City Council - Regular Meeting

recording in progress recording stopped

The Pro Municipal Council, Provo RDA Governing Board, and the Stormwater Service District Governing Board regular meeting. It is June 23, 2026, and it is 5.34 p.m. We'll do a roll call of the elected officials.

Rachel Whipple. Craig Christensen. Catrice McKay.

Gary Garrett.

Becky Bogdan.

Jeff Whitlock.

Oh, sorry. Travis is traveling and he is on zoom. Thank you, Travis. All right. We'll have an opening prayer by Dave connect, and then we'll have the pledge of allegiance by counselor Whitlock.

Our kind, dear Heavenly Father, we give thanks for the opportunity to meet here in this free country in Provo, Utah. We give thanks for the elected officials who spend their time and efforts leading our city. We pray that you will help them in their decision-making. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

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.

All right.

Hey, we'd like to recognize Justin Harrison for four years of service as our Executive Director of the Provo Municipal Council. Justin has served Provo since 2022. And as a council, we got a lot of attention because we're public facing, but there's an enormous amount of work that happens in the background and Justin carries a lot of it. He's been here for all the hard conversations, the long meetings, the weekend texts, the detailed financial questions, the reasons, the resolutions, and all the rest. In between, he found time to work towards his Master's of Public Administration that he will complete this year. Through it all, Justin has been thorough, fair, and responsive with everyone. Justin grew up in Clark County, Nevada, met his wife there, and was their principal management analyst and is now returning. Provo City is lucky to have been part of that story, and we are so thankful for his service here. He's going to be greatly missed. We have a really, really great council office right now, and he's been a blessing to all of us. So we'd love to get you down here, Justin, and take a picture, and we have something for you.

family. Oh, do you want to do just your first.

Okay. All right.

Now we'll do something. Well, Chad. hey. Oh. Here.

Justin, this is God speaking. You need to withdraw your resignation and stay in Provo.

You even used a different voice, Travis. It's kind of creepy. All right, next we have a ceremony recognizing the Provo City Employee of the Month. This is for administrative services. It'll be presented by Dan Follett.

I'd like to invite Andrea Wright to come up. Hopefully I can get through this. Andrea Rye has been selected as the employee of the month, and it's a well-deserved recognition. She's done so much for the city. Andrea has been with the city almost 19 years now. She started originally working with accounts receivable and then moved on to work with procurement. and now, as the council is well aware, she works heavily on the budget process, on the audited financial statements, on the popular annual financial report, does an outstanding job. Those are all significant documents, as you're aware. The other thing I would mention about Andrea is uh she has in in each of her roles uh with progressive responsibility um she has developed a detailed understanding of not only the responsibilities of the role but the underlying systems that relate to the role and she has an excellent understanding of kayenta And even more importantly, she's always willing to share that understanding with others and help to improve the utilization of our systems, not only in finance, but throughout the city. I would also mention that she manages the procurement and purchasing process now for the city. She's been very involved in multiple projects. She has been instrumental in ensuring that departments, not just finance or administrative services, but citywide are in compliance with budget and have not overrun their budgets. um i would also mention that besides besides providing value at work andrea is also a tirelessly devoted mom to her two sons and they wanted to be here tonight desperately unfortunately one of them is sick and he's also taking care of his younger brother right now but hopefully they're watching online um i would just uh wrap it up by saying ultimately uh her hard-working personality skill set and positive uh mentality make her a tremendous asset to provost city and so i want to thank andrea and give her uh this award and this token of our appreciation please join me and

Thank you. i just want to get one of you in the lights better over there so oh yeah all right

All right. As indicated on the screen, a required public comment will be held for certain agenda items prior to council action. After each such item has been presented, time to comment will be provided to all those who wish to speak. For items that do not require 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 comments 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 city of residence. You will have two minutes to speak. Is there any general... Go ahead, Dave, connect.

Yeah, Dave, connect, bravo. So, got something for the council. so i i think you have a place on your in your chambers or your wall in the offices to hang this i got this while i was on the council in 2002 and never found a place to hang it so do a little spring cleaning and you get that i love it thank you other than that i'd like to give a shout out to chris blinzinger for getting his ham radio license Yes, that's not something everyone does. You have to take a test and in his position, it's a natural. I'm glad he finally got that. And as a member of the Provo auxiliary communications team, I love working with him. He's a great employee.

Great. Thanks so much, Dave. Seed your name and city of residence.

Brett Fossum. Oh, sorry. My name is Brett Fossum. I currently live in Salem. 40 of my 46 years has been in Provo, though, so just recently transplanted. So, Mayor, Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Earlier today, I emailed a request of supporting documentation. If you will please review that at your leisure. I'm here on behalf of my mother, a Provo resident of more than 60 years, and tasked the council to reconsider the 2024 ban on artificial turf and front yards. Provo is one of two municipalities in Utah with such a ban, despite statewide efforts to promote water conservation. Utah has experienced drought conditions for 20 of the last 25 years. And Provo's own water conservation plan calls for sustainable landscaping with significant reductions in water use over the coming decades. For many residents, particularly seniors and those with health limitations, artificial turf provides a practical way to reduce water consumption while maintaining an attractive property. The EPA reports that outdoor residential irrigation accounts for nearly half of residential water use. Replacing traditional lawns with quality artificial turf can save tens of thousands of gallons of water annually. It also eliminates the need for fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fuel powered lawn equipment, reducing environmental impacts and ongoing maintenance costs. During the Planning Commission City Council discussion, staff acknowledged that they were unable to identify Provo specific evidence. demonstrating harmful impacts from residential artificial turf, including concerns related to heat islands, microplastics, or public health. While no landscaping solution is perfect, policy decisions should be based on demonstrated impacts and scientific evidence rather than speculation, which also occurred during the 2024 City Council meeting where conjecture and fear-mongering was introduced by a pseudo-expert and Instagram influencer who was a resident of Murray City. during a video that was provided to the City Council. I'm not asking the Council to require artificial turf. I'm simply asking that homeowners be given the option to choose a water-conscious, low-maintenance alternative that fits the circumstances, a balanced approach such as Planning Commission's recommendation to limit artificial turf cover.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our first item of business is an implied motion on a resolution consenting to board and commission appointments. And this will be presented by Mayor Marcia Judkins.

Members of the City Council, I am excited to submit to you the names of candidates for boards and commissions. And before I present these names for your consideration, I want to briefly speak about the process of these applications. When I took office, I wanted to honor the professionalism and experience of our department directors and our staff and ask them to lead out on this process. Our directors and their incredible staff are what makes Provo work so well. i have appreciated that in my discussions with council members a familiar theme has merged we all agree that we have talented staff and directors whose professional recommendations deserve significant weight from those of us fortunate enough to serve as elected officials i've been incredibly impressed by the time and attention our directors have paid to this process they received applications spent hours interviewing candidates and forwarded their recommendations to my office CAO Scott Henderson, Deputy Mayor Kyle Friant, and I followed their recommendations on who to appoint and reappoint. Provo's culture of service and volunteerism has helped make us nationally recognized. I'm incredibly proud that so many talented and qualified residents from throughout Provo have taken the time to apply and volunteer their service to our city. I know you see it too in your districts, neighborhoods, and throughout our city. I'm now going to turn the time over to each of the directors who are over these boards and commissions to briefly read the names of those they have recommended to serve, beginning with Airport Director Brian Torgerson, followed by Parks and Recreation, Energy Services, Development Services, and the Provo Housing Authority for your vote. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Jenkins. For the Airport Advisory Board, David Taylor, Jared Cobia, and Mario Marquita. We've never done this before, so do we want any background or just the names? That's great. Perfect. Thank you.

Good evening for the Arts Council. These are all reappointments, and there's 3 of them. New Old Daily, Margaret Weber, and Emily Campbell. They've all done an excellent job, and we're happy to have them back. And then we have 2 new appointments to the parks and rec board. I just want to point out that we had many more applications than we had spots, which is a unique thing in a very good way, and all of them were very qualified. And for anybody out there, that's listening, they can these are public meetings. They can come join in the process, even if they're not a board member. So, parks and rec board, Dylan Arnston and Cindy Williams both pointed to 3 year terms.

Good evening, these are the names of the individuals that I have recommended for energy board. Getty Winterton to be reappointed for another term. This term will expire on December 31st, 2029. Julie Rattles term to be extended through December of 2026 to align with the terms of other Energy Board members. And then the new individual will be Marie Patrick to be appointed to fill an expired vacancy This term would expire on June 30th, 2027. No, that's not correct. This will go through December 31st, 2029. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Paula Curtis with the Provo City Housing Authority Interim Executive Director. I'm going to name our current appointments because I am very appreciative of them, every single one of them. Martha Wingate is our board chair, Catrice McKay, Michaelann Gardner, Jennifer Wilson, and Lynette Hemsath. And then we would also like to recommend Eric Speckhardt for a reappointment for another five-year term expiring June 30th of 2031. Thanks.

good evening from the development services department we have the following boards for the board of adjustment maria winden to be reappointed to a five-year term uh arshitha ramanan to be appointed to a five-year term for the landmarks commission eric carter to be reappointed to a four-year term Kara Schmidt to be appointed to a four-year term, James Hall to be appointed to a four-year term, Sherry Brown to be appointed to. fulfill the current vacancy, which would expire in June of 2027, and the Planning Commission, Melissa Kendall, to be reappointed to a three-year term, Tosh Metzger to be appointed to a three-year term, Alexander Monson to be appointed to a one-year term, and Jonah Johnson to be appointed to a three-year term. No. Oh, sorry. John Potter, And then John Potter, The planning Commission really Melissa Kendall to a three year term to and also planning Commission Tosh Metzger to through your term. John Potter, The planning Commission would like to have Joel temple be the planning Commission layers liaison to the transportation and mobility committee. John Potter, Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Okay, Becky Bogdan has a question. Okay, Energy Board. So I've noticed on this thing, is it up there? Okay, they have Gary Winterton, he expires in December of 29, Julie Rattle, December of 26, and Marie Patrick, June 30th of 27. Is there an error in any of those?

Yes, those dates, yes.

Yes, they're all over in the term expiration date.

Well, actually, no. So Judy Rannell, we are only extending her for six months. So that's correct. And then the one that needs to be fixed is Mary Patrick. Because she will go all the way to December 31st of 2029.

Okay. Can we fix that, Kevin?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

December 31st. 12, yeah.

Good eye, Becky. Well, I just remember having the conversation that they wanted him to end at the end of the year. Yeah.

We're good. Anything else? Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any council discussion? Councillor Gary Garrett.

I share in the mayor's acknowledgement of the many citizens in our community who volunteer and help make Provo so much better through their assignments on these boards and commissions. We have a couple of dozen boards and commissions and each with 10 or more citizens. We're grateful to them. I love the advice and consent process that we're going through now. The council members also bring a unique perspective to this. As council members, we represent the council on these various boards. Jeff does Downtown Provo Inc. among others, Becky Parks and Rec, Catrice the Energy Board, Craig Airport Authority, Rachel Library Board among others, and Travis the Audit committee and we as we come back together we report on these boards and commissions and how the work is going what perspectives they have and it gives us a chance through this advice and consent to say as well as this organization is going they could use expertise in this area or more discipline in this area. And so it gives us a chance to work with the mayor on these assignments. So I'm appreciative of this process that we go through and thank you for your great work on this mayor.

On that same note, also how much we love our directors and respect them. Admittedly, I came from the private sector and there's preconceived notions on government employees or that, and none of them are true in Provo, at least. People work so hard, they're the experts in their fields, and we're just so grateful for all of their guidance and wisdom and guiding the city and doing the best that they can do for the citizens of Provo. Anyone else? All right, we will take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Christensen.

Yes.

Councillor Whitlock. Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett.

Yes.

Councillor McKay. Yes. And that's seven. Oh, and Travis sounds completely different on zoom than in relay. Okay. Next resolution appointing an individual to the civil service commission. And this will be presented by Britton Johnson, the city council intern.

Good evening, Council. This will be a pretty simple one. So this is a resolution appointing Daniel Friend to a six-year term to the Civil Service Commission, and the Council has reviewed his qualifications to serve on this commission and has determined that he meets the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-3-1003. Do you have any questions?

Any questions for Britton? No, thanks, Britton. Okay. All right, any discussion on this motion? All right, we'll take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan? Yes. Councillor Hoban?

Yes.

Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor McKay, yes. Councillor Christensen? Yes. And that passes 7-0. Next, we have an implied motion on a resolution approving fire restrictions within the Provo City watershed. It'll be presented by Chief Jeremy Hedman. And Chief, also feel free, please, to talk about what citizens should do if they're worried about a fire someplace or if they see anything suspicious. And if you want to call 911 or the non-emergency line or what's the best thing to protect our city?

Okay. Well, we'll start with the watershed. presentation here is just to adopt the stage one level restrictions that the rest of the state has enacted in our Provo City boundaries, which includes the parks in Provo City as well as up Provo Canyon. And as far as protecting our beautiful mountain, if anybody sees anything, any fire, any fireworks, dial 911. That's the best thing to do. Just get us coming, get police coming, and we'll go figure out what they're doing and put a stop to it. If you just see, I mean, there are fire rings and things that are potentially used, but maybe not in it, then that would be a good time to use 311 or a non-emergency number. It is obviously the state is in a we have a four or five significant fires burning in the state, right now, so we want to do our best to make sure we don't have one here in Provo.

Thanks to you yeah any questions for chief headman. All right, thank you we'll open this up for public comment, is there any public comment on this item.

Angie Carter, Provo. The fire chief didn't mention exactly what those restrictions would be, and maybe you heard them in your work meeting, but I wasn't at the work meeting. So could we just have a review of what those restrictions are so that as citizens, we're not running afoul of our resolution and we don't know what we're supposed to do? Great idea, Angie.

Chief, do you want to expound on those, what the rules are? Chief, you can borrow Becky's. Just use Becky's.

Hello. All right.

So no open burning. On the bench, in the watershed, there's no fires allowed outside of an approved fire ring in our parks. And those are the metal, concreted fire pit rings. That's the only place they're permitted at this time. And this is for Provo City boundary, but it's also been enacted countywide.

So does this include fireworks too?

fireworks are not allowed other than in the window which is july 2nd to july 5th and those are not allowed in a bigger area than what is restricted okay so this doesn't affect that period though you're saying no okay so they're illegal until the second to the fifth and then they're allowed from the second to the fifth only in the non-restricted area right which is It jogs all over the mountain. We'll post it on our social media several times before we get to the 4th of July.

And that's not just aerial fireworks. That's ground as well.

No fireworks at all in the restricted zone.

Okay. Thanks so much, Chief. Any other public comment on that item? If you can please just give us your name and city.

Try the other one. No, right there.

Right there. Try that one. I think that one's working.

Yeah. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great. Okay. I'm Crystal Blodgett. I live in Provo. My question is, again, to the fire marshal. He says that no fires are allowed outside approved fire pits in the parks. Does this also include private property if we have approved pits on our own private property?

Hmm.

I guess she's probably talking about fire pits or fires. Like is it even like fire pits on private property?

Fire pits that are being used for recreational purposes outside of the watershed, not on the mountain are approved. So in your private residence, if you have a safe place to do it and it's within the fire restrictive zone, which is a three foot by three foot fire, it's no more than two feet tall, that is allowed. at a private residence, as long as it's for recreational purposes and not to burn debris.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. All right. Any council discussion?

Councillor Whipple. I will just note that one year I burnt my Christmas tree in a fire pit that I had saved and it was well over two feet tall. So do not do that at this point in time. Councillor Whitlock.

I mean, as beautiful as the sunset was yesterday due to the iron fire, I think it's a good reminder of how dangerous the conditions are right now with how dry the brush is. The town of Eureka had to be put on an emergency evacuation and many people thought the whole town would be lost. So I'm glad we're making these restrictions and putting them in place. And I think as individual citizens, we could potentially even go beyond those and just be extra careful with fire this year.

All right, we'll do a vote on the applied motion. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hopen.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett. Yes. Councillor McKay, yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. And Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

And that passes 7-0. Next, we have an applied motion on a resolution approving the adoption of a state-approved Wildlife Urban Interface, WUI, map. And this will also be presented by Fire Chief Jeremy Hedman. We're getting a lot of you today. We don't see you very often.

try to get it all done in one day. So the WUI is Wildland Urban Interface, and that is a map that the state has required us to produce to, thank you, to protect or reduce the chance of fire growth in those areas. And the map, is somewhat determined by the state legislators or by the Utah State Fire and Lands. We did modify it slightly to include a couple of ravines that were not in there and made sure that it was covering whole properties and not just portions of them. The idea behind the urban interface is just to have a defined area that has to comply with the wildland urban interface code.

Any questions for the chief? Okay. Any public comment? I thought that was a comment. All right. Let me bring back any other discussion before we vote.

I think just so the public knows, we've heard this a couple of times in work meeting. So it's not that we're not inquisitive. We ask a ton of questions in work meeting. That's why we go long. And then by the time we come here, usually we're pretty satisfied with the direction that it's going. So I don't have any questions at this time.

All right, we'll take a vote on the applied motion. Travis, did you have a comment?

No, sorry.

All right, let's get a vote from you then. Travis, go ahead.

Yes.

Rachel? Yes. Gary?

Yes.

Katrice has stepped away. I'll vote yes. Jeff? Yes. And Becky? Yes. All right, so that's 6-0. That passes 6-0. All right, let's do an implied motion on an ordinance changing solid waste regulations and related noise ordinances. And this will be from Shane Winters, Public Services Division Director.

Thanks, Council. I do want to remind Councilman Whipple, we do have free Christmas tree pickup. You don't need to burn your tree.

It was so much fun, but it seriously shot up higher than my two-story house. So seriously, guys, do not do that.

Just a reminder. So our solid waste staff had brought to our attention that we've been having some difficulties enforcing some of our solid waste, green waste, recycling violations. Currently, we enforce our solid waste, those violations through a class B misdemeanor, which involves our police department contacting them and getting involved. That becomes quite cumbersome and difficult for our sanitation staff. I think for us, we feel that police department have better times doing other things than some of these smaller violations. So we are proposing that we change the current solid waste code for some of the violations I'll speak to quickly from a Class B misdemeanor, both our residential solid waste and both and our commercial solid waste from Class B to civil violations. The other thing we want to get in compliance with. Currently our noise ordinance does not provide an exemption to our solid waste pickup, both our private haulers and our city solid waste. We do start at six in the morning with trash pickup. And so we wanna come in compliance right now. We have had a few residents let us know that we're out of compliance. So we wanna get that up to date. Currently our code only allows us to start at 7 a.m. based on our workload, we do need to start at 6 a.m. and both our commercial as well. Some of the typical violations that we deal with on a residential is cans being left out on the street. You can see these here that we would prefer to deal with through just civil. I think it gives us some flexibility with residents to work through these issues. Oftentimes, residents are not aware. a ton of violations, but there are some out there. And this gives us the flexibility to do that in a very, I think in a much better approach and work through the residents and also our commercial side. So a lot of these, again, you can see trash in the green waste, common recycling containers, you know, not cleaning up properly. And then oftentimes using someone else's trash. I don't know if that's a big issue, maybe for some it is, but I haven't heard a lot about that. This is our proposed residential rates for the civil violations. Again, the first violation is a notification. We want to be able to notify. We'll be working to get a process implemented with our customer service that's not in place yet. We do have other programs where it's pretty streamlined, so we will piggyback on that and actually should be implemented fairly quickly. if this is approved. Second violation, of course, goes through the fine process, 2550, and then a letter, and then eventually removal of the green waste if we do have those that continue to violation. Again, this is going to be within a rolling six-month period, so after six months, it completely resets. You go back to a first violation. Similar with our commercial, we have a little bit different issues. A lot of it is with their equipment, oil spills. I think our biggest issue that we have is our trash containers, the big containers not having lids. It's important that we have lids on those with rain events as those can get filled with water and then that water then creates a stormwater pollutant. And so that's stuff that we want to be able to take care of quickly through the civil process. similar fee structure is here it's again a little bit more more than our residential just because it is a commercial we are having a lot more volume so i think the violation is a little bit after your The last thing that we rate that we want to change, and it hasn't changed in quite some time, and that's one is a return service. Oftentimes we get called back or we get called from residents that need to get their trash picked up sooner or to come back that they didn't get it out. For the last 15 years, it's been $10. We're bringing that up to $25 more in compliance with our actual cost to go out there and to service those cans. So that's the difference in from the 10 to 25 is that increase. And then our roll off tipping fees are going up from 44 to 47. That's because our landfill prices have went up. So that's the cost of that increase for the per tonnage cost increase for the landfill. And that's all. Any questions?

Great. Thanks, Shane. Any questions for Shane? No. Thank you. All right. Any public comment on this item? I know I'm guilty of using the return fee sometimes. The other one, Sharon.

Sharon Mamet. As we watched this, we weren't planning to comment, but we had a couple of questions. I'm hoping that the use of other neighbors' trash cans is only if they complain about me.

Yes. Because we share often. We check that too. It's only for the abusers. Okay.

Yes. And what is the roll-off tipping fee?

Isn't it like that you have to

dump it the return fees when they come back to to do it when you've missed putting your cans out like when my husband forgets and i so often it's yeah either you forget or you you have so much your your uh trash cans are full you know and so you need us to come out and get those we'll come out and grab those yeah we don't want you to um not have space for your trash so yeah we'll come out and grab those it's actually one of the citizens favorite service that provost city does yeah it's great along with the christmas tree And the roll-off is you can order service for roll-offs. So the big containers that we roll, it's a big winch, and it rolls off, and then we can actually winch it and then roll it back on. We offer a service. There's other costs involved for that, but there's a tonnage that we have to haul to the solid waste to the landfill, and that is to incur that difference in cost. So you'll often see it on when they're new development, you see those big bins there and they're putting the construction, the debris in there. We have those similar too.

Thank you, Shane.

Yep.

All right. Any council discussion? Councillor Whitlock.

I just want to say thank you. I think this is really a good example of kind of proactive code cleanup. I think having these be a misdemeanor is a little ridiculous on its face to have the police enforce when there's a small issue with your trash. It's a little silly. So this seems like a really good clean up to our code and will provide us with tools to deal with repeat violations, which I think is the primary goal here. There are some repeat violations that make it very difficult for our trash services to complete their jobs properly. So I appreciate this work.

All right. Any other discussion? All right. We'll take a vote on the applied motion. Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor McKay? Yes. Councillor Christensen? Yes. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan? Yes. And Councillor Hoban?

Yes.

And that passes 7-0. Next, an ordinance amending the general plan to add the storm drain master plan. And this will be presented by Hannah Sozzle and Carlos Garcia, our stormwater engineer, and Hannah is our city planner. And it may just be Carlos.

or and and his buddy she left she didn't want to be a part of it that's that's uh um good evening mayor council thank you for your time um i don't have any interesting christmas tree stories it's a little more a little more good okay okay a little more dialed uh Do you imagine I'm an engineer with publicity public works in the storm drain from water division and today we'll just be walking through some updates to the storm drain master plan. The goal would be just to cover. I guess, give a clear oversight of the plan, summarize key findings and briefly cover some recommended capital improvement projects. And propose impact fee changes with me.

Oh, I'm going to call you out there. It's okay.

James Forrest, Norcal PTAC, he's been the technical lead behind the master plan so with that i'll just turn the time over to him and we'll walk right through it.

Tom Preston- Okay, thank you. It's like my clickers not working. Okay, there we go. So we just stormwater master planning. Here's here's kind of some of the general overview of what we're trying to accomplish. We want to identify any existing problems and we also want to plan for the future. um we want to size these facilities based on best available engineering practices and standards and so we use hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to do that and we try to plan cost-effective ways for us to manage our stormwater runoff and then we have some of our policy stuff and funding and implementation that's where we have our engineering design standards that we look at we want to be in compliance with regulatory standards that we have both federal and state and then we also try to establish our impact fee so that we can pay for future development so that it can fund itself um just some what the two main techniques that you would use in sperm water master planning is conveyance and so you'd think of anything water would flow through that might be a ditch a pipe um and then we also have detention basins and those are just essentially Think of it as a big bathtub. It's going to fill up in this bathtub and it's going to slowly drain. And so if you just take the conveyance and you don't do any detention, those pipes can tend to get pretty large. But if you run it through a detention pond, you can actually reduce the flow rate so you can use a little bit smaller pipes. And so we try to use a combination of these things to manage our stormwater. So there was a prior master plan done 5, 6 years ago. We have taken that plan and then we have worked with city staff to to make some updates to maybe refine the process just a little bit. And so. We have drainage basin resolution. That basically means that we split our drainage basin areas down to smaller pieces so that we can look at things in more detail. I'm gonna talk about directly connected impervious area as opposed to unconnected impervious area and why that's important. I'm gonna talk about how we did an impervious surface delineation over the whole course of the whole city and how that helps us. And then just some project changes that were made from the prior plan to this plan. And so the resolution, think of a drainage basin as if it rained over an area, excuse me, if it rained over an area, anywhere in that area, it would arrive at the same point eventually. So it all comes down to the same point. And so to get higher resolution, that means that we split that into multiple pieces. You could draw a basin that defines the watershed for the Provo River, and it would be huge. Or there might be a drainage basin for the parking lot outside. And so that's what I'm talking about when I talk about resolution is that we split it down into smaller pieces so that we can look at things in more detail. And so here's an example of this. The red basin outlined there is a basin that was from the prior master plan. And then the blue lines that you can see are splits that were made to have additional resolution. So the red basin would have had kind of one output for a peak flow and a hydrograph is what we call it, the flow over time. for the volume and then the blue when we split it into those pieces now we're going to get six or seven mini hydrographs and so we can look at pieces of the city in more detail when we do that When we have impervious area, it's really important in urban storm drainage planning because it creates the majority of the runoff that we see. And there's a difference between what's called directly connected impervious area and unconnected impervious area. And this graphic here illustrates that. If you look at the driveway there, it has a clear path. It's sloped towards the road. The water has a clear path to go right into the catchment basin there. at the bottom of the driveway, right into the pipe that is directly connected. And then you have a roof where the downspout is going onto the grass. And so that water would then have opportunity to seep down into the ground. And so those two things need to be treated separately because they, they hit our systems differently. And as part of this process, we used new technology, machine learning to train the computer to identify impervious area and areas that are pervious or that would allow water to infiltrate and seep into the ground. This is a really great way to do it because it is specific to your city. It's not perfect, but it does a really good job of identifying those impervious areas. And then our calculations can kind of be based on the data that we see in the city rather than textbook values that we've used for many years and carlos i don't know do we we're going to try these pdf maps okay we had a little trouble earlier um so here's a schematic of the model that we put together where you can see um that there's some dots up there, there's some yellow and orange and red, and all those things have significance. And when it's red, a red dot, that means that the model's showing that there's lots of flooding at that location. And then we take all of this and we kind of work with city staff to go, okay, the model is showing that there is flooding here. Have you seen it? And if they have, then that's a surefire way for us to know that, yeah, we need to do something at this location. If there are spots where the model says it's flooding and the city staff say, you know, I have not noticed flooding there, what we do, and you can see the naming there, there's some A projects and some B projects up there. The A projects are one that the city staff agrees, yes, this is an issue. The B are what we put on what's called a watch list. And so that's like hey city staff when you're out in a rainstorm kind of pay attention to these areas and see if maybe you hadn't noticed it before, but there actually is flooding to maybe be able to add that to the capital improvement plan if required in the future. So I think we can go back to the back to the PowerPoint. John Potter, That we had we had the map split up in different pieces, and so I guess we could kind of scan through these this. John Potter, Just do the size of the maps we split it into pieces, so you can see some of the areas easier but. John Potter, This is kind of the results of that model analysis. And then the summary of findings, when you take all of those projects that are kind of in the pipeline, which could take, this could go over the course of many, many years, but the total is $76.8 million in today's dollars. Of those projects, we estimated $25.8 million would be impact fee eligible. meaning that those coming into the future would need that infrastructure to service their storm drainage needs. Um, we tried as, as much as we could to utilize detention, to reduce flows when it was feasible. There are certain times where you're in a tight urban corridor and there's not really enough space to put detention or, you know, you can do detention under parking lots that can get pretty expensive. And so we try to weigh those options and, um, We have to upsize pipe to run parallel pipes sometimes to be able to get all the drainage through that we need to. impact fees um if we were to find an impact fee it's a one-time fee that's assessed for new development to fund that future growth so to service their stormwater needs here's the cost that's required to put that infrastructure in place And from a legal and planning framework, these impact fees require a technical analysis. We can't be pulling pipe sizes out of the air. We need to have a technical backing for that. And that's what the storm drain master plan provides. And we provide a capital improvement plan that goes with it so that we have the cost, the facility sizes, and that all goes into the impact fee calculations. The city of Provo for I guess I don't know how long, but currently they use gross acreage when assessing impact fees for stormwater. That means any development would pay the same amount of money per acre in their development for stormwater impact fees. And there's kind of two schools of thought on this. There's also many cities that use a stormwater ERU approach where you define what a typical is based on residential properties. And so if you think back to our impervious surface delineation, we took that and we basically went into our GIS software and we said, what is the average impervious area for residential parcels? And it gave us a number, and then that number then becomes our equivalent residential unit. And so the ERU approach is if you have, like the graphic is showing up there, if you have half an acre of impervious surface, it's going to have a certain cost associated with it. And then if you have four and a half, and these are both five acre parcels, if you have way more impervious surface, you will end up paying more because your impact to the stormwater system is greater. And that's kind of the thought process behind the stormwater ERU is that it levels the playing field a little bit more than doing the gross acreage approach. John Potter, And so, to summarize, we can add up our total impact fee eligible costs, you can add in stormwater master planning costs to that. John Potter, And then we estimated how many er us from a stormwater perspective remain to be built in provost city, so we take the total cost that we anticipate and we divide it by those total er us and then we get our cost of the approximately 1500 dollars per er you for stormwater. So the current stormwater impact fee is 8,262.93 per acre. And then this proposed stormwater impact fee using the different approach, so you gotta remember that, it's a totally different approach than gross acreage, is the 14.77 per ERU. One of the things to note is that moving forward, the city plans to update their impact fees annually um this approach has been applauded by the development community as it helps them to really know what their costs are going to be sometimes when cities wait five six seven years to update their impact fees there's a big jump And that can put a lot of strain on development as they were planning on 1,500. And then it turns out being 3,000 or something like that. It can jolt their systems. And the benefits of this is you have a much better chance of collecting the right amount of money over time. You're constantly updating these numbers that we're talking about based on the newest data, newest projections that we have. And it also keeps those increases year to year relatively small. Thank you.

All right, any questions?

No, just to say this is some wonderful work. As we went through this and just for everyone else's benefit, we went to this presentation work meeting and it's just very helpful. Thank you for your help on this.

Councillor Whitlock.

I just have one question. It might not be for you, might be for the other gentleman. In the summary of findings, we had essentially $75 million backlog of storm drain needs. About 25 million of that will be covered through impact fees. What's the plan for the gap?

So, as part of our budgeting process, every year, we identify capital projects. This helps us identify through our fees portion of those fees. Well, a substantial portion of those fees that through stormwater. go directly to capital projects that are not impact fee eligible right so what we'll do is we'll go through the project list through there all those deficiencies and we'll start prioritizing this these wins need to be fixed this is the worst area and we go through with our our capital project funds and we just start whittling away at those

And something that's not impact fee eligible effectively is existing development.

It's existing. It's interesting because stormwater really didn't come into effect until the early 90s. And so all that infrastructure was gone. There really wasn't much infrastructure, pipe infrastructure. Most of it was conveyance through open channels, through deep carbon gutters that we have here in south of BYU, the Franklin Park. So those are deficient. There is no what we'd really consider a sufficient stormwater system. So we are still catching up in those areas. And that's really primarily where we are focusing our current capital funds towards those projects.

Thank you. And if I may add, we had a, in my area near Buckley Draw, we had a kind of a microburst event, which led to the mudslide. And I will just say that a good stormwater system is very, very, very critical. And that experience, I think, helped us all appreciate that. So thank you. You're on top of this so that we can serve our needs.

Thank you.

Thanks Shane. All right. We'll open this item up for public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? All right. Council discussion. We'll take 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. So that passes 7-0. Next, an applied motion on an ordinance in the general plan to update the Wastewater Collection Master Plan. And this will be presented by Lane Pierce, Water Resources Engineer.

Yes, thank you. I will be brief. I do have a presentation also. See, there we go. We did have a bone and Collins to prepare it, and that's why their names on the slide. Just for quick. Introduction there is no impact fee or rate recommendation in the wastewater master plan. What we do in the wastewater master plan is basically to analyze our sewer system throughout the city and how it's performing. One of the first things we do is we model the system to see the capacity that is in the sewer capacity that exists in the pipelines. And this shows the capacity, what percent it's full. Red shows it's getting fuller. We don't want pipes that full for surges or big events. But as you can see, our current system is in good condition. capacity for capacity future suppose we did nothing and we left our sewer system the same and people kept constructing obviously we'd need to upsize a few areas the red and the black is where we would need to upsize our pipes This slide shows the age of our infrastructure. That is also part of the wastewater master plan. On the left is a table percentage of pipes at certain ages. And as discussed before, we believe about 70 years-ish is the lifespan of a sewer pipeline. This slide shows the expected rehabilitation replacement needs, meaning the sewer pipe that we have in the ground, we'll have to continue to replace and to rehabilitate. And it kind of shows an average of roughly 5 million a year is what we need to spend on it. And then it has the green line that's a moving average, and it shows when pipeline expires. And as discussed at large, The large graph points are because all the data, we had to assign a date to a data that we didn't know what date it was. And so we put the same date for everything on those datas, and then it became large. And as Keith said, next time we'll spread it out so it's not one big column. And then finally, the capacity shows This shows the projects where the capacity, where growth is expected and where our pipelines are becoming full and what projects we'd need to do. And it shows it in the next five years, 10 years, five to 10 years also. And finally, this slide indicates the cost of the projects when we expect to do them, the system replacement, that rough $5 million, and then the debt service we've incurred by building large projects like the wastewater treatment plant. And any questions?

Any questions? No. Thank you. All right. We'll open this item up for public comment. Any public comment on wastewater collection master plan? All right. Council discussion. Any discussion? All right. We'll do 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, we have an applied motion on an ordinance amending Provo City parking standards for specific uses and locations. And this will be presented by Aaron Ardmore, the planning manager.

Thank you, Council. As we discuss this at length today in our work session, I'm just going to give a quick overview of the proposals, kind of broken down into three different sections in our code. The first is in section 1437050, we are proposing to add a reduction for development around BRT stations, UVX stations. So new development, redevelopment around those for commercial multifamily mixed use could receive a 50% reduction if they met certain criteria. So that's the first proposal. The second proposal is in the next subsection in the chapter 1437060. That is where all the different parking standards for different uses are located for Provo. In this section, the proposal is to adjust the parking requirements for development, redevelopment, new development around BYU. The proposal there is to Within an eighth mile of BYU to allow for a 0.5 parking stall per tenant. And within a quarter mile, a 0.8 per tenant plus a 0.2 per unit. And then the third proposal is to 1437080 to allow offsite parking to be counted for apartments. Where in the city, we already allow that for commercial development, industrial development. This would add apartment or multifamily development to that list with certain criteria there as well. All of these proposals are trying to meet some goals of redeveloping and bringing new development into areas of the city that have been identified in the general plan and through zoning and through other appendices of the general plan as areas that we would want more density as we'd want redevelopment to happen. So these proposals are trying to make that a little easier for development to come through. That might be it for a summary, unless you have questions. I also had some response for questions that came up in work meeting today. The main question that came out of that for me to bring to you tonight was the parking inventory in North Joaquin, just south of BYU campus. These are old numbers. This is when the Joaquin plan was adopted.

What year was that?

2013. Take that into account. But at the time, we did a total inventory of units, occupancy, parking on and off street. So spaces per unit within that neighborhood, the entire neighborhood from BYU campus down to Center Street and University to 9th East is 2.22 spaces per unit, which equated to 0.7 spaces per person. So those numbers are likely to have changed in the last 13 years, but that gives you maybe some good perspective of where that neighborhood's at.

That's all I have. Could you repeat those again?

Yes. 2.22 spaces per unit, per residential unit, which is a 0.7 per tenant. Okay. That's all I have.

Thanks, Aaron. Thanks. All right. Any questions for Aaron? Councillor Whipple?

Yeah, so I had come in late earlier today. I'm wondering, is the proposed 0.5 space per tenant more parking than some of the old grandfather units currently provide?

For sure. Yeah, there's some homes up there that look like single family homes that have been broken up over the years that still had only two or three spaces. So if you've got, you know, four to six occupants in the home and only have two spaces, then that's going to be a lower ratio, right?

Okay. And then I remember when Dave Harding was on the council, they did a really intensive study of parking in Joaquin. Do we have the numbers from that? Or was it just looking at on-street spaces and not looking at the per unit?

That's what played into that table that I just read.

They used the 2013 numbers for that? Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah.

right any other questions for aaron any okay all right we'll open this item up for public comment my name is angie carter i am speaking as the east neighborhood district chair right now um i want to

I want to know if this proposal deals with the Prevost, Prevost South, the Slight Canyon areas, because we have extensive parking issues up there. And I know that if this proposal affects this area, that my neighborhood district would be strongly opposed to this proposal. So my question is, where exactly does this proposal fit? noting my objection if it is in my area. Thank you.

It is complicated where it hits and there's no map to show you, but it's around, it's a half mile within any bus, the BRT bus stops. is it a quarter? Okay. Sorry. Quarter mile. And then an eighth of a mile within BYU in some parts and a quarter of a mile with another, with there's different percentages depending on, so it's around, it's within a radius of BYU up to a quarter mile and the BRT bus stops up to a quarter mile. Well, it's also another part is a quarter mile. There's two different parts of it. So there's

Is it just the BRT bus stops or any bus stop that's on that route? Because we have bus stops in our area that are on 900 East that flow into that.

BRT and Front Runner.

Okay.

Hello Council, my name is Walker would resident bountiful. I'm here representing the park Plaza ownership group. We recently acquired this property across the street from campus. This is 1 of the subject sites that would be applicable for some of the proposed changes. We've been working with planning staff and appreciate the opportunity to come to you and talk about some of the. proposed changes. We think this is a good targeted approach meeting some of the criteria of one-eighth mile of campus, not adjacent to a single family neighborhood, no parking in front of the subject site adjacent to BRT as well. We've developed student housing around the country and have different ideas of how to try to mitigate the parking demands. With this current proposal, we think the building as is, is an interesting case study for what the current code would allow for. So currently that building, which we have just completed asbestos on and will remove, demolish that building. There's 45 units, 106 parking stalls. There would be an insufficient number of stalls for that. So what we want to do is do structured parking where we can park on the entire site and have the building above, which is why we're coming to you trying to come up with an appropriate solution that we think could add walkable options for students. A lot of the student housing has been developed more recently. requires a shuttle system or a vehicle across the street from campus. We have different options, including scooter rentals available, cars that would be rented from the site in return. A lot of the parking for students is to store their vehicle, not to use it on day-to-day trips. So we have some ability to mitigate some of that, including through leasing. Appreciate that my time is limited and would love to continue discussing some potential solutions.

Thank you.

One question. So 45 units, two students per unit or four students per unit?

Yeah, fair question. So the current, we typically do two bedroom, four bedroom and six bedroom units because students typically will bring a roommate, if not multiple, but we generally avoid the odd number of units. So on average, just north of three. So with 45 units, that would be 135 units.

Okay. And 106 parking stalls. Thank you.

I was told not to waste time. Paul Evans in the Pleasant View neighborhood. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I personally support the goal of the council and the city to encourage transportation or transit-oriented development or TOD in the right places in Provo. I mean, that's a great direction to head. But north of campus, where we have the BYU Stadium UVX stop, the BYU North Campus UVX stop, those are not locations that are appropriate for this parking reduction overlay. These two stops, we also remind you that the neighborhood is completely surrounded by BYU. So your definition of what is BYU needs to be clear as you go forward. So when you draw a quarter mile, radius around those stops, the circle falls almost entirely over the long-established single-family neighborhood south of Stadium Avenue. This area is not a TOD corridor. It's not planned for higher density. And there's nobody requesting for those changes today. Although in the past, we've, as a neighborhood, we've dealt with a developer who wanted to create high density in that area. Importantly, the type of housing the ordinance is meant to incentivize does not exist within that radius. The nearest high-density housing, Temp Towers, Stadium 150, Temp Gateway, Long Glass, and the Hill subdivision are all half mile away, not quarter mile. So the overlay would not support TOD housing. It would only place development pressure on a stable, owner-occupied neighborhood. So for these reasons, I request that you do not.

Thanks, Paul. We're going to take a Zoom comment. OK, we have a number of Zoom comments. We'll take the first one. Just say your name and the city of residence when you start your comment, please. Phone number ending in 8939. We can't hear you.

Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Hey, thank you. My name is Reagan Summerall, and I live in Provo for most of the year. I'm a BYU student, and I'm here to talk about BYU students and their perspective on this. The number one complaint I hear from BYU students is about parking. There's not enough of it. They fight with finding parking spots every night, and I know that this situation is and these proposals are contrary to the desires and the needs of BYU students. I understand that advocates of the bill think that this will cause students to leave their cars at home or not buy them, but I know that that is not going to be the result of these amendments. I know that what will happen is they will fill streets with cars, which I know Provo City is trying to avoid, or they will move somewhere they can park, such as Vineyard or Orem, which is already happening as a result of the parking problem, and it's only gonna get worse, congest traffic further, which I know is also a problem that this amendment is claiming to solve. It's my understanding as well that this decision was not, or these proposals were not consulting students or student organizations as part of this group. And as a contributor of the Cougar Chronicle, which is a student run independent newspaper, we did a little bit of a poll in the past 24 hours in which we found that 97% of students, both 97% of students that were represented in the poll do not want this bill or this ordinance. They would rather have more parking and they need more parking. And I know that BYU students, there are 40,000, almost 40,000 of them, and they live in Provo or they participate in the Provo community. So I would just hope that the council would consider these students who are part of the BYU community and who do not want to be limited to the places that public transport can take them in their travel and in their daily life as part of their time in Provo. And so I just hope that the council would consider that in these amendments. And thank you so much for listening to this.

Thank you so much. All right, we'll take another one from the audience, please.

Come ahead, Sharon.

This is Sharon Mehmet from Provo.

Wow, I appreciate the introduction. Ann Paul Chivalry, and I'm not speaking as a representative, so thanks for the extra time. Mostly, I just haven't gotten to dig deep in this. I haven't been able to follow it directly. I did appreciate your email about your feelings about... not appreciating the parking reduction. And I would expand Paul's thought to across the city. I know if I send a child here to school and didn't live in Provo, I would want them to have a car so that they could access what they needed to i would love that they took the bus to school or grocery shopping but if i need to go to visit auntie in salt lake on sunday it's not happening and that car needs a place to live during the week that it's not being used so reducing the parking doesn't really help if i want to go visit those students there's nowhere for me to park i can't even park my car if i don't want to walk the two miles to the nearest station There's nowhere for me to drive to park and get on the lovely BRT system. I feel like reducing the parking around these things is the wrong direction. In fact, I would suggest that you create maybe some paid parking spaces that I might actually consider using the system.

All right, we'll take another Zoom commenter. I see Caleb. Caleb, you can unmute yourself.

Hi, yes.

We hear you.

Yes. Okay, perfect. So Caleb Peebly, I live in Provo. I actually do live south of campus in Joaquin. I'm a BYU student, but planning on sticking around here in Provo for a while. I'm a registered voter. This proposal is pretty interesting to me and also kind of disappointing. Doesn't make a lot of sense why we would be decreasing parking in some of the areas of the city that need parking the most. As one person has already commented, students need a lot of parking. People in Provo who aren't students also need a lot of parking. Downtown, where there's lots of bus stops down by the train tracks, in these residential neighborhoods as you get a little further away from downtown, there's just a ton of need for this. I mean, we see this even in majority non-student areas of Provo where there's just a huge parking need. So the language of this is also crafted to be really vague and difficult to understand. It took me a long time to figure out what was going on. I hope that that wasn't intentional and I hope that we're trying to be transparent to the people and to the constituents. But I'm pretty disappointed by this. I also think that the repercussions of this, I mean, I'm thinking about enforcement. A lot more tickets, a lot more boots. That's a huge financial burden on some of the poorest people in Provo, some of the lowest income people in Provo, not just students, but also just thinking of people who live in areas that are closer serviced by the bus system. These are usually not super high income areas. So people can be hit pretty hard by that. So overall, not a great proposal. I hope that the council will we'll consider stopping this and just coming up with something better i think the intention is good i hope that the intention is sincere and good but there's got to be a better option out there so thank you thank you okay we'll take a comment from the audience

Hi, my name is Aaron Wheatley, Provo born and raised, and back here again. I love this place. You probably saw I missed most of the comments, so I don't know everything I'm commenting on. I just want to say from my personal experience, so I grew up here. um had went to byu had a car at byu all these things were awesome um things are a little bit different now recently i got an e-bike and it um kind of took a a leap i didn't we needed another something didn't want another car because of the expense and also because of parking situation. So I got an e-bike and it has been incredible. And so something that I would like to comment on is that there are other options now. I get to ride my bike a lot now. I see a lot of students who are riding their scooters or their bikes. And I think it's actually really awesome that we have these new opportunities of mobility. Uh, this lady back here that very, very valid comments, right? If I'm coming for this one situation that would be really important to me and I think that is, but I look at it a little bit differently. Someone I'm close to, I'm not going to name a name, but they said, I can never get one of those automatic water heaters because what happens in the event that there's an earthquake and my water is severed and I can't use it and then I have no backup water. And it was like this one in a million opportunity or chance that that happens. And she's like, I need to have that security. And that's fine. And that's valid. But I want to be honest about what we're saying is, OK, so if you come and visit, take the bus if you come and visit. We have ride shares. You can use bikes. Send your college student here, gift them an e-bike, gift them a scooter instead of saying, oh, I'll send you with a car that costs so much money. Say, I'll send you with this awesome thing. And you can go and you can ride front runner up to Salt Lake to all these things. I think there's other ways. Again, I don't know the whole situation, but I'd just like to say that there are lots of new, awesome opportunities for mobile.

Aaron, remind us of your neighborhood, which neighborhood you live in.

Yeah, I'm in the Joaquin neighborhood.

Thanks.

Just give your name and your city.

Perfect. My name is Sam. I live in Provo. I'm actually a BYU student. I live just off the southwest edge of campus, actually in an area that would be affected by these proposed rural changes. And I'm here today because I believe really strongly that Provo needs more housing options for students like me. You know, evidence here in Provo kind of broadly suggests that parking is a major obstacle to new housing and some of like the biggest, densest, newish development, most notably the village located at the intersection of 500 North and 600 East, have required kind of special parking exceptions and approvals to get developer interest. I would also add that just sort of as a student, I think that folks like me just need extra flexibility and options for both housing and transit. And I would add that I really appreciate some of the increased walkability and transit options that have been added to the area south of campus in recent years. You know, today's proposed changes are relatively small and grant developers just a little extra flexibility in constructing student housing. And if these rules get even an extra project or two built, I think they would be worth it. And for this reason, I would really encourage the council to support these rule changes and others like it should they come up for a vote in the future. Thank you all for taking the time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Maren. I live in the Joaquin neighborhood and I would just like to say that I'm a BYU student and parking is so difficult and I was actually looking up some stats before I came up here and there's been about a 10% increase in the student population from 34,000 to 37,000 in the last 10 years. So before the it was 13 years ago that those stats were taken with the amount of parking spots and so now there are a lot more students with so it would probably be a lot less parking spots per person and then there's also um it's about 64 percent of students are from out of state and i am from out of state and i I didn't have a car my freshman year. It was really difficult. I used public transportation as much as I could, but having a car now is a game changer. And so I understand the scooters and the bikes, like those are great. And I think it's a really great opportunity to help with the environment and things like that. But I also think that it's, cars are non-negotiable we live in a place that isn't com like south campus is very walkable but the rest of provo and the rest of utah getting to other places in utah i definitely would need a car and so and i need a place to store my car and so these are all things that I would like you to take into consideration because a lot of students are facing difficulties with finding parking because at all of these apartment complexes that we're living at, they all are monopolies and they're not making parking easy for us. And it's an extra, $50 to $100 per month to have a parking spot at the place that we're living. And so it's a lot more expensive to buy a parking spot. And then if we don't, then there's not a lot of street parking and we have to park super far away. And it's really difficult in the wintertime too, because it's not, it's just not a very walkable city in the wintertime. And so thank you so much.

Thank you. All right. We have another, oh, did the zoom one leave? Oh, we were too long. All right. Any more? Welcome.

All right. Hi, my name is Jackson Galini. I live in Provo. I'm a BYU student. And I have to say this resolution would, or these proposed ordinances would benefit nobody but landlords, developers, so on and so forth. Parking, as people have said, it's already horrible enough as is. There's a limited enough park. There's limited parking. And for those who don't pay for parking, it's a battleground out there. It's hard to get a spot that's close to your apartment, especially during the school year. It's a hard struggle. And to limit new parking would be a disaster, essentially. It'd make it worse for everyone who's already struggling to find a spot. It also make it worse for young people who live in Provo who may live in apartments or townhouses. And it would just it would, it wouldn't be conducive for a good environment to lift yourself up and like her i'm from out of state i need my car i drove in from out of state i can't not have a car and it's the same thing with tens of thousands of people who go to byu provide tax benefits for probo and it's it's just unrealistic to say that we can't have cars we have to only take the bus or public transport or so on so forth and i also think it's disrespectful for the students that live in byu that go here it's disrespectful to pose this during the summer when most of these people are gone and that's about it thank you for your time

Thank you. Any more public comment on this item? Jason Miller. I don't know where he lives.

Hello, Council. Jason Miller. I actually live in Linden. I work in Provo. I'm a big, bad developer. And I've developed quite a few apartment buildings, multifamily housing around Provo. And everybody wants to live in Provo. People want to be here. And it's too bad that the economics are driving most everything as a developer. You're going into old areas, tearing down houses, which are super expensive. You're trying to develop and provide the amount of parking that's needed. And those underground parking stalls are costing $35,000 to $40,000 per parking stall to build and develop. And I know that it's driven mainly by economics and what the students can afford, what new young Marys can afford. And economics say, I run through the numbers every single day and it is so difficult to you put all the costs together, the cost of the underground parking to develop all these things and make it pencil where people can afford to live. It's just a fact of life today of economics. And so anyways, most of the development work that I've done has been in the mass transit area. I would support the reduction in those areas. Anyways, my thoughts.

Jason, have you developed anything south of campus, any of the apartment?

I have done some in that area. It's all been done under the current requirements, though.

OK, thank you.

Any other public comment?

I am Michael Christensen. I also live in Provo, used to live in Joaquin and used to be a student at BYU. I think that the proposal as it stands sounds to me that it's well-intentioned, but maybe half-baked. I worry that any savings that students get from cheaper housing from a greater supply would be just eaten up by more expensive parking fees. In addition, objectively, I wouldn't have minded not having a car, but the proposal is saying, well, just use an e-scooter, use an e-bike, use a regular bike. I mean, those are nice during the summer, but while students are in their apartments, while they're living in Provo, it's very often not really a reasonable solution. If there's ice on the roads, I can't use a scooter. If Provo drivers are the way they are, then maybe I don't want to drive or ride a bike. It also makes it very difficult, the fact that BYU does not allow us to operate those on campus. You know, you can get to the edge, but Oh, gosh, now I have to, you know, find a place where I can actually set it up, put a lock on it and then go to class. It it doesn't make it any better than just having a car, especially if you're thinking like an e-bike. That's as much as a cheap car anyway. It just seems to me that while well-intentioned, I don't think the proposal stands uh incentivizes the right behavior on the part of students although i do definitely appreciate how important it is to get more opportunities for developers to give more options to students any more public comment all right oh bonnie morrow she lives in provo

I'm actually in North Tenth View, but I'm speaking from 35 years of experience in Provo. I did own a house in Joaquin when I was a student, actually. When I drove here, I saw numerous, no parking, tow away zone. I had to drop off my ballot at Provo City Library. And as you know, I can't go down University Avenue. So I was cutting through the neighborhoods. No parking, tow zone, no parking, tow zone. I was like, holy smokes. And as I've reviewed this ordinance, I can understand where it's coming from. But having owned a little house in Provo on 620 North, i think i'm going to bring a different perspective to this in my opinion over the years 35 of them dealing with this i think the winners are the developers and the towing business those are the clear winners in this proposal right now um why because my 620 north house when i sold it to a developer the cost of the beds tripled so what i was charging they tore it down built the lanai that bed price tripled per bed also They put two people in a room. Some of them were three. But that's what was allowed back then. Now it's more. But as inflation has gone. So my point is, these charming little homes in Provo, in Joaquin, they will be torn down. Because all of a sudden, they're worth a whole lot more money than a little house sitting there. those little houses provide opportunities for students who are struggling and can't pay the high rent of a developed property that has a gym and a swimming they just want to go to school they need a room where they can uh do their studies. The second thing is expensive parking. I also witnessed this, and I'm sure you all know it. If you live in Salt Lake, if you live in California, in San Francisco, only the elitists can pay for those parking. It's up to $2,000 a month. My cousin, when she was going to school, didn't care how much it was because her parents paid for it. And there are plenty of students who do not care and their parents will pay for it. And so we are punishing the very people that we want to protect. They cannot afford to pay the rent, plus pay these exorbitant parking fees that the developers will be collecting. And the last thing I want to bring up is women's safety. women's safety has not been discussed tonight and I think it's very important women deal with a lot of issues that men do not deal with and walking and transportation are so important front runner and bus do not run on Sunday as far as we can tell we've been looking at the schedules and there is nothing so you are forcing women out into the public into the winter with a safety issue thank you

Thank you. We have someone who walked in just for public comment. You're just fine. Your name and your city.

My name is Kendall Thurston and I emailed you all this morning or last night, which I want to apologize because I said it was a horrible idea. But I listened to your work meeting earlier today and I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that is going into this and the data that you want to get. Looking at kind of dissecting and looking at the developments that are trying to take place. And so we do have a problem. I live in the Oak Hills neighborhood, and because BYU is building on their parking lots, their students are coming into our neighborhood and infiltrating. There is some protected parking, but not beyond. I mean, one street up from Kiwanis Park, and there's no more protected parking. And you need us. We are residents here that pay taxes. BYU is a 501c3. They're one of the biggest employers of the two. They're not giving us taxes. I feel like they are creating the problem and kind of stepping back and watching us struggle with the problem anyway I really appreciated your work meeting and for those that didn't listen to it I highly encourage you to listen to it I think that there's lots of thought um to go in to face this problem it is a problem we do need to address more development for parking or for for housing and for parking I don't think that this amendment is the right approach, but I do think with thoughtful discussion, we can come up with a solution and even just trying little sections. Eighth of a mile, eighth of a mile south of the campus. Let's just try that section and see what works. 9th East and 820 North that there is nowhere for students to park on the west side they are going to the east side Kiwanis is filled to the brim and they will start infiltrating those neighborhoods as well I love students but we need help from the city too thank you very good timing by the way that was impressive all right any other

Public comment. All right. Thank you. All right. Any council discussion on this item? Councillor Geary-Garrett.

I'm just interested to know if there are any other developers here who came to speak to this issue to make sure we heard from all. We were under the impression some were coming, particularly possibly the owner of Campus Plaza just south of BYU where we have that one-eighth mile strip of land that we're considering a trial project. But I just wanted to make sure there weren't any other developers that didn't take advantage of the public comment.

Council of Whitlock.

Would it be possible for me to ask some questions to some of the developers who spoke?

For sure.

If you're willing. Cole West, is that who you're representing? So just some things that we were talking about during our work meeting that I wanted to ask. So the first one is, so you've developed other properties near other campuses. with this same minimum parking requirement, correct? Around half?

The last six projects we've done, the most we've parked it is half per bed.

Half per bed? Yes. And can you speak to what you are experiencing with that level of parking and why you felt like it was what the market wanted versus a higher level? Sure.

So when we do an increased unit count, so it sounds like not that many parking stalls and would, if we go up to the maximum height, we'd end up providing 240 stalls. So there are a lot of stalls that do go into these more dense projects. trying to pull more students out of the single-family neighborhoods and the spillover. So some of the different strategies we've had, I mentioned a couple of those. The rideshare option, so you just kind of do a car rental on-site, so we'd have multiple cars available for students to do weekend trips or going home. The access to transit is really important, but that's been discussed at length. There's a lot of options now that we've pretty much standard now implement across our student housing where students can rent scooters understanding there's some limitations on campus but to do the mobility around campus one of our projects we did do in ann arbor michigan we leased space off site and the students don't need the daily car because similar to park plaza that's right across the street from campus so they're not using those but for kind of special trips and weekends and then we had a shuttle service that took them from the location to their off-site vehicle which is really just kind of car storage and typically what students use after hearing lots of the comments tonight it certainly sounds like there's just general parking issues whether or not those are residents of buildings or not so that is another option the way the current Tom Preston- Proposed languages drafted needing to be so proximate to the location that is, and I also listened to the work session I don't know that we would want to. Tom Preston- Just have a surface parking lot within 400 feet of park closet so if that were expanded, we could secure additional off site parking but that's not as drafted something we would propose to do.

What? And I asked this in the work session. So we know that part of the reason why at least we hear this is advantageous to actually develop these properties like Park Plaza. For those who don't know, Park Plaza is the property on 9th East that is blighted and hasn't been developed for over a decade now, I believe, is the cost of parking. So a structured parking in Provo costs anywhere between $25,000 to $50,000 per stall. Do you do you know, like when you get that reduction, how much of that actually is passed on to the renters and savings versus how much you just take as profit?

Yeah, that's really hard to answer just because the pricing is dynamic all the time with supply and demand.

So on your rental units. That's right.

uh what i can say is because of that side and trying to maximize it we're anticipating doing one level of subterranean uh parking one level of at ground floor uh so because you have to go subterranean uh the average stall increases to 50 so 240 units on 50 000. so that gets pulled out of the cost of the project what i can promise on the reduction in the rent is hard to feel good about giving you a specific number on but we certainly try to reduce costs where we can to be able to build the most affordable unit we can.

Do you ever have it in your lease agreement that if people have a car and they don't have a dedicated spot for it, they're not supposed to rent? We have those in two of our projects.

And I do think that works on the initial signing of the lease when students come with their parents and see you cannot bring a car unless you have a spot for it. Yeah. The enforcement of that is challenging is we can all appreciate but i do think it does serve some purpose in that initial execution of the lease typically we'll have juniors and seniors kind of coming from off campus sorry from on campus who want to remain living in kind of purpose-built student and there's a little bit more familiarity with reduced parking available for some of the dorm styles rent students who are living on campus and then come off understanding that not every uh bed has a parking spot thank you um counselor craig christiansen uh jason do you mind coming back up again um again part of part of the uh it's uh again it's flip side the same

flip side of the same coin. To the extent we can actually reduce the parking, it makes the housing more affordable, makes it possible for you to do projects you might not be able to do. You hear the citizens concern about, okay, now you just stretch something that was already to the breaking point. What advice would you offer to balance both of those?

Well, it sounds to me like from what I'm gathering that we're in old neighborhoods where there's houses that we've got a five bedroom house that has a driveway there that there's only two parking stalls and the students are living in that house and they might be putting two bedrooms in each of those bedrooms and you got 10 people in there, they gotta go find parking somewhere. And I don't know if it's grandfathered in or how that's been adopted, but I would say in the new development areas, It's like the other developer talked about. It is very difficult that the cost to be able to put all those costs together into a project and then be able to rent for what current rents are. You can't do it. It is so tough these days to make that work in the largest... contributed to that is the parking part to see if they could use the the UTA parking that was across the street to help them with their parking. And it just because it was off site and it was a city code, they didn't allow it for residential. It wasn't approved. So I know that we had tried doing that, but because of Provo City, you know, a regulation or law that's in place that wasn't allowed at the time.

And how, one last question, how would you answer, Jeff asked the question, as a developer, you're able to save money, let's say the parking is reduced, The big question is, does that really translate to the students, or are you just charging market rents?

Right now, it's difficult to even make those pencil and work. That's why I think you're seeing construction between interest rates and inflation of materials and goods, the cost of labor. I think everybody in the economy is filling it. And so you can only rent for so much money. It becomes a breaking point where you can't charge. I guess over time it goes up. But the cost allows you to be able to build it and get it financed. And if you were to talk to developers, if they're making five to 6% on a project, they're doing awesome on these apartment buildings. It's tough to make them work. It really is. And when I said people wanna live here in Provo, Provo's kind of built out, right? But everybody still wants to be here. And so anyways, it's a dilemma. Thank you, Jason.

I have a question for you, Jason. Okay, so if things won't pencil, why are people spending that much on the land? Why are people able to sell their land for so much that it's not profitable? Because people know what the code is. They know what the zone is.

right yeah i think what's going on i i think that's kind of coming to an end i don't know if much development's going on in provo right now as far as multi-family i know like the i know about the harris music block that has sat there i think that they were trying to to get a parking reduction there to make it work um I think that you're going to be tough to make projects pencil and work going forward. I'm doing a project that is on 4th South and 100 West right now, and we're parking under the current parking requirements. And it is so tough for me. I'm going to every subcontractor that I have in that job, trying to get them to lower their prices, get the pricing down so that we can just rent that project for what the current market will rent for and make it work with interest rates. I'm battling it every day to try to make that work. So going forward, I see it being tough.

Councillor Whitlock.

If I may put you on the spot. Yeah. So let's say a hundred bed apartment complex at the current, like the current one stall per bed. If that's built structure, you says about $35,000 a stall.

Yeah. To 40,000.

So let's just assume $40,000 a stall. So that would be $4 million in parking. What does that compare to the overall cost of the project? Like what percent of that?

Yeah. So that's funny you bring up. The project that I'm talking about is 108 units. And we have, I believe, around 130 parking stalls in that building. And it's about right at the $4 million that you're talking about on that. And the total project on that is $22 million for construction in those costs. So 20% of the cost of that is in the parking of that.

Thank you. And you're saying right now your margins on an entire project, you're getting about a 5% return on capital?

If you can do that, you're doing good. You're doing really well. Like everything that I'm running right now is like low threes, 3%.

So how are you financing them when you can get better returns on any other asset classes? It's really hard.

They're going to HUD financing, 40-year loans. Conventional financing doesn't work or else people are paying, you know, you have people that are paying it all with cash, you know, that have 1031 money that have sold a building. they need to move it into something that's just getting right out of from paying the taxes. So they'll go buy it at a, you know, making 3% on their money or 4% on the money because to get out of paying the tax. So thank you. Yep. Okay. All right.

More council discussion. I noticed a lot of the comments talked about quality of life. Or that people want to live here. Sorry, that people want to live here. And people want to live here because of our quality of life, right? And the only way, like if quality of life goes, and also they say things are so expensive. And I think about how we subsidize housing It's either to get housing cheaper, it's generally, we have to subsidize it in some way, you know, whether federally or grants or, you know, low-income housing and tax credits and all those things, which we all pay for in taxes, or you lower the quality of life. You lower the quality of life and things get cheaper, so it's not a desirable place to live, right? I don't know. I think about that a lot as far as housing. Councillor Whitlock.

I just want to thank everyone for the amazing public comments. This is truly, I mean, a tricky issue. I think if I may just make a couple comments. So the The way that right now it works, and probably a lot of you know this, but just to explain, is when a new development is coming in, Provo requires them to meet a certain, build a certain number of stalls with that development. And so we're not, the thing before us is not do we reduce the amount of parking stalls out there, it's do we require them to build and to what level? And what we heard from this back and forth exchange is there's a lot of kind of old, uh housing stock around campus some of those are beautiful historical homes as was mentioned but some of those are not um we have issues with black mold health problems like this the housing stock around byu has not kept up at all with the increase in student population as we just heard the student population on byu has increased we we don't we definitely understand that or at least i should say i understand the concerns with everyone needing a car in many places. And I think that's the truth. What I'm curious about is actually if we are able to read it, redevelop some of these areas where they are under parked because they were developed in older time periods when they're like the house example, a house was originally one family, but now it's five students with five cars, like that's actually under parked. And so by redeveloping it, you might actually create more parking spots. So that's some of the data questions that I think I have and I'd like to see answered before moving forward in a broader way. And then, of course, we have a cost of living crisis for many people. I know many students who struggle to just make the rent, who struggle to pay for their basic expenses. And that concerns me a lot is trying to create places where people can afford to live.

I definitely think as part of this proposal, I really want, I really do like the idea of getting the off-street parking figured out, like that Jason talked about, that they could have done an agreement with the UTA, and that is one big old huge parking lot that's empty a lot. So I do think that should be figured out, something like that. I really do like that idea, because I don't feel like that exacerbates an existing problem. It helps with an existing problem. so i think that that is a positive piece of the of the things we've been talking about but that too needs to be sussed out because i even think it's actually not far enough away that we've allowed with the one that's in our been proposed today but um anyone else have a comment counselor whipple and then we'll go to becky bogdan

Thank you. I really appreciate the work of our staff on this and our council discussion, and certainly all of the public comment that we've gotten on this. I do think that there are a lot of good ideas worth exploring, and this proposal has sparked a really good conversation about this. there may be some areas where this exact proposal like redefining the BYU parking would be appropriate. And I certainly agree with Catrice that looking at perhaps more distant offsite parking for this kind of storage, because we have seen that a lot of students or people who are close to the transit don't drive their cars on a daily basis, but they do have a car. So having an offsite storage area is a fantastic idea. And so looking at how we can adjust this proposal so that it works in the specific geographic areas and meets the needs of our people, I think is definitely something that we need to do. um i'm grateful that we have some of our students here who are engaging especially sam sam ran against me woohoo sam um and i i came here as a student 30 years ago and i was out of state and didn't have a car and that we didn't even have UVX or decent public transportation or anything then. I don't know if you guys remember the old ride shared board on the Wilk where like you go with a stranger up to Idaho to visit your grandma for Thanksgiving. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I did. And I can appreciate that our students now are very happy about the convenience of having a car and wanting to have that. Even as for a daily use, they might be using their bikes and scooters more. I also note that sometimes the restrictions and regulations that we as a council have put into our zoning end up being impediments to the goals that we say we want to have. That we are artificially putting pressure on the market so the market forces aren't able to adjust to the demands and to the economic circumstances that are there. I believe that there is a subset of the student population that will continue to come without cars. And it would be fantastic if they could use that as a factor in choosing a place to live. But if we're mandating a certain amount of parking for all of the student housing or all of the housing in Provo generally, they don't have that kind of choice. And if your non-driving students or residents are able to choose that kind of housing, then that opens up the more parked housing for the people who definitely do bring cars. We as the council have as our tool in our toolbox legislating things, but that may not be the best tool for addressing the problems that we see in our city. And so being open to collaborate with other actors may be more effective at getting the solutions that we want. I think I would propose later after we've gotten through our discussion that we continue this item so that we can more fully explore the aspects of it that we think will be good. So defining what BYU is, where we would be comfortable perhaps trying this out as an area to see if we actually get any bytes from developers and more fully exploring things like that offsite parking option.

I was going to say you're in my perception of the train station or the front runner station is very different. It is very full.

Oh, at night when I go by, it's like empty.

maybe at night, but starting early in the morning, that thing's starting to fill. And if you go there at noon, you're pressing to find a parking spot. So I don't know how well that mill race thing would work out because it does fill up. And to Jeff's point of those older homes, if you've got two parking spots in a driveway and one out front and they're cramming six kids in there, you're still at 0.5.

an area particularly south of campus within that eighth mile radius, we do need to improve our housing stock south of campus, as was mentioned, and I would support being able to continue this further.

Councillor Christianson.

Yeah, kudos to anyone who went through both of these conversations. Thank you for your patience. I don't support this ordinance as written. And I do support finding some sort of solution. This isn't an easy one. And there's always unintended consequences. We've got to look at both sides of the coin. And I think this falls short of that. And I think we can come up with something. So I also support a very measured, a very specific test to see what's actual instead of what's hoped for.

Do we have a motion? Yeah, I'll move that we continue this item so that we can have further study on it. We have identified several different areas of study and of potential compromise and path forward. Brian or Kevin, is it necessary that I re-articulate?

My suspicion is we're going to get further direction from leadership and from the issue tracker as we go forward on this.

excellent well then I'll just continue it and I won't include a date because we will issue tracker it if we see that it's not moving and we'll bring it forward that way yeah I would second that all right any discussion on the motion all right we'll take a vote on the motion Councillor Christianson yes Councillor Whitlock yes Councillor Bogdan yes Councillor Hoban yes Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor McKay, yes. So that passes 7-0. We'll continue that item. All right. Next in ordinance, submitting Proposal Code regarding the requirements of an agricultural protection area. And this is going to be presented by Jessica Danike, our city planner.

Thank you, council. We'll see if the clicker lets me move forward this time. So our proposed text amendment this evening is to reduce the area requirement for the agricultural protection area from 5 acres. Nope, doesn't like me again from 5 acres to 1 acre and then it's also to remove the requirement to be a part of the green belt tax benefit. Um, to bring up some of the discussion in planning commission for those who watch that meeting, um, there was question about the. Size requirement for the greenbelt tax amendment or greenbelt tax benefits. There are 2 different tax benefits. Greenbelt is 5. Urban farming is 1 acre. We're not going to in this proposed text amendment require that a property is receiving any tax benefits. Our only requirement will be that the proposed agricultural protection area meet the requirements from state code. These are the requirements that a property has to meet by state code before it is approved to be in an agricultural protection area. And then here are the benefits of being in an agricultural protection area. Are there any questions?

Thanks, Jessica.

Any questions for Jessica?

Thank you. All right. We will do public comment on this item. Any public comment on this item? This is Jenny Smith, and she lives in Provo.

She's also on the Ag Board. Yes, that's what I'm coming as a member of the River Agriculture Commission. Angela couldn't be here, and so I'm speaking for her. Just a couple of comments from our perspective from the Ag Commission is the smaller acreage allows for for a couple of different kinds of people, and it could be other kinds of people as well that are that could excuse me. allows them to be engaged in farming in a certain way. So for young farmers who want to start small and affordable, we need young farmers. We don't need the old people to die out and have nothing left. Those whose property was once part of a larger farm and they have a smaller remainder and they want to remain in that. They have the experience, they have the desire, and they want to stay there. And a larger farm with a smaller satellite parcel. So that has a certain appeal to certain people. The APA protects farmers in the way they've been explained. It also protects neighbors and the city through the process because there are several filters that have to go through. First of all, the state law requires that they have to be in an agriculture area. you know, narrows it down or leans it out. City zoning directs what can be done in that agriculture area. The approval process involves public notice and public meetings where neighbors or neighboring property owners can, if there was something crazy going on on that farm, they can talk about it. It can be part of the process. And in addition, if there's any question about what is legal or prudent farming practices, we have the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, which they're the experts. So you don't have to say, well, is it or is it not? They can always be referred to. So Provo City is covered as a city. The neighbors are covered. The farmers are covered. So I think it's a win win. You won't have a lot of small maybe going down to one, but you will have some. And we've known some farmers up in other areas in Utah who have done started their farm and one acres now have a big farm. But you you start where you are. And so I think it's wonderful. Encourage young farmers and people that want people. Thank you.

Thanks, Jenny. Any other public comment?

I've got a son who will be doing it. And the state APA laws, county still adheres to that 40 acres. Did that answer your question?

That does. And also, are you guys going to start a food stand by your house? Is that what I've heard?

A fruit stand? That's next on the list. It'll be a farm store.

There you go. And so then your generations can contribute to the local. Well, you guys also do farmer's markets all over.

Yeah, we do. We try to get to purple. We didn't get a lot of fruit this year. I don't know if you heard the news on that. I'm 70. That's never happened before in my lifetime. But yeah, we want to be in Provo Farmer's Market and we want to do a farm store currently with this development that's going in. And I love Provo. I love being here. I wouldn't go any further than Provo as soon as we can manage that. That would be wonderful. My family would run that and it'd be totally a Utah zone business.

Compete against Tim Crandall. Go for it.

What's that?

Compete against Tim Crandall.

Tim Crandall, I talked to him an hour before I came here and he got a form of APA. Yes, he did through Warm City. He's a friend of mine. Are you his neighbor or was he his neighbor?

My husband teaches elementary school, and he used to teach with Tim at Hillcrest Elementary before they closed it down, and my husband now teaches at Centennial Elementary. That's right.

And Tim retired.

Tim retired a couple of years ago. Wonderful man.

A few years ago. Lots of years ago.

He's a wonderful man. I don't know anybody that doesn't like Tim Crandall.

Thanks, Scott.

You're welcome.

Bonnie Morrow, Provo. I'm in North Tempview. We're really excited about this, and I hope that you pass it. It really follows our neighborhood plan, and we're excited to help young people start doing these little farm things. We think it's so important. Thank you so much.

Bonnie, I want you to live in Provo.

I do live in Provo. Do I need to state that?

No, we were just teasing because you keep saying North Tempe. Well, that's where I am.

I know you are. North Tempe, Provo. But I'm not. Well, I'm happy to move up there or I can move down there. I love all of Provo and I have bounced all around Provo. So I love all the different areas. And I think that this is going to benefit all the different areas of Provo. So I really appreciate you considering it. Thank you so much.

Okay, council discussion.

Councilor Christensen. I'm very supportive of this. Self-reliance in terms of agriculture is such an important thing. To be able to have fruit that comes a mile or two away instead of from the Philippines is always a good idea. And so I support this and think this would make a meaningful difference.

Councilor Whitlock.

I actually have one question, if I may ask about this. I assume that whatever we allow in agricultural zones, such as agritourism type things, could also qualify for this?

So agritourism is slightly different. The agricultural protection is specifically relating to... No, I can't go back. Just kidding. It does say that it has to be in... Forward one. in an agricultural use and the definition of that. Okay, I see.

It doesn't account for agritourist type uses. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I will say I love this idea for the reasons Councilor Christensen mentioned. Also just giving people opportunity to use their land as they'd like to and their property rights without being forced by the city's plans to do other things. I think that's really important.

Yeah, we love open space. We've done a lot of conservation easements lately, and this is just another example of protecting farmland, open space. It improves the quality of life for all of us. Councilor Woodville.

Yeah, and can you imagine if we'd had something like this in place 10 or 15 years ago and how the west side would look different right now with some of the roads and things that have gone through. But I'm really hoping that we have property owners who are saying, yeah, we want to adopt these agricultural protection areas for our space and I'm fairly confident that our city will work with them to help get those protections onto their properties as they choose to do it.

All right, we'll take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hopen.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett. Yes. Councillor McKay. Yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. And that passes 7-0. Next, an ordinance rezoning property at 5450 North Canyon Road from A1.5CH and OSPR to A1.5. 0.1 CHPD and R1.20 CHPD and RAC HPD zones. This is in the North Tintview neighborhood and it's presented by Jessica Danicki.

Thank you. Yes, so we have a multi-zone rezone before you now. And the clicker still hates me. So we have It's Kevin. Okay, cool. No, you're good. Okay, so we have a proposal originally it came out at 155 acres. That area in green has since been removed and spring it down to approximately 152. The current zoning as was mentioned is open space and agriculture. The general plan is proposing for agriculture and residential and the Northeast neighborhood plan is proposing for residential agriculture and agriculture as as future land uses. Um, the proposal, the area in blue is a 1 or agriculture with a minimum of. 1 acre lot, the area in green is the area that's proposed to be our 120 and the area in orange is the area proposed to be the residential agriculture. The entire project traditionally has the critical Hillside overlay on top of it as well as the performance development overlay on top of it. So, it's very involved. With the reduction of the three acres from the R 120 area, the allowed maximum unit count of their lives to explain the history of the land and the the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood.

and we've taken the time to listen to them and spend time with them and understand. So those leaders that are part of the TAC and other groups that lead these neighborhoods, we listened to what they had to say through this annexation process. So thank you to all of them for all the time that they spent with us. this property uh and several adjacent properties uh in the provo northeast foothills were brought into this into provost city last december through this annexation which uh the land as i mentioned carries deep agricultural legacy orchards irrigations and open range have shaped the hillside for generations the annexation that we did and was voted upon and approved last december established a framework for planned general plan consistent and that's what i want to really focus in is general plan consistent development while preserving the unique heritage and character of the area we we also really listen to the neighborhood and the neighborhood plan and what those principles were of the neighborhood. And we'll address those here tonight and make sure that we explain ourselves and how we establish that. We aligned the parcels with Provo City's, as I said, general plan and the long range housing goals to enable low density residential development compatible with the Northeast neighborhood character that we're we're establishing here honor to honor the agricultural Heritage of the foothills while providing a measured thoughtful growth so I want to emphasize measured thoughtful growth we we feel like we've done a good job as we came before this Council through the annexation and it was approved um it was very clear to us that uh what we had originally intended or prior uh predecessors to us prior developers had intended for this land was not going to be suitable for it so we listened to that and and i think you'll see that through the process working with the neighborhood working with uh staff that we've established something that is workable and the other thing i wanted to mention as we go through this is that we're really delivering additional public infrastructure to this area and to the city uh and that will benefit and you'll see currently both trails water systems and formalized access to the public lands that aren't there will be established through this process I do want to take a second just to really quickly go through the Northeast neighborhood development principles, because again, these were key to what we did over the last year and a half as we've been working through this with neighbors and with leaders in this neighborhood. Preserve neighborhood character. respect the integrity of agricultural heritage, support infill development that fits the neighborhood, identify and mitigate development difficulties, establish a connected and safe road network, preserve and enhance trail access and open space, and reinforce the area as a gateway to the city, being at the mouth of Provo Canyon. uh now as you can see uh this area map just to if anyone doesn't know the shaded area if i push the middle button here for the clicker uh the shaded area is uh our development right through here uh this is 800 north and university and canyon road are to the west of us here and the mouth pro canyon right there uh this shaded area is our development and the area that was annexed in and that we are now going through uh and rezoning The current zoning designations are OSPR and A15. I'll show you on this map here. Again, the red outline is our current property outline, and within that, the A15 and OSPR zones. We are proposing zoning designations of A11, as Jessica mentioned, RA, and R120. This map indicates the areas that the A11, the RA, and the R120 zones will be in. And so the blue is the A11, the RA is the orange, and the green is the R120. all those are the underlying zones and then we have uh also are zoning uh the overlaying zones of pd and ch on the entire property within each of those underlying zones This proposed zoning plan, this shows our concept plan underlying the proposed zoning map. So this concept plan shows, as Jessica mentioned, our project site of 152.75 acres. Within that, the A1 zone is 124.44 acres. So that A1 zone that we are asking for this zoning designation is about 82 percent of the overall project site and within that a1 zone we have 67 percent of it 83.55 acres which will be undisturbed uh the ra zone again orange ra zone is 23.31 acres and 50 would be un disturbed and the r120 is five acres uh with 44 undisturbed The proximity to existing zones, just so you can see where we are versus where existing zones are, the A11, the RA, and the R120 zones have adjacent zones. directly abutting the established residential single-family neighborhoods to both the South and the West. The A1 and the RA designations provide a natural step down between the existing residential and upper foothill terrain. The R120 lots align in scale and character, and no proposed zone introduces a use incompatible with the surrounding land uses. Adjacent OSPR-designated open space parcels remain intact. And the critical hillside overlay zone provides added protection to an urban open space interface. I want to go back to what I mentioned when we brought this in through annexation. We started by having a concept plan, an initial concept plan that was much more dense than what we have today. And that concept plan was submitted at the project outset a year and a half, two years ago. We took feedback both from the neighbors, from the neighborhood, from the district, and from everyone who wanted to voice their opinion and and we listened uh the smaller lots we initially had have now gone into larger lots uh and this initial project plan had over 200 plus units in it it had some of the town homes uh up in the upper foothills and had a lot smaller uh lot sizes so it was much more densely populated the visual impact and traffic and public access which were all key concerns that were raised were things that we got as feedback and listened to and that's what we used to develop many versions of a concept plan that got us to where we are today I want to take a second to to look at this current concept plan, but I want to point something out before I jump into the changes that we made, and that is going back to the general plan. One of the things that that and and also the neighborhood plan and access, you know, trail access and public access. Currently, not a lot of people understand or know this, but currently there is only two access points to the trails that surround this private land. So everything here is private land. Currently, the Indian Road Trailhead and East Lawn are the only two ways to get up legally, at least to get up to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Obviously, people have been using various ways to get up to that shoreline trail and other trails. for years through private land. And so what we think is we'll provide a way to give the public access to these trails in a much safer way without being a nuisance to private landowners and do it through our roadways and streets. And we'll also connect from both the South to the North through our street systems and also trails and many, many roads that have been there for years, decades, even centuries that are dirt roads that have been used for farming purposes and other purposes will make and connect as part of our roadway system and trail system within this project. So our residential lot count with our concept plan that we are using for this rezone has been reduced by nearly 70%. So we have larger lots and the locations reducing visible change to the hillside. So any of you who have been up there and those of you who haven't, there are some very flat areas throughout this hillside. And by reducing the number of units on this hillside and where we're going to put the homes, we have drastically reduced the the visual impact uh to this foothill uh the public as i mentioned the public trail corridor from both the south boundary to the north edge will be defined a road network that's adjusted and existing paths and cuts so again using existing paths and cuts not going in and having to make all new paths and all new cuts and fills to create a roadway uh and and taking and adjusting those existing paths and cuts to utilize a reduced new roadway mileage. Water infrastructure design is expanded beyond our project needs, and what we'll be doing with this also is not only bringing in and pioneering infrastructure that's needed for the city in other adjacent parcels and developments, some of which have been stalled to be able to get water to, we'll be pioneering that water through. The other thing that was very important as part of the general plan and the neighborhood plan that we heard was owner occupied deed restriction, not allowing nightly rentals or STRs as they call them. So that's one thing that we're doing as well is making sure that this fabric that's been created, the culture of the neighborhood is continued, established and continued through this neighborhood. And then an ADU provision, including where applicable code permits, allowing ADUs so generational families can live alongside their children. So this is our existing concept plan. I want to talk a little bit about our partner in this project, Millhaven Homes. They're a Utah County-based home builder with deep roots along the Wasatch Front. focus on owner-occupied estate-type custom homes. That's their expertise. And they really have been incredible as far as engaging with us through this process with the city, with the neighbors, with the neighborhood, and they are well-established. And I think they'll be great stewards of this land along with us as we develop it and sell these lots to people who will live in these neighborhoods for years to come. So that's a little bit about Mill Haven. These are some examples of some homes that they have built in and around Provo or in other cities, and some examples of homes that we might be putting up in this area. i want to just finish by going back to a few key points uh relative to the general plan and the neighborhood plan things that we've taken again a long time about a about a year and a half almost two years of time Working with neighbors, listening to neighbors, the land use that we're putting up there, the utility infrastructure that we're pioneering, the preservation of agriculture and history and the history of the land and access to the lands and the trails. These are all things that were incredibly important to everyone who we spoke to. And we listen to everyone and we are so grateful for the opportunity to be able to be part of this development and do something in this area that is reasonable, that is sustainable, and that will work for the area and for the adjacent landowners and neighborhoods. So excited to move forward with this rezone and happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Riza. Do you have any questions for Riza? No questions, Riza. Thank you. We'll move this item to well wait, we will do public comment on this item first. So any public comment on this item?

I'm not in this neighborhood, but I drive up University a lot, so I'm sure I would see it. And I have a question related to the item we just discussed, which is the ADA. I'm looking at the size of these lots. They're about an acre, which would perhaps fit into that ADA. And I'm wondering if some of these homes would be able to fit into those ADA that we just approved. Because the developer said that they want to honor the agricultural legacy of that area. So I'm wondering if that's a potential use for this area. And I think that would be great if it was. Thank you.

I'll answer that in a minute, Angie. Any other public comment? Sharon Mamet-Provo.

Thank you. Got it. I was asked to report on our neighborhood meeting. Res is asking for a zone change to develop some homes. The number's been a little in flux. The newly annexed property at 5450 North Canyon Road, the resident's concerns number one were traffic impact on canyon road i appreciated your discussion earlier this evening about getting the road possibly um maybe more in line as as these houses come on on board um two was construction impacts which um resa words said that he would help with and be involved in mitigating those construction vehicle impacts as the project moved forward conservation efforts and wildlife habitat and public access which he has addressed The next item of concern was the fire risk given the location on the Windy Canyon area and the 2023 general planning process where the majority voted to preserve open space in the foothills. At our District 1 April 1st meeting, a poll was conducted, approximately 50 attendees. About 20% were in favor of maintaining the OSBR an agricultural zone. I would be in that camp. Those favoring the project as presented at that time were about 40%. We're glad that this developer seems more willing to work on the less dense project with larger lots because it has a smaller impact. Some of you will recall that many years ago we had another developer with more dense development and this project is far superior to that one. And that was felt in our meeting. The proposals that we've heard about developing a way to be able to hook up to the trails in the future is very much appreciated. The developer seems quite willing to work with us. if we heard correctly, to help with the cost of needed infrastructure as well as maintaining access to those improved trailheads. We appreciate that he doesn't want to gate it, which will maintain public access. We did tour the area with him to see exactly what was going on. He's sensitive to disturbing the hillside, and we appreciate that. We feel that this proposed plan is in line with the current general plan and the North Tempe area plans. um concerns not concerns comments from neighbors at that meeting were that they like the clustering to allow more open space to be maintained thanks sharon

Could I ask a question, Sharon?

Sure. So I just want to make sure I understood. You said the vote of the neighborhood meeting was how much in support and how much not?

There was only about 50 people in the room, but about 10% like the idea of the open space that it's currently at. We recognize he has the option to ask you to do this. Only 40% were in favor of the project as it was presented.

Currently proposed effectively. Yes. What about the remaining, the people, not percent? You said it was 10 people and 40 people.

It was 11, technically, that voted keep it. As a board, we generally don't vote. So that number's kind of not in here. Like I said, as one of the board, I would have voted in with the 11. And then the 21 is what we got that said they like the proposal that was presented.

Got it. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Kyle Gillespie. I'm a Provo resident and also a landowner right in the center of this development. We own 13 acres and we're in full support of the rezone and this development. We all love Provo and where else are you going to build? It's landlocked, right? This is really the only place that people could come back and can build here. So also the big benefit is the access to the real open space. You know, David Price- All of this property is it's not really open spaces private property right so. David Price- you're not mean you know preserving that it's someone's private property so, but it gives us access to the real open space, which is the or service line behind bst things like that um. So yeah, and just in support of this and Reza and his group have done a fantastic job, I guess, rallying the troops as far as all the landowners around. I guess joined in to be because it's only been in the city for a short amount of time they got everyone on board and join the city, and I think there's just a huge amount of support and excitement about about this project so. Thanks.

Jenny Smith Provo.

Our families and neighbors, 4,200 feet of their fence line. I've sent an email, I think all of you got it, maybe you saw it or didn't, but I'm just going to reiterate the points. The reason that we're in favor of this, first of all, it makes it possible for our neighbors, longtime neighbors, to each do what they want to do with their property. If they want to develop it, great. If they want to just put a house next door for their children, so by the age they can do that, and they want to keep agriculture there they can do that but it gives them access with the roads and the water and that kind of thing to do what they want to do into the future and there's like security for that we can continue farming the way we do with the APA and and that kind of thing we can keep doing that We think that's great. I think with our discussions that they're seeing the agriculture as a historical use and also a future use. And so the Foothill Orchards is not just a name. It's intention that this is a celebration of our future there. This proposal respects the realities of the hillside, puts the building in the interior so that the view is going to stay nice from below. I think that's a good respectful way to do it. We think that it promotes this mix of home types, which is part of when we did the TAC. It was important to us. The pocket neighborhood is a brand new piece that invites people that have been in the area a long time who want to downsize. They can go there you know, new folks coming up. It just makes a nice little, you know, single family neighborhood that's different. And then the larger lots are for people, maybe some of our people that are bringing business to Provo so they can stay, they can live in Provo and not have to go to Alpine or Highland. And the public access to the trails is wonderful. We appreciate it as a property owner. It's going to help people get to where they want to go without trespassing. And that would be a win-win for everyone. So we're in support of this.

Scott Smith, Provo.

I just wanted to say that we're 100% behind this. We have 4,200 feet of border with this development, so they've got us on all sides. But it'll allow My kids and right now us also and grandkids probably have homes up there and live on the farm. They live in Provo, but I'd like to get them up there on the farm, have that experience. The grandkids are there routinely during the week, and it's a wonderful place for a kid to grow up. My dad, when we inherited this land, he and my mother's passing 37 years ago. ask a request and he said scott when you're uh all done with this what you're doing leave a place for the kids to play and uh that'd be real important to me and i know they've talked about trails and hiking and there's beautiful wonderful forest service line behind this and kids can get involved with wildlife at every level. We'd also like to put a wildlife park on this property. That's the plan. We did have one time Canadian geese, a dozen, two dozen mallard ducks, pheasants, and we plan to replant that and have a place that kids can play. Not just my kids, but kids would come up Jenny taught school. She didn't say this. That was her career for 30-something years. We did first grade day on the farm. We were already doing this with 75 kids from Edgemont Grade School, three grades. And I really appreciate the consideration the council gives to this opportunity, and I appreciate these guys. They're great men, and I hope.

Thanks, Copp. We have the online commenter. Thanks, Kevin. Number 0906. If you want to unmute yourself.

Hello, can you?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Hello, can you hear me now? Yes. Great. I'm Daniel Sorensen. I live up in this neighborhood. I would love it if we could keep it as open space for forever, but I understand that stuff is going to develop and things are going to change. And so I'm not overly opposed to the development. My biggest concern is what's going to happen with the north end of Canyon Road. There's already not really space for people to walk up and down the hill there. And as we add the townhouses at the bottom of the hill and all of this development, there's going to be a lot more people walking the hill. I'm walking the hill every day with my dog, and I have to cross the road two or three times to get through so I can cross over to the Provo River Trail. I don't know how we can solve that because you have the hill on the west side, the east side, and you have the drop off of the hill on the west side, and I don't know what the solution is. The drawings on the proposal, So an arc going up through a hill that will, I think, possibly cut off access to a couple of homes that are already up in that area. And I'm just concerned that all of this, any solution is going to cause problems to the existing residents. And I wish I could think of an easy solution, but I just can't.

Thank you.

I hope he didn't get cut off. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you for your comment. Any other public comment? All right.

We'll go to council discussion.

Oh, Bonnie North Timpio.

Provo. i'm here to speak about the neighborhood master plan i was on that board and so was jessica mary aaron and bill and it was a year long and we worked really really hard on it and i'd like to preface this land i've been dealing with with mayor curtis america fusi several times and now This land keeps coming before council and we pushed built up room. We need a neighborhood master plan and this is how it all came about. Is because of this property and the city. gratefully said, yes, do it. And it was expensive to run that board to figure out a neighborhood plan. And like I said, it was about a year long. And Jessica still smiles at me when I see her. But we loved all of the staff that participated many, many hours on this, including the actual residents on the board. and the great news is this plan fits the neighborhood master plan and it is a miracle and i do not think that's an exaggeration so i hope that you consider that the board in conjunction both staff and residents work so hard on this and i hope that you really consider that this is a home run for us thank you so much

Thanks, Bonnie. Angie, to answer your question, if it's in agriculture, they can do it. So some of this land would be agricultural. If it's not, they would need to zone change, and then they could do it with the ADA. All right. Council discussion. Councillor Gary Garrett.

I wonder if we could invite our Public Works Director, Gordon, to share thoughts relative to the infrastructure required for this large development. Thank you, Gordon.

Thank you, Gordon Haig, Public Works Director. The demeanor you've heard from the residents tell you a little bit how the public infrastructure went. This is very challenging. They have to build a water tank. They have to bring water lines, sewer improvements, storm drain, and they have been ideal developers to work with. We've gone through the details. They've agreed to upsizing. We're working with them to make sure that this doesn't just work for their development, but works for all the other properties that's below that likely will develop over time so they'll have the capacity there and will help the entire city so right now preliminarily there the details are we have a pretty good idea how it's going to look but they still need to do the final designs and that comes after the rezone so did that answer your question yes thank you hey while you're up there gordon do you know anything about when that road will be improved on just the road going down to from canyon road down to university so i don't know the timing of that so the udot put in the signal we have a design of what that road's supposed to be there's two developments that are taking place that are going to start pausing that road to change one is this project and one is the circ project that was approved several weeks ago I can't remember the timeline and so when as they do that we'll be looking at getting we hope that's a timing when we can get everything put together and that road change so those two projects this project in the city will be working to do that at that time are you going to be able to widen it with the constraints you have are you going to blow out the mountain next to it or what um the mountain is less of a concern what we have there that's really troubling is we have a large act water aqueduct that might have to be relocating that's the expensive thing that's kept us from doing it to this point and so we're we're wrestling through that right now but there are ways to get that fixed so we're dealing with that now okay thanks gordon

All right. I'm just really grateful to the developer on this one. This is something that the city and this part of town has dealt with for a long time. And this has been the best developer to work with in regards to really respecting the foothills, respecting the neighborhood plan, respecting the general plan, respecting the CHAS, which is our critical hillside overlay. He didn't ask for any exemptions from that. or any variations, and that's a big deal. People always want exemptions, developers usually. So I love it that he worked with every single land owner that his land touches and got consensus on where roads should be, where trails should be, what people and how they want to use their land. I'm grateful he's working with the city, because like Gordon said, we're going to get infrastructure that we needed anyway. and we're able to partner with him on it where he'll do the part for his development, but we can add on to it and make it bigger and get what we need also for the city for long-term. So it's a win-win and I'm excited. This is going to be a beautiful project and it's a type of housing that we need and it'll be great. I'm excited about it. All right, we ready to vote?

No, I have to say ditto. The approach taken by a previous developer is one of the reasons I'm sitting here on the stand. It was so bad. It was so egregious. It's the first time I think I ever went to a city council meeting because it was so offensive. So my son would say, this ain't that. This has been a very different experience. And starting with the neighborhood plan, uh the staff has been great to work with uh development services done a wonderful job i think you guys have done a very good job at uh taking guidance and direction so i would add to catrice's comments thank you for doing a nice job all right we'll take a vote on the implied motion councillor bogdan yes councillor hoban yes

Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor McKay, yes. Councillor Christensen?

Absolutely.

Councillor Whitlock? Yes. This passes 7-0. It's a long time coming. All right. Next applied motion on a resolution approved in 2026. We're going to take a quick break. I'm sorry. I think people have to go potty. Stretch our legs. All right. We'll take five minutes.

Thank you.

An implied motion on a resolution approving the 2026-27 Annual Action Plan and funding recommendations for the second year of the 25-29 Consolidated Plan. This will be presented by Melissa McNally, our Community Grants Administrator.

Thank you. Good evening. So this proposed resolution is... to adopt the 2026 Annual Action Plan. And it is the last step in the requirement for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan outlines the proposed activities and the funding for the 26-27 program year.

And this is just the last step to get them funded, correct?

It is, it is. So the funding recommendations are included in the resolution in Exhibits B and C, and these are recommendations from our citizen committees. for the funding awarded from HUD for our community development block grant and our home investment partnership grant. And do you have any questions for me on the annual action plan or on the exhibits, on the process, on anything? No, we appreciate you being brief. Thank you.

We're well aware of this and we're glad the citizens decided and they do a good job. So are we ready to vote? All right. Well, we'll do public comment. So any public comment on this item? You thinking about it, Angie? Okay. All right. We are going to do a council discussion. Any council discussion on this item? All right. We are going to take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Hoban. I'm impressed he stayed on as long as he did.

Yes. Sorry.

Oh, you're still here. That's amazing.

Sometimes it takes me a minute to get off of mute. You surprised me with calling on me first.

Hey, I'm surprised you're still awake. Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett.

Yes.

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

Yes.

And Councillor Bogdan. Yes. That passes 7-0. Next, an implied motion on a resolution regarding year-end appropriations and transfers in the general parks... and recreational capital improvements, airport justice court, ice arena, and golf course funds for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2026. This will be presented by Kelsey Zarbock. And I'm so impressed all these directors have sat through all of this. And I'm sorry, this has gone so late.

So we have 10 appropriation requests throughout the city. Sometimes there are unanticipated needs that surface after a budget has been adopted. At this point in time, we're at the end of the fiscal year. And so we're just trying to get a few items funded that some departments need in order to get through the end of the fiscal year. In other cases, revenues have come in higher than anticipated. And so departments want to utilize some of those revenues that they didn't have the expense side budgeted for. I can go through the items in detail, but they're all up there. For now, I'll just summarize. The total requests from general fund balance, which will pay for an economic development study, some fire equipment, indigent defense costs. Airport Interfund loan principal payment and Justice Court building lease and security cost increases will total $823,750. There's a request for City View enhancement and some AI for development services that will be funded with building permit revenue that has come in over budget. That's $200,500. There's a $1.4 million request out of excess sales tax revenue that will go to the parks and recs CIP from the general fund for Fort Utah park improvements. And then the eighth request is for, sorry. The fire department has the payroll costs over at the airport that the airport will pay for with their revenues. That'll be $121,000. And then both ice sheet and golf course have had some revenues come in stronger than budgeted and they have some equipment they'd like to buy and make some improvements to the golf course and so on. Are there any questions about these can go into more detail and we have some directors here to talk about these.

I do. I asked that the parks and rec directors answer these questions. So I appreciate them staying through this whole entire long meeting. I'm responsible for that, Becky. I am. I did put out there about the Fort Utah park and I did get some public questions that I know I have some email answers, but I do want them answered here. So one of them is Annie Hinckley. John's daughter is really worried about their irrigation connection. And so I need to get that addressed. I would like it addressed in a public meeting, actually.

I don't have the answer to that right now with me. Okay. I wasn't aware of that.

John emailed me.

He's been out.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He did email me, but I did want to ask that. He said that he took John for a tour back in December. and the current layout of that is okay with them, that it shouldn't disturb any of their connections from the Fort Utah Park because that's where they get all their irrigation water, they have their turn down there. That I want to make sure that we respect that going forward with Fort Utah. The other question, that was online is, I guess, the boys' baseball, 7th to 9th grade, is at Sunset. And they feel that that park is not up to par to play on. Will adding the extra parking at the parking lot open up fields for play that maybe they could move those kids back? Or how would that affect that?

I'd have to look into it to give you a completely accurate answer, but I don't think adding parking would really change field availability without expanding or adding more fields. More fields. We can look into it and see if that does help, but I don't think the parking availability really affects the scheduling of fields currently.

Okay, I appreciate that. We might have to bring in some concerned parents and maybe have a meeting so that you guys can work through things through that baseball program. But those are the questions that I'm getting online. Other than that, most of the really most of the comments i got were very supportive they were only like a couple that felt like all overages need to be paid to debt instead of to the things other things but most of that people are totally excited they say they have to park three blocks away but they're totally excited and supportive so thank you thanks all right any other questions by counselors

All right. We've heard about these appropriations and been through them multiple times. I guess we'll do public comment on this.

Now, any public comment on this item?

All right. Council discussion? Councilor Whitlock?

One thing that I would like to say about this is We had some good news this year as a city with our sales tax revenues looking like they're higher than projected, which is part of the reason why we're able to do some of these. And so I'm really personally excited about this economic development study we're doing. Being on the committee selecting, I think we are finding a partner that's going to do fantastic work for us. I was really, really impressed with them. And hopefully, as that is a successful effort, we will have many years in the future where we have more sales tax than we expect and can make amazing parks like what this for Utah Park is going to be.

All right. We'll take a vote on the implied motion. Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor McKay? Yes. Councillor Christensen? Yes. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan? Yes. And Councillor Hoban?

Yes.

All right. That passes 7-0. Next, a public hearing regarding utility transfers. This will be presented by Dan Follett.

Thank you, Council. Kevin, do we have the transfer notice? There we go. Thank you. So each year, we're required by state law to provide an annual disclosure of funds that are transferred from the utility enterprise funds to other funds. This notice goes out to all utility rate payers. Uh, in provost city, uh, and it also, we're also required to hold a public hearing, which the council. Plans to hold in just a few minutes here regarding these transfers. I will just mention there's two types of transfers up here and I'll highlight what's in the notice that went out. Historically, Provo has budgeted for the transfer utility fund revenues to the general fund as a dividend to Provo taxpayers as a result of the taxpayers investment in the city's utility infrastructure these funds are used each year to help cover the cost of important city services like police fire parks and recreation and other city functions the utility transfer together with franchise fees help keep property taxes in provo low If city utility services were provided by private utility owners, these dividends would instead be paid to investor owners. Because Provo taxpayers are the investor owners, these dividends are used to offset what otherwise would be a significant increase in property tax rates. The transfer totals $17,191,441 in the proposed 2027 budget. The second type of transfer Um, relates to administrative overhead, and it's just more cost effective to have certain services provided, um, from 1 area within the city, rather than have every department, uh, have their own set of services and the examples there. our finance, information services, legal, HR. It just makes more sense to have them centrally located and provide services throughout the city. Transfers related to those services are $1,919,836 in the proposed budget. Are there any questions? Any questions for Dan? No. Thank you. All right. We'll open this item up for public comment.

right seeing no public comment we have council discussion on this item all right we'll go oh counselor whitlock sorry i'm chatty tonight um so i moved to tech houston texas uh after i graduated from byu and when you get there you get i don't know mail from four to five different energy providers and you have to choose which one and it's very complicated and um It's a mess. And then you come to Provo, and in Provo, we have one power provider. They deliver excellent service. And the profits come to us, the taxpayers, to pay for our general fund, like was mentioned, our parks, our safety. And so I think it's just a really great thing that we have here going for us in Provo that I'm grateful for.

It is a blessing. I don't know if that many of our citizens realize that, but all right, next item, a public hearing.

No.

Yeah, we don't vote on this. It's just a public hearing for you to in the next one. We don't vote either a public hearing regarding management salary increase. This is budgeted for the 27th budget. This will be presented by Daniel softly, our human resources director.

Hi. Um, per state code before a governing body may adopt a final budget or a final amended budget that includes a compensation increase for an executive municipal officer. The governing body has to hold a public hearing on that increase. I'm here to present that to satisfy that requirement. Executive municipal officer in Provo is our chief administrative officer, department heads, division directors and assistant department heads. For fiscal year 2027, all executive employees in the proposed budget would receive a 2.5% merit and whatever the proposed COLA amount is. Currently, I think budgeted at 2%. The public wants a full list of all executive employees that's published year-round at Provo.org under the human resources page. So, any questions?

Any questions for Dan? Thanks, Tim. Any public comment on this item? All right, seeing no public comment, we'll go to council discussion. Any council discussion on this, Jeff? No?

I'll keep my mouth shut this time.

Okay. All right, next item. An applied motion on ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending June 30th, 2027 in the amount of $316,081,674. This is presented by Kelsey Zarbock.

Thank you. So tonight is the second of two public hearings for the proposed budget. And just to give the public a little background, the budget was initially presented to council on May 5th, and there was the first public hearing two weeks ago on June 9th. um the budget has been and is still available on provo.gov if you go to the finance page or through the transparency portal and just so the council is aware some of the discussions that you've had in work meeting discussing certain things that need to change or be added to the budget those have been implemented in the version that you're voting on tonight that's all i have for this are there any questions

When I read through the budget, and Bill, this is probably a question for you, I noticed that it was just said impact units, and it had the detached ADUs language all crossed out. Is that because the law is changing, or I was just wondering what was happening there? Oh, I think it's impact fees. Yeah, if you can explain that.

It's already in the fee schedule, but it's very confused in the way it's written.

So that just clarifies it.

okay so there's still an impact fee for okay all right that was my only question anyone else have questions nope all righty open the same up for public comment any public comment on this item all right council discussion any council discussion on this item councillor gary garrett

Just to compliment our finance team, department directors, administration, those who played a role in putting this budget together as council member Whitlock mentioned earlier, we did have the advantage of some additional sales tax revenue, which made this process much more comfortable. But, um, thanks to all those who worked so hard on this budget.

All right. We're ready to vote. We'll 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. All right. If there's no objection, we'll now adjourn the Provo Municipal Council and convene the RDA Governing Board by unanimous consent.

An implied motion on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 and ending July 30, 2027 in the amount of $2,086,500 by Kelsey Zarbuk, budget officer. And that's hard to say that number, sorry.

So this is the budget adoption for the redevelopment agency. Its budget is located in the same budget document that Provo City's budget is in. So you can go to provo.gov, find the budget there, and it's on page 143. And it's simply just a component unit of Provo City. So the redevelopment agency's budget is voted on separately. Are there any questions?

Any questions for Kelsey? Okay. We'll open it up for public comment. If we could form a line right there in the middle for anyone who's commenting. All right. How about board discussion? Any comments?

You make me want to run down there and give public comment. I know.

You're welcome to. Any discussion from the board? OK. Then I'll call for a vote on the implied motion. Gary? Yes. Patrice?

Yes.

Craig, yes. Jeff? yes becky yes or travis yes and rachel yes and that's seven zero that passes seven zero it will now uh if there's no objection we'll now adjourn the rda governing board and reconvene the stormwater service district by unanimous consent

All right, we next have an applied motion on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $7,291.34 for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending June 30th, 2027. Kelsey.

This is the last one. This is the same situation as the redevelopment agency. Stormwater is just broken out separately. You can find the budget on page 142 of the Provo City budget on the website. And the amount is you already stated.

Thanks, Kelsey. Any questions for Kelsey? All right. Public comment on this one. All right. board discussion. I got that right to think about that. We will take a vote on the implied motion board member Don't remember where I was. Board member McCake. Yes. Board member Christensen. Yes. Board member Whitlock. Yes. Board member Bogdan. Yes. Board member Hoban.

Yes.

Board member Whipple. Yes. And board member Garrett.

Yes.

That passes 7-0. Travis, you're back east, aren't you?

Yeah. Not too late, though.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, thanks for staying on all this time. That was a long one.

Yep.

If there's no objection, we will now adjourn the Stormwater Service District Governing Board by unanimous consent.