before the council would adopt it. So that's all I have. And at this point, unless there are questions, we would just open it up to the public for the public hearing.

Thanks, Kelsey. Any questions for Kelsey? All right. Thank you. We'll open this item up for public comment. Seeing no public comment and there's no council discussion, we'll just go to the next item. All right, so we have continued item number six and seven. So at this time, if there's no objection, we will now adjourn the program of council and convene the RDA governing board by unanimous consent.

All right, we'd like to look at RDA business resolution adopting a project area budget for Lakeview Parkway Community Reinvestment Area. And this will be presented by Melissa McNally, Redevelopment Agency Director. Unless she's not here, then it's going to be very difficult for her to do that. Thank you, Bill. Yeah. Kelsey, do you mind if we go ahead and go to your topic? Thank you. We'll give Melissa a chance to rally here. We'll go to item nine, a public hearing regarding the redevelopment agency FY27 budget. And this will be presented by Kelsey Zarbuck, budget officer.

Thank you. So the redevelopment agency is a component unit of Provo City. So that means it's a legally separate entity, but financially intertwined with primary government, which is the city. So we have a separate public hearing for that for its budget. However, its budget is also found in the Provo FY27 tentative budget found on the website. You can go to page 144 and you'll be able to see what the budget is for that legally separate entity. Any questions?

Any questions for Kelsey? All right, we'll open this up for public comment. Any public comment? Okay, any further board discussion? All right, then we'll go ahead and go back to a resolution adopting a project area budget for the Lakeview Parkway Community Reinvestment Area. And we're back to Melissa McNally. Welcome, Melissa.

Thank you. So this Lakeview Parkway budget is anticipating three different parcels that are in the project area. As retail sites and commercial sites. The Epic Sports Park is anticipated to have sorry, the parcel by the Epic Sports Park is anticipated to have a hotel as well. So there is some transient room tax figured into the budget as well. So these are just estimates because nothing's been built yet. So the And based on the budget up on the screen, those are current property values. I know when this came up in work session, there was a question about that. The parcel by the Epic Sports Park is owned by the city currently, so it has no taxable value. That's why that parcel shows no value on the okay apologies no that's my brain it just like shut off that's why it's blank because there is no yeah that's why it's blank there is no there is no taxable value on that property currently um And the other parcels and the rest of the budget just anticipates, like I said, the possible sales tax that could be gained from those parcels if all of the retail and commercial space is developed. And then there's also, it shows on page three of the budget, it does show incremental property values on those parcels. on the entire area and how that would benefit all of the taxing entities. Let me see if there's anything else I want to highlight. I think that's it as far as the budget. Any changes that come up, you'll see an amendment to this budget if other incentives are anticipated in this area.

Okay. Thank you, Melissa. Any questions for Melissa? Please, Becky.

So just so that I understand correctly, we spoke about the parcel south of the regional sports park as having the value that it would have if it was not owned by the city to be the base value. So that will come back as an amendment to this once we work all those details out?

Yes. Yeah. That'll all be worked out with the RDA board, with leadership, and then with the full RDA board, any changes like that as far as, because that would anticipate property tax increment given. So at that point, yes, it would come back to the board.

You come back to the board and amend this document, and they'd probably just come joint with the contract with the portion below the sports park?

They could potentially be done simultaneously. Potentially. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. We'll open this up for public comment. Any public comment? All right, then we'll see if there's any board discussion. All right, seeing no board discussion, I'll call for a vote. Gary Garrett. Yes. Katrice McKay. Yes. Yes. Craig Christensen. Yes. Jeff Whitlock. Yes. Becky Bogdan.

Yes.

Travis Hoban. Yes. Rachel Whipple. Yes. Okay, and that's 7-0. All right. I'll now see if there's no objection. We'll now adjourn the Provo RDA Governing Board and convene the Stormwater Service District Governing Board by unanimous consent.

All right. Next, we have a public hearing regarding the fiscal year 27 budget for the Stormwater Service District. And again, Kelsey Zarbock.

This is the last one, I promise. So this is the Stormwater Service District's public hearing for the fiscal year 2027 budget. You can find this budget on page 142 of the Provo City budget on the website. So we will just open that up for a public comment, public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Kelsey. We'll open this item up for public comment. I'm just dying to know why you're all here. i've been thinking the same thing budgets i know um and there will be a second public hearing on all of these too remember to say your name and city please david campbell provo um

again looking at the budget i'm not seeing anything close in the water world close to what the consultants projected would be the cost i know there are plans to amend the budget with increased rates and etc i just throw my two bits in to recommend that we That we get the water infrastructure problem solved. It's just so easy to ignore because it's not super visible. So that's it.

Just update on that we did have a work meeting today where we voted to do the 6% increase of the consultants recommended. So we're on par with that. All right. Any more public comment. All right. If there's no objection will now adjourn the stormwater service district governing board by unanimous consent.