City Council Meetings

Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda 5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 11, 2025 Council Chambers Hybrid meeting: 445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 or https://www.youtube.com/provocitycouncil Roll Call THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT: Councilor Becky Bogdin Councilor Craig Christensen (remote) Councilor Gary Garrett Councilor George Handley Councilor Travis Hoban Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Rachel Whipple Mayor Michelle Kaufusi Chief Administrative Officer Scott Henderson City Attorney Brian Jones Council Executive Director Justin Harrison City Recorder Heidi Allman Conducting: Chair Gary Garrett Prayer – LeAnn Brockbank Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Bogdin Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 A Quarterly Report for the 1st Quarter of Fiscal 2025 (25-007) 0:09:09 John Borget, Director of Administrative Services, presented. He said the unaudited report provides an overview of revenues and expenditures, highlighting trends compared to both the budget and the prior year. Overall, general fund revenues are slightly below budget but remain above last year’s levels. Sales tax revenue has been running behind projections due to fluctuations with the State Tax Commission, but the situation is being closely monitored. Other revenue sources, including transfers, are performing well. The Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) tax, which follows sales tax trends, is also slightly below expectations. Several departments are seeing strong performance. Development Services had a strong first quarter due to large projects, though growth is beginning to slow. Parks and Recreation is on budget, while the Justice Court has rebounded significantly post-COVID and continues to trend positively. The library’s revenue is primarily dependent on the November property tax distribution, making early-quarter assessments less reflective of overall trends. Among the City's enterprise funds, the golf course, water, wastewater, and energy departments are meeting or exceeding budget expectations. The airport is performing exceptionally well, with revenues significantly above budget and the prior year due to increased flights and activity. Sanitation and storm drain revenues are close to budget, with storm drain slightly behind. The transportation utility is tracking right at budget. Expenditures for the quarter are at 24%, which is in line with expectations. The only budget appropriation during this period was for tax increment financing related to Day’s Market. Borget concluded by noting that financial trends will continue to be monitored closely and invited any questions from the Council. Public Comment 0:19:20 Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 1 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble and opened the public comment period. Susan Anderson, of Provo, expressed concern over the potential water rate increase, noting that her water bills are already high as she maintains a third-acre lot with fruit trees and a summer garden. As a retired schoolteacher, she urged the Council to consider implementing any rate increases gradually to lessen the financial burden on residents, particularly retirees. She also raised concerns about rental properties, stating that many landlords are neglecting to water their properties, leading to deteriorating landscapes. She suggested the city may need more staff to enforce property maintenance regulations, as she has observed several neglected properties in her neighborhood. Anderson concluded by thanking the Council for the opportunity to share her concerns. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Action Agenda 2 An ordinance creating the Airport Department. (25-012) 0:22:00 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-11, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mayor Kaufusi highlighted the success and growth of the Provo Airport, noting its new terminal, additional airlines, and the city’s first global carrier. She emphasized the strong community enthusiasm for the airport, as residents frequently express their appreciation for it. Given this momentum, she proposed making the airport its own department, a move that has been discussed previously. She stated that the airport is a significant community asset that extends beyond Provo and establishing it as an independent department would provide the necessary support and structure for its continued success. She concluded by thanking the Council for their ongoing support. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 3 A resolution consenting to the mayor's appointment of the airport director. (25-007) 0:24:07 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-2, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mayor Kaufusi recommended Brian Torgeson as the new director of the Provo Airport Department, highlighting his leadership and contributions since becoming the airport division director in November 2021. She credited his vision and expertise for the airport’s rapid success and praised his ability to build strong teams, drive innovation, and overcome challenges. Beyond his professional accomplishments, she shared a personal glimpse into his life, noting that he and his wife, Amelia, have been married for 20 years and are raising five active children who all play club soccer. Their family enjoys outdoor activities like fishing and camping, and they share Brian’s passion for aviation. Mayor Kaufusi expressed gratitude Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 2 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. for his dedication to Provo and the countless hours he has invested in the airport’s success, emphasizing his commitment to shaping its bright future. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he called for a council discussion. Councilor Whipple expressed enthusiasm for the creation of the airport department and Brian Torgeson’s appointment as director. She acknowledged that this change has been discussed for a long time and praised his leadership in overseeing the airport’s growth. She concluded by thanking him for his stewardship and expressing excitement for the future of the airport. Councilor Christensen praised Brian Torgeson’s leadership, noting that serving on the airport board has given him the opportunity to witness his work firsthand. He commended the entire airport team, as well as the mayor and her staff, for their efforts in developing the airport, which has been largely funded through grants. He emphasized that the airport is an asset and a great benefit to the citizens of Provo, expressing his enthusiasm for its continued success. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Judge Schreiner gave the oath of office to Mr. Torgersen. Mr. Torgersen expressed gratitude to Mayor Kaufusi, the City Council, and various mentors who have supported him throughout his 14-year career with Provo City. He reflected on his decision to leave private consulting for a more stable and family-friendly career in municipal government, acknowledging the invaluable experiences he has gained. He credited his mentor, the late Dave Graves, for giving him his start as a traffic engineer, and he thanked Mayor Kaufusi for her confidence in him. He also recognized Scott, Isaac Paxman, and his dedicated airport team, emphasizing their hard work behind the scenes. Lastly, he expressed deep appreciation for his wife, acknowledging her unwavering support when he took on the role at the airport and the personal and professional growth he has experienced since. He concluded by stating his excitement for the future of the Provo Airport. 4 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.62 acres of real property, generally located at 1122 South 900 East, from the light manufacturing (M1) zone to the medium density residential (MDR) zone. Spring Creek (PLRZ20240193) 0:39:15 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-12, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Dustin Wright, City Planner, presented. He said the applicant seeks to rezone it to medium-density residential (MDR), which aligns with the city's future land use map. The surrounding area includes townhome developments with densities like MDR, making the proposed rezone compatible with its surroundings. To address neighborhood concerns, the applicant has proposed a development agreement that would cap density at 20 units per acre and restrict rentals to 35% of the units through a deed restriction managed by an HOA. Given these considerations, the Planning Commission has forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Wright offered to answer any questions from the council regarding the proposal. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 3 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Councilor MacKay clarified that in the development agreement in perpetuity only 35% can be rented. She added that she appreciates that the agreement limits short-term rentals as well. Councilor Christensen asked if it would be possible to view the language in the development agreement. Mr. Jones clarified that the deed restriction ensures the rental limit of 35% is permanent. He explained that while the HOA could potentially change rules in the future, the deed restriction guarantees the continuity of the rental limitation. He reviewed the deed restriction details, confirming that at least 65% of the units must be owner-occupied, and no more than 35% can be leased for long-term rentals. Short- term rentals are prohibited. Additionally, the deed restriction requires owners to notify potential buyers of the restriction and ensures compliance with city regulations regarding rental licenses. Levi Harper, Mountain Green, expressed that the development group is eager to work with the city and understands the goal of 50% owner-occupancy. To support this, they are proposing a 35% rental cap. Harper explained that while they plan to sell all the units, allowing up to 35% to be rentals makes the properties more marketable and easier to sell, as some potential buyers may want the option to rent. Councilor MacKay expressed support for the development, acknowledging concerns about the train noise and the area's desirability. She emphasized that smaller, less desirable properties are necessary to provide affordable options for first-time homebuyers, making it a good starting point. She thanked everyone involved. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Ruth Eldredge Thomas, of Provo, provided a summary of the neighborhood meeting in July regarding the development. She said neighbors were generally supportive of the developer's efforts to increase owner occupancy in Provo but expressed concerns about the potential impact of renting 35% of the units, especially regarding parking and enforcement. There were worries about the city's ability to enforce HOA rules and zoning codes, especially with past issues of investor takeovers. Additionally, residents highlighted concerns about infrastructure for active transit, emphasizing both its dangers and potential in the area. They urged the city council to keep robust enforcement and to consider these factors as the development progresses. Despite these concerns, the neighborhood is hopeful that the development could be beneficial. Tana Hoover, of Provo, expressed opposition to the development, citing concerns about the density being too high for the area. As a cyclist, she highlighted safety issues, including the lack of street markings and bike lanes, as well as parking problems. She also raised concerns about traffic safety, particularly with the absence of stop signs and the danger posed to cyclists. Additionally, she mentioned the noise from the nearby train, noting that the area is not a quiet zone, which could make the development less desirable. She believes the project does not fit well within the neighborhood. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor Bogdin shared that the terms of the development agreement, including the rental percentages, could not be changed unless it was brought before the council again. Councilor Christensen expressed gratitude to the developer for considering the council's priorities, particularly the balance between rentals and homeownership. He emphasized that homeownership is Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 4 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. vital for building a sustainable future and praised the developer for not selling to institutional investors, which he believes would not contribute to creating a remarkable city. He thanked the developer for listening to the council's concerns. Councilor Whipple highlighted the attractiveness of the neighborhood, noting its proximity to the cemetery, which she considers one of the city's most beautiful green spaces. She mentioned that the area is close to several public amenities within walking distance and that nearby housing already experiences the same train noise. She also acknowledged improvements in train operations, thanks to a change in Union Pacific's schedule, resulting in less nighttime train noise, which she believes will be beneficial for potential new residents. Additionally, she gave a shout-out to Vern Kessler for his role in addressing this issue. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 5 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property, generally located at 895 West 2000 North, from the Residential Conservation (RC) zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. Carterville neighborhood. (PLRZ20190204) 0:54:22 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-13, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Aaron Ardmore, Planning Supervisor, presented. He provided a brief overview of the project, which has been in development since 2019. The property, located in the RC zone with a general plan for residential use, has undergone several iterations of site and concept plans. The proposal is for a rezone to low- density residential, with three units being proposed for the area. Although the site could have potentially accommodated more units, the final design is constrained by zoning standards and utility infrastructure. The project is supported by staff and the Planning Commission and aims to add three for- sale units to the neighborhood, utilizing a narrow, deep lot. Councilor MacKay expressed support for the proposed development, noting that it appears to be a good use of the lot. She appreciated the inclusion of open space and sufficient parking with the ability for cars to turn around. However, she raised concerns about the density of the project compared to neighboring homes and emphasized that many residents in the area would prefer the units to be owner-occupied. She also suggested the possibility of using a deed restriction to ensure owner occupancy. Additionally, she pointed out that the homes would face the property to the west, which could be problematic for the residents there, as the houses would be oriented toward their bedroom windows. Mr. Ardmore clarified that the presentation is just a concept, and the discussion tonight is about the appropriateness of the zone change from RC to LDR. He explained that the specific details, such as the driveway location, are not finalized and could potentially be placed on the other side of the property. He emphasized that the plan presented is still a conceptual proposal. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Sherry Soelberg, of Provo and a long-time resident of the area, expressed concerns about the potential for the development to include rentals, as she and other neighbors would prefer to maintain a Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 5 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. residential, owner-occupied environment. She also raised issues with water pressure, sewage, and parking in the area, mentioning that they have previously requested infrastructure improvements from the city, but were told it was not a priority. She is worried that new construction would exacerbate these existing issues, especially parking difficulties. Overall, her primary concerns are maintaining residential stability and addressing infrastructure challenges. Joel Asay, of Provo and neighbor of the property, expressed support for the rezone with a few conditions. He requested that Provo upgrade the water infrastructure to support future development without burdening individual homeowners with high costs for additional units. He also raised concerns about noise, as his bedrooms are located near the driveway, and he fears that the addition of three homes with multiple cars would disrupt his family's sleep. He suggested that the driveway be placed on the east side of the property to minimize noise impact. Angie Carter, of Provo, echoed concerns about the increasing density and the shift towards rental properties in Provo. She emphasized the need for more owner-occupied housing and expressed concern about the long-term impact of the growing number of rentals on the city's viability. She encouraged the use of a developer agreement to ensure the homes remain owner-occupied. Matt Wheelright, of Provo, expressed initial concern about the narrow lot shape, which often leads to problematic apartment buildings. However, he commended the developer's approach, highlighting that the design of three single-family compatible homes fosters a better social experience compared to larger, sideways apartment buildings. He emphasized that the design encourages people to walk and slows down traffic, making it a positive development. Overall, he voiced his support for the concept, acknowledging that some work remains to be done. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Councilor Bogdin asked the developer to address comments and concerns brought up during public comment. Mark Greenwood, from ALM Engineering, spoke on behalf of the owner, expressing gratitude for the staff's assistance with the project since its inception in 2019. He acknowledged the challenge of utilizing deep lots in redevelopment areas, a common issue in his 32 years of experience. He emphasized that the proposed design, featuring duplexes and units facing either the street or a central courtyard, is appropriate for the neighborhood. Regarding infrastructure concerns, particularly water pressure and fire flow, Greenwood mentioned that the solution involved installing fire sprinklers in the homes to address the fire flow issue without significantly impacting future development. He clarified that the discussion is focused on the zone change at this stage, with more design work to follow. He confirmed that the units will be for sale. Councilor MacKay expressed concern about increasing density in the neighborhood without addressing owner occupancy, particularly due to existing parking issues. She believes that owner occupancy could help alleviate parking problems and prevent future issues. She indicated that she would oppose the proposal unless owner occupancy is included as part of the development. Diane Hales, of Provo, shared that her family is excited to move into one of the proposed units, as they currently live in a 1,400 square-foot duplex with five family members. She emphasized that they have worked carefully on the project, making revisions to address parking concerns, including providing extra parking spaces beyond the city's requirements. Diane reassured the council that the project has been Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 6 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. thoughtfully planned, with an HOA in place to enforce rules, and she stressed that her family has been part of the neighborhood for over 20 years. Councilor MacKay acknowledged the developer's good work with parking but expressed concern about the future potential for the houses to be rented to multiple students, which could lead to excessive parking demands. She highlighted that while the plan limits occupants to three unrelated individuals or one family per unit, there are always concerns about people not following the rules. Councilor Christensen expressed concerns about home ownership and the driveway layout. He stated that if he had to vote immediately, he would vote no. However, he indicated openness to continuing discussions to allow the developer to explore possible adjustments. Councilor Handley asked for clarification on where the owners live and if they plan to occupy more than one of the new units. Jason Hales, of Provo, stated that he and his family currently live in a duplex and plan to move into one of the new units to the west. He also noted that their current duplex is grandfathered in for student housing. Councilor Bogdin inquired whether the issue on 2000 North was that many of the homes were occupied by students due to being grandfathered in for student housing. Ms. Hales clarified that their property complies with city regulations, allowing one family per unit, and they have sufficient off-street parking. She acknowledged that the neighborhood has a mix of student rentals and families, leading to parking congestion. She also pointed out that some homes in the area have been modified with multiple kitchens and are being used as an Airbnb or short-term rentals, suggesting that these broader issues should also be addressed. Additionally, she noted that while some neighbors are upset about their development, they have made every effort to go through the correct avenues and remain in full compliance with city requirements. Councilor Handley expressed his support for the project, emphasizing the need for in-fill developments in the city. He acknowledged the efforts made by the property owner to address concerns and noted that since the owners will be living on-site, there is a higher likelihood of compliance and enforcement. He voiced opposition to restricting property rights due to enforcement challenges and suggested that the neighborhood may need more focus on enforcement to address existing issues. However, he did not believe this project would contribute to non-compliance and reiterated his support for it. Councilor Hoban expressed his familiarity with the property and the surrounding area, stating that the project would be a significant improvement and a positive addition to the neighborhood. He acknowledged concerns about parking but believed they would be mitigated. Additionally, he mentioned that a friend who lives nearby also supports the project and trusts their opinion, reinforcing his own support for the development. Councilor Whipple expressed excitement that the project had come together and noted that it would be a significant improvement over the existing post-war home. Since the owners’ plan to live there, she asked whether it would be burdensome to require that at least one-third of the units be owner- occupied. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 7 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Ms. Hales emphasized that her family has lived in the area for over 20 years and that while they plan to stay, she does not want to be restricted by an owner-occupancy requirement. She noted that there are existing regulations through the HOA and city ordinances that should ensure compliance. She expressed concern that such a restriction could create financial hardships if circumstances required them to move but they were unable to rent out the property. Drawing from her experience as a realtor, she shared an example of a friend who was forced to sell their home due to similar restrictions, highlighting the potential negative impact of such limitations. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 4:3 with Councilors Garrett, Handley, Hoban, and Whipple in favor. Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, and MacKay opposed. 6 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.74 acres of real property, generally located at 916 West 1150 S, from the one-family residential (R1.8) zone to the one-family residential (R1.6) zone. Lakeview. (PLRZ20240344) 1:20:35 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-14, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Jessica Dahneke, City Planner, presented a proposed rezone in the Lakewood neighborhood, where a single-family dwelling on a large lot with a sizable rear yard is being considered for rezoning. The rezone would change the property from R1-8 (requiring 8,000 square foot lots) to R1-6, allowing for a flag lot in the rear yard. Both lots would still meet the 8,000 square foot minimum, maintaining the area's density. The rezone would permit the creation of an additional single-family home on the flag lot. The concept plan provided is a rough idea of how the property would be subdivided. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Matt Wheelright, of Provo, expressed support for the proposed rezone, acknowledging the unique and challenging nature of the lots. He described these properties as difficult to maintain, and although not ideal under the current R1-8 zoning, he believes the rezone to R1-6 is a reasonable solution. Wheelright warned that without approval, the situation could lead to complications, such as multiple properties being bought up, resulting in potentially problematic developments. He emphasized that, while not perfect, the rezone would be a good solution given the circumstances. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Councilor Bogdin shared that the proposed rezone is in her own neighborhood, making it a personal matter for her. She pointed out that 1150 is a collector road and part of the city's active transportation master plan. She mentioned that parking along 920 was recently removed and there had been discussions about removing parking on 1150 as well. She asked for more information about the two-car garage being removed. Nathan Gregory, of Provo and developer, clarified that the plan involves removing a two-car garage, which would eliminate four parking spaces, and replacing it with three spaces. He mentioned that the detached garage, shown on the concept plan, would add an extra space, bringing the total to three Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 8 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. parking spaces. However, he noted that this is still a concept plan, and they are open to adjusting the parking arrangements as needed. Councilor Bogdin expressed concern about parking on 1150, which is an active transportation corridor and a collector road. She highlighted the potential for future parking problems, especially if the property has a large family with multiple cars. She pointed out that as the area develops, and with the eventual removal of parking on 1150, there could be significant issues. Her concern was that the property’s large size and ample backyard space should be considered to avoid future parking challenges. She referenced existing issues on Slate Canyon as an example of the challenges created when parking is restricted. Mr. Jones clarified that Provo city code requires either a minimum of three parking spaces or as many parking spaces as there are vehicles being operated from a property. He emphasized that if, in the future, the property had six vehicles but only three parking spaces, it would be in violation of the code, and this should be considered in the planning process. Councilor Hoban asked if it would be possible for the property owner to pour additional concrete in the back for parking. Mr. Jones confirmed that, hypothetically, the owner could add more concrete if they remain within lot coverage requirements and are not violating any zoning rules. He clarified that this would be a relatively easy fix in the future, provided there were no structures in the way. Councilor MacKay confirmed that the lots would be subdivided. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 7 A resolution indicating the intent to make an adjustment to the common boundary between Provo and Springville along 1400 North in Springville. (25-021) 1:28:10 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-3, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Ms. Dahneke presented. Ms. Dahneke explained that this had been previously brought to the council but was not completed due to a timeline error. The resolution involves adjusting the boundary line between Provo and Springville to allow a developer in Springville to combine lots for development. If the resolution passes, Springville will also bring a resolution to their council. Following these resolutions, there will be a 60-day public comment period before an ordinance is finalized and sent to the state for certification by the lieutenant governor. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 8 An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 14 regarding multifamily amenities. Citywide application. (PLOTA20240211) 1:30:12 Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 9 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-15, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Hannah Salzl, City Planner, presented. She provided an overview of a proposal to update code to encourage amenities like EV spaces and pet-friendly open spaces in multi-family developments. The changes clarify existing requirements without altering square footage, except for two small amendments. The goal is to set a common minimum standard for amenities, giving developers flexibility to cater to their market. EV spaces may count toward amenity square footage if not designated as parking. Staff reviewed recent developments, finding that the new requirements would not be burdensome. Developers showed general support, with some appreciating the clarity and others seeking more flexibility. Councilor Hoban inquired about the reasoning behind valuing playgrounds fewer points than open spaces for pets, questioning if the assessment was based on the assumption that developments would be more likely to attract pet owners than families with children. He also suggested that a playground could serve both purposes and asked for clarification on the rationale behind the scoring. Ms. Salzl explained that the scoring is not meant to prioritize pets over children but rather reflects the market demand. Playgrounds are highly desirable in multifamily developments, so the scoring was designed to encourage amenities that developers are more likely to consider, based on market trends. Chair Garrett opened the item for public comment. James Robertson, of Provo, requested a brief, simplified summary of the topic at hand. Angie Carter, of Provo, expressed appreciation for Councilor Hoban's question and voiced a similar concern. She felt that the current rating system, which values pets higher than playgrounds, sends the message that pets are more important than children. She suggested that if the city aims to be family- friendly, the ratings for pets and playgrounds should be equal and encouraged the council to make an amendment to reflect this. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor Whipple explained that developers are required to provide amenity space for large projects, and this list of amenities, with assigned weights, is designed to guide them. It allows flexibility for developers to choose which amenities to include but encourages alignment with council priorities. She highlighted the importance of offering charging spaces for electric vehicles, as many potential tenants with EVs are currently limited in housing options. The city aims to incentivize developers to cater to this growing demand. The amenities must add up to 60 points and meet certain square footage requirements to ensure substantial offerings. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 9 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property, generally located at 2000 N Canyon Rd, from the single-family residential (R1.8) zone to the medium density Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 10 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. residential (MDR) zone. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20240174) 1:41:39 Motion: An implied motion to approve an Ordinance, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Nancy Robison, City Planner, presented. She provided an update on a previously discussed item, which is a request to rezone a property from R1-8 to medium-density residential. The developer proposes building 100 units on the site. They have worked with the public works department on necessary sewer system improvements and plan to limit the building height to 45 feet. A development agreement will be signed to include landscaping, a bond for hillside removal, sewer upgrades, and canal placement adjustments. Additionally, parking will be included in the rent. The developer has also been asked to provide feasible numbers for both for-sale and for-rent units. Councilor Christensen asked if home ownership had been proffered in a development agreement. Ms. Robison clarified that no development agreement has been signed or reviewed yet. The city is still waiting for the developer to provide the draft language. The item was continued to tonight’s meeting to allow for this. She also mentioned that the developer had provided some information, including a market report, which was included in the study packet. Rob Reynolds, the owner and developer of the proposed property, explained that the development initially included both rental and owner-occupied units, with a plan for up to 12 townhouse-style units to buffer the road from the units behind. He raised concerns about the city's focus on owner-occupied units, as real estate agents reported difficulties selling restricted units, which could lower property values. He expressed concerns that this approach might make the properties less desirable and could impact the market. While he is open to converting the units to condominiums, he is worried about the restrictions on ownership that could make them undesirable. He emphasized that he does not want to lose money or face challenges selling the units if there is not enough demand. Councilor Whipple acknowledged Mr. Reynolds' concerns about potential market damage but clarified that the council views this as a correction. She explained that the market has been inflated by cash investors buying properties for rental purposes, which makes it harder for individual homeowners or families to enter the market. She suggested that the slight deflation in market value might be necessary to address this issue. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern that the city's restrictions might hinder development and investment in the area. He emphasized that the property's location is not well-suited for low-income or subpar housing. He also stated that he is unwilling to compromise on the quality or longevity of the units. While he considered the possibility of building low-income housing on the outskirts of the city to offset the current project, he remained focused on maintaining high construction standards. Councilor Whipple expressed appreciation for the developer's focus on creating quality housing. She highlighted that the proposal would offer more homes for potential homeowners (12 townhomes) than currently exist on the property (two homes). She acknowledged the need for more rental housing due to high demand but recognized concerns about the imbalance between rental and for-sale units. However, she saw the proposal as a good compromise, noting its transitional character between the owner- occupied units to the north and rental units to the south. She also appreciated that the project would provide housing near public transportation and addressed the housing shortage in the area. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 11 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Councilor Handley sought clarification on what was being proposed and noted previous concerns about the lack of clear criteria for determining the percentage of homeownership required in developments. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue, recognizing the neighborhood's desirability both as a beloved residential area and as a prime location for student housing due to its proximity to UVX stops and campus. He emphasized the importance of student housing near campus to reduce traffic and improve air quality but also recognized the need to preserve the neighborhood’s character. He saw the area along Canyon Road as a natural transitional zone and expressed the need for further council discussion to strike the right balance. Chair Garrett opened the item for public comment. Mr. Wheelright, of Provo and Neighborhood Chair of District 1, highlighted that a vote was taken in July, but with changes since then, its relevance is uncertain. He noted that community concerns remain focused on typical issues like height, density, traffic, and parking, but the greatest anxiety is about slope removal and potential impacts, such as the stability of structures above the slope. He suggested that additional assurances beyond a landscape bond could help alleviate these fears. He emphasized that a development agreement is a negotiation where trade-offs occur and pointed out that it is not the community’s or council’s role to ensure the developer’s profitability. He acknowledged the developer’s report on market differences between rental and for-sale units but reaffirmed that lower property values could be a desired correction. While recognizing the developer’s frustration with potential rule changes mid-process, he urged the council to clearly define and integrate its priorities into the system. He noted that similar owner-occupancy requirements have worked in other developments, such as Spring Creek, and could be viable here. Overall, he indicated that the majority of neighbors are not in favor of the project but suggested that addressing slope concerns could help ease opposition. Valerie Paxman, of Provo, expressed strong concerns about the City Council's approach to mandating owner-occupied housing, stating that it infringes on property owners' rights. She personally would not purchase a property with such a restriction, as it could make resale more difficult, particularly for those in distressing situations who need to move. She argued that if the city wants more owner-occupied housing, it should focus on encouraging development that naturally attracts homeowners—such as larger homes with yards, parks, and well-planned streets with good traffic flow—rather than imposing restrictions. She supported the proposed development, believing that high-density housing near the university is appropriate, while also suggesting that larger homes should be prioritized in available open spaces rather than pushing high-density development outside of Provo. Paul Evans, of Provo, expressed concerns that the proposed development is much farther north than the established boundary for high-density student housing, which is around 500 North. At 2000 North, this location does not align with the city’s intent to concentrate on student housing closer to campus. He noted that the city has worked to prevent neighborhoods south of campus from becoming overly dominated by rentals by maintaining owner-occupied housing, and the same principle should apply here. He pointed out that the area surrounding the proposed development already consists of successful condominiums, and just last year, the council required a nearby multi-unit development to be owner- occupied. He argued that the same standard should be upheld for consistency. Additionally, he criticized the claim that the four-story apartment building would blend into the existing landscape, stating that it is not comparable to the natural hillside and would be highly visible from Canyon Road. Finally, he reminded the council of key questions in the staff report, particularly whether the rezone would facilitate owner-occupied housing and whether the developer is willing to guarantee that outcome. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 12 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Lynn Sorensen, of Provo, supported the concerns raised by Paul Evans and emphasized that her priority is the impact on the neighborhood and city rather than the developer’s financial interests. She questioned the assumption that rental units are always profitable, pointing to vacancies at the Towns at Rivers Edge as evidence that the rental market may not be as strong as some believe. She also raised serious concerns about the removal of the hill on the property, describing it as a potentially dangerous undertaking. Her main worry was what would happen if the developer abandoned the project partway through, leaving an unstable and partially removed hillside that could lead to erosion issues for neighboring properties. She stressed the importance of having guarantees in writing—not just for owner-occupancy requirements, but also for safeguards related to construction risks and long-term impacts on the surrounding area. She urged the council to ensure that protections are in place so that if the project encounters problems, the neighborhood is not left with an unfinished and hazardous site. Sharron Memmott, of Provo, said her primary concern was parking, noting that past developments have struggled with insufficient parking spaces per unit. She referenced a recently approved project that exceeded parking requirements and expressed her hope that any development agreement for this area would include similar provisions. She pointed out that when units have three renters but only two parking spaces, the third tenant is forced to find parking elsewhere, sometimes even across the street at the stadium. She also supported the council’s efforts to require owner occupancy, noting that the developer’s report demonstrates how such requirements can make housing more affordable for first- time homeowners. However, she was concerned that some of the language addressing these issues appeared only in an email to neighborhood board members rather than in the staff report or the implied motion. She sought clarification on how these provisions would be incorporated into the formal approval process. She appreciated the inclusion of parking in rental agreements as a positive first step but advocated for requiring one parking space per bedroom instead of relying on the current city code. Additionally, she supported the requirement for landscape bonds to be in place if the hillside is removed, ensuring that any environmental impacts are addressed. Rich Ziggler, of Provo, emphasized concerns about parking, pointing out that a development with 100 units and four bedrooms each would mean 400 tenants, which could create significant parking issues. He also highlighted the importance of maintaining open space and yards, noting that the R1-8 zoning is meant for such areas. Additionally, he expressed frustration with the repeated discussions on this proposal, questioning whether the developer’s multiple appearances before the council was a tactic to wear down opposition. He suggested that this raised credibility concerns and left it at that. Warner Woodworth, of Provo, expressed deep concern over the gradual decline of Provo’s community character, drawing on historical and ideological perspectives, including Brigham Young’s vision of Zion and Martin Luther King Jr.'s concept of a beloved community. He lamented the increasing influence of outside developers who, in his view, prioritize profit over the city's values and way of life. He recalled past struggles against developments that, in his opinion, prioritized financial gain over community well- being and expressed frustration over issues such as increased traffic, pollution, and overcrowding. He also criticized the lack of enforcement on long-term out-of-state residents and questioned why developers focus on central neighborhoods rather than revitalizing underutilized areas on the west side of town. Mike Mikkelsen, of Provo, raised concerns about the property’s proximity to two irrigation canal systems: a pressurized line running through the property and an unpressurized flood irrigation system that ends at his property. He highlighted the significant risk of a washout should something go wrong with the irrigation system, especially given the ditch runs along the property line. He requested a minimum four- to five-foot setback from the existing grade before any slope starts, along with additional Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 13 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. assurances to mitigate risks related to erosion, settling, or liquefaction. Mikkelsen also echoed concerns regarding owner-occupancy restrictions, emphasizing the difference between institutional cash investors and individual property owners, like himself, who may need to rent out a property for personal or liability reasons. His primary concern remains the slope and ensuring safeguards are in place to prevent damage to his property, including the risk of the irrigation system causing further erosion. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Councilor Bogdin called upon Gordon Haight, Director of Public Works, to address the logistics of removing the hillside. Mr. Haight responded by acknowledging the concerns about the irrigation ditches, stating that the issue would need to be resolved through both engineering plans and approval from the irrigation companies, as it involves their infrastructure. The city would oversee the process to ensure it meets required standards. He further explained that a geotechnical report would be required to determine the safe slope for the property. If retaining walls were necessary, they would need to be engineered and approved. Mr. Haight mentioned ongoing discussions with the developer regarding the hill's slope, with several options being considered, including using the building as part of the retaining structure. While a final plan has not been established, he emphasized that these options would be feasible once the proper engineering and geotechnical studies are completed. Councilor Bogdin inquired about who would be held responsible for any damage if the hill were to slide following its removal. Mr. Jones explained that responsibility for damage would depend on whether there is evidence that the developer was at fault. He noted that landslides can occur naturally and are not always caused by construction, so it would not be a clear-cut case of strict liability. Proof of wrongdoing would be required to hold the developer accountable. Councilor Whipple added that liability for damage could shift if a subsequent property owner makes changes after the developer's work is completed. If an issue arises, such as an upslope property losing a garage, the affected party could pursue a civil cause of action against the current property owner, the developer, or both. Ultimately, it would be a civil matter, and the city would not be involved in determining responsibility. Mr. Haight reassured the council that the city has a long history of managing geotechnical issues and works with a contracted geotechnical firm to review all developments. The city has experience with major slides and faults, especially along the east side, and ensures that developments meet stringent state requirements. He emphasized that, while Provo has properties in more severe geotechnical conditions, this particular property does not appear to have similar dynamics, and the city's ongoing monitoring provides confidence that it will not require complex solutions. The city is closely monitoring geotechnical conditions and is committed to maintaining safety. Councilor Christensen expressed strong opposition to the project, citing several reasons. He criticized the proposed height of the four-story building, which he felt was taller than initially understood. He also disagreed with the idea of significantly altering the hill and building a 100-unit complex. Christensen emphasized that the council's responsibility is to guide development thoughtfully, not to create housing solely for profit, and that owner-occupied housing is a crucial tool for maintaining community stability. He warned that prioritizing density could lead to the erosion of neighborhoods like Pleasant View. He Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 14 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. also expressed concerns about the long-term impact of such developments on the city and the lack of focus on owner-occupied housing. As a result, he stated he would vote against the proposal. Councilor MacKay shared agreement with Councilor Christensen’s concerns, emphasizing that the area in question serves as a dividing line between higher-density housing and family neighborhoods. She expressed worries that continued encroachment on this line could lead to the loss of established neighborhoods like Pleasant View. She also voiced concerns about the project's density, erosion risks from the hill, and the potential for transforming owner-occupied homes into rental properties. MacKay acknowledged the need for affordable housing, particularly for first-time homebuyers, and the importance of providing options like condominiums and townhomes. However, she felt that the proposed project was too dense and would negatively affect established family neighborhoods. She highlighted the importance of protecting these neighborhoods, especially given the city's increasing number of rental properties. Councilor Whipple responded by addressing concerns from her district, emphasizing that residents have instructed her to defend the Joaquin neighborhood when it is criticized. She pointed out that Joaquin is a great neighborhood, with many people who enjoy living there, and suggested that others should be fortunate to have a similar community. Councilor Handley shared that he understands the concerns about the potential encroachment of high- density developments into residential neighborhoods, as he lives in a similar area. He acknowledged that there are already high-density developments near campus and disagreed with the idea that more density on the north side of campus would be detrimental. He emphasized that density makes the most sense near transit to protect the environment and reduce traffic. While he feels unsettled about the current project and its arguments, he believes compromises are necessary. He expressed preference for more commitment to owner occupancy, though he was unsure if this would satisfy the rest of the council. He acknowledged the complexities of the issue and the varying perspectives among his fellow council members. Chair Garrett expressed that the project area is near his own neighborhood and emphasized its importance as a strategic piece, serving as a buffer or transition between the rental apartments to the south and the owner-occupied units to the north. He acknowledged the concerns raised by other council members regarding the project and, unless there were additional comments, indicated he would call for a vote. Vote: The motion failed 5:2 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Hoban, and McKay opposed. Councilors Handley and Whipple in favor. 10 An ordinance amending water fees on the Provo City consolidated fee schedule. (25-013) 2:36:13 Motion: An implied motion to approve an Ordinance, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mr. Haight provided an introduction outlining two main topics for discussion. First, he explained that the proposal is to implement a tiered water rate structure, which would not increase revenue for the city but would adjust how residents are billed. More expensive water would be charged at a higher rate, while less expensive water would be billed at its actual cost, creating a fairer cost structure. The second Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 15 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. topic involves water rates, which would increase revenue for the city. He mentioned that a water master plan had been adopted to outline necessary capital projects and system maintenance and suggested that alternative funding options be explored. Mr. Haight concluded by passing the presentation to Keith, who would provide more details on the tiered water rates and overall water rates. Keith Larson, of Bowen Collins & Associates, provided an overview of the city's water system and the need for a tiered rate structure and increased investment in the system. He explained that the process of implementing tiered rates has been ongoing for several years and emphasized the importance of addressing revenue needs for operation, maintenance, and capital projects. He discussed rising costs due to inflation and construction, as well as the city's aging infrastructure, noting that old pipes, some over 100 years old, are causing frequent breaks and require replacement. The water master plan identified $80 million in capital projects, and the city needs to invest between $14 million to $18 million annually to maintain the system, while current investment is only about $9 million. Larson stressed that delaying investment could result in higher future costs for reactive maintenance. He recommended a 12% rate increase in 2025, followed by gradual increases, to reach a sustainable funding level. For the average customer, the 12% increase would raise the monthly water bill by $6, from $48 to $54. Larson concluded by asking for any questions before moving to discuss tiered rates. Councilor Christensen asked why proactive maintenance is less expensive than reactive maintenance. Mr. Larson explained that proactive maintenance is cheaper than reactive because it allows for planning, competitive bidding for contractors, and scheduling the work. In contrast, reactive maintenance forces the city to accept whatever contractors are available and work on an urgent basis, often in unfavorable conditions like winter. Additionally, reactive maintenance can cause further damage, such as flooding, which increases costs. National data shows that reactive maintenance is 60% more expensive than proactive maintenance. Councilor Hoban asked why the city does not fund the full $80 million for water system projects immediately, instead of spreading it out over the next 10 years. Mr. Larson responded that, from an engineering perspective, he would recommend increasing rates quickly to reach the $14 million investment level over two or three years. This would be the most cost- effective approach in the long term. However, he acknowledged that his recommendation was to spread out the funding over 10 years to avoid a sharp financial impact on residents. Councilor Whipple said it would be impractical to do all replacements at once. She acknowledged that the proposed plan addresses the replacement of old pipes in a gradual, orderly manner, ensuring that large sections of the city are not losing water all at once and allowing the work to be paced appropriately. Mr. Larson explained that the current water rates are seasonal, with lower rates in winter ($1.17 per 1,000 gallons) and higher rates in summer ($1.93 per 1,000 gallons), but this system does not fully account for usage volume. The proposed system would implement tiered rates based on consumption, with a base rate increase to $22.96. Water usage would then be charged in three tiers: Tier 1 (0–10,000 gallons) at $1.46 per 1,000 gallons for essential indoor use, Tier 2 (10,000–55,000 gallons) at $2.27 per 1,000 gallons for typical outdoor use, and Tier 3 (above 55,000 gallons) at $3.97 per 1,000 gallons for high-volume users. This structure aims to address the varying costs of providing water, particularly during peak summer demand when larger infrastructure is required. The rates are based on a cost-of- service methodology that accounts for increased expenses associated with higher usage. Additionally, Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 16 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. meter sizes, which often reflect lot size or overall demand, would have different base rates and tier allocations to ensure a fair distribution of costs. Councilor Hoban asked how decisions were made regarding water meter sizes, specifically why some homes have a one-inch meter instead of a three-quarter-inch meter. Mr. Larson explained that meter sizes are typically determined by anticipated water demand, with three-quarter-inch meters being standard for residential lots, and larger sizes used for bigger lots or higher-demand properties like multifamily units. When asked about the lot size break point for different meters, Mr. Larson noted that a three-quarter-inch meter generally supports up to a 0.4-acre lot, while larger meters are assigned based on an engineering analysis of water demand. Councilor Hoban then questioned whether meter size was strictly tied to lot size, noting that someone with a one-inch meter could have a much larger lot than another person with the same meter, yet both would fall under the same tiered rate structure. He suggested this could create an imbalance, where properties of different sizes are treated the same simply because their meter can handle the flow. Mr. Larson acknowledged the concern and explained that while the system does involve some simplifications for manageability, there is an inherent tradeoff in grouping properties based on meter size rather than exact lot size. Councilor Handley asked for further clarification on the tiered water rate structure, particularly addressing a common public concern: why does a gallon of water not cost the same for everyone? He wanted a clearer explanation of how tiered pricing works and why it is necessary. Additionally, he pointed out that under the current system, without tiered rates, lower water users—who make up 80- 90% of the city—are effectively subsidizing higher water users. He asked for confirmation that all customers are contributing to the cost of infrastructure upgrades, even if their individual water use does not create the need for those additional system costs. Mr. Larson explained that the goal of a fair and accurate rate design is to allocate costs to those who place the greatest burden on the water system. A resident who consistently uses 5,000 gallons per month year-round has a much lower impact on infrastructure than someone who uses the same amount in winter but then spikes to 100,000 gallons in the summer. Higher seasonal demand requires larger pipes and the activation of more expensive water sources, which increases costs. The tiered rates reflect these actual costs, ensuring that those who drive higher system demands pay accordingly. Mr. Larson continued with the non-residential water rate structure and said it follows the same principles as residential rates but with different tier divisions based on usage patterns. The goal remains to ensure that tier three captures only the top 10% of water use to account for peak demand costs. While the per- 1,000-gallon rate is the same as for residential users, the tier volume breaks and base rates differ. He emphasized the benefits of adopting the recommended rate structure, including promoting conservation, maintaining affordability for lower-tier users, complying with state requirements for an increasing block rate schedule, and aligning with industry cost-of-service principles. He concluded by summarizing the expected bill impacts for different levels of residential water users. Councilor Bogdin asked for clarification on the different types of residential water users and how the proposed rate changes would affect them. Mr. Larson clarified that a low user, typically an apartment resident in the bottom 10% of usage, currently pays an average monthly bill of $25, which includes the $20 base fee. Under the proposed Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 17 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. rates, their bill would increase to $27, primarily due to the base fee adjustment. He explained that an average user is someone who waters their lawn and typically has a small to medium-sized lot, around 0.2 to 0.25 acres. High users fall in the 90th percentile of usage, and very high users are in the top 5%, meaning they use more than 55,000 gallons per month. These categories help define how the tiered rate system applies to different levels of water consumption. Chair Garrett acknowledged the benefits listed for adopting the recommended rates but emphasized that the primary reason for the discussion is to find a way to generate $80 million to replace aging water infrastructure. He noted that while conservation and fairness are important, the key driver for the rate adjustment is ensuring the city can fund necessary system upgrades. He then opened public comment. Quinn Peterson, of Provo, acknowledged the necessity of a rate increase and expressed hope that many in the room now understand that need. However, representing Downtown Provo Inc., he voiced concern that businesses have not had enough time to analyze the potential impact of the proposed changes. Since business-specific details were only presented the day before, he stressed the importance of evaluating how different business types—especially restaurants with high water usage—might be affected. Given their already slim profit margins, a sudden increase in water costs could be crippling. He requested additional time for the business community to assess the data before any final decisions are made. Valerie Paxman, of Provo, recognized the need for necessary improvements but expressed concern over the additional costs being imposed on residents, particularly the new requirement for backflow regulators, which cost $1,500 per property. She emphasized that this, combined with the proposed rate increases, is too much for residents to bear. Paxman urged the council to consider the full scope of costs being passed on to residents, including school board bonds and state tax increases, which are adding to the financial burden. She called for more careful consideration and hard choices, suggesting that if rates must rise, the backflow regulator requirement should be reconsidered to ease the overall impact. Vicky Garring, of Provo, shared her personal experience, explaining that when she moved to Provo in 1982, the area was surrounded by orchards, and she had water rights that allowed for irrigation. Over time, the orchards were replaced by development, and she lost her water rights. As a widow with an income of $29,778 last year, she now faces significantly higher costs for water, with the average cost of maintaining her property having increased fivefold. She explained that she can no longer afford the irrigation needed for her lawn, leading to the death of her grass and the removal of nine trees. Garring expressed concern that the city's proposed water rate tiers do not account for her unique situation, where she has limited control over her water needs. She argued that it would be unfair for the city to impose rates that put her in an unsustainable position, particularly since she has already paid the price for losing her water rights due to surrounding development. She urged the city to find a fair method to maintain the water system while considering the challenges faced by residents like her. James Robertson, the property owner immediately north of Vicki, shared his experience of losing his water rights, which had previously been about $20 annually. He explained that he and Vicki had different shares of water rights, but both lost them when surrounding development occurred. Robertson recalled approaching the city to see if he could trade his water share for a long-term water benefit, but he was told by a city water department representative that Provo City had sufficient water and did not need his share. He also inquired about using a gray water system but was informed that it would not be feasible due to insufficient properties in the city. Robertson raised concerns about being forced to water his entire acre with culinary water, and while he was told the winter rates would be Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 18 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. lower and the summer rates higher, he is still concerned about the impact of using culinary water for his entire property. He described his property as being just under an acre, with multiple fruit trees, grapevines, blackberries, raspberries, and a large garden. His request was for the city to consider allowing exceptions or alternatives within the tier system, particularly for residents facing financial hardship, as it has been difficult for him to pay his current water bills, and he is unsure how to manage a substantial increase. Dave Lewis, of Provo, expressed his support for Provo City’s proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable water system. However, he voiced disagreement with the surge pricing and tiered pricing structure. Lewis emphasized his concern about how tax money is spent, stating that he has been paying an extra $1,200 a month over the past three and a half years due to inflation. He also pointed out that residents are observing significant financial changes and increases, and he feels there is a lack of care regarding the efficient use of money. Lewis noted that some people are reaching a breaking point financially and suggested exploring other options, such as avoiding tiered pricing and not implementing an 8-12% rate increase this year. Angie Carter, of Provo, inquired about the potential use of gray water as an option to reduce water costs. She asked if the city has considered implementing a secondary system for gray water, which could help lower the cost of producing culinary water, as culinary water requires extensive filtering. Carter suggested that as the city plans, this might be an opportune time to think about ways to improve water system efficiency. She emphasized the long-term benefits of such a system, where, in 10-20 years, gray water could be used for certain purposes, saving money by reducing the need for culinary water. Paul Evans, of Provo, acknowledged that the issue at hand is not about the source or treatment of water, but rather the need for repairs to the water delivery system. He thanked those involved in bringing the issue up and mentioned that, after reviewing his own water bill, he realized it was higher than expected and now plans to investigate his water usage. He framed the discussion as the beginning of a process to determine the best way to maintain and sustain Provo’s water delivery system. He humorously referenced the band "Tears for Fears" and suggested that this was just the opening round of a necessary discussion to ultimately resolve the issue. Rebecca Leavitt, of Provo, expressed two main objections to the proposed water rate increases. First, she felt the initial increase was too steep, given the tough economic conditions, including a challenging job market, high inflation, and stagnant wages. She suggested that slowing the increase over time would help ease the financial burden on homeowners. Second, she raised concerns about the tiered rates, particularly the penalties for high water users. While she understood the need to generate revenue and manage water use, she believed certain land uses, like growing trees, native wildflowers, and food, should not be penalized because they contribute to local ecosystems and reduce carbon emissions. She asked the City Council to consider exceptions for these beneficial land uses within the tiered system. Additionally, she warned that the high cost of water might discourage people from maintaining their yards, possibly leading them to let their yards deteriorate into weeds. She urged the City Council to reconsider the proposed water rate increase by slowing it down and considering exceptions for land uses that contribute positively to the environment. Adam Shin, of Provo, acknowledged the complexity of the issue, recognizing that water rate increases affect everyone, but there is a discrepancy between what people can afford and the actual costs of maintaining the water system. He suggested that the city consider ways to help people who may struggle with the rate increases, especially considering the challenges in maintaining the infrastructure. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 19 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. He raised concerns about fines or fees for residents who let their lawns dry out, particularly those opting for xeriscaping or other low-water alternatives. He suggested the city reconsider these penalties to avoid punishing people who are trying to reduce their water usage. Additionally, he pointed out that Utah has a water conservation program that offers rebates for removing grass from lawns, but he noted that Provo is not currently participating in the program. He recommended that the city consider joining this program to help reduce water usage, especially in new constructions, which could lower peak water usage and ultimately benefit everyone. Matt Wheelright, of Provo, expressed agreement with the need for action, but emphasized that the proposed 12% rate increase, while it may seem manageable initially, is misleading when looking at the long-term impact. He pointed out that by 2033, the increase could total 84%, which he considered excessive. He suggested that the city either failed to address the issue in a timely manner or needs to explore alternative, creative solutions. Matt also referenced the mayor’s recent discussions about securing grants and urged the city to consider applying the same effort to securing funding for water system improvements, rather than relying solely on rate increases. Sharron Memmott, of Provo, voiced concerns over the proposed water rate increases, particularly the steep 84% rise over seven years, which she compared to compound interest on a loan, emphasizing how such an increase would be overwhelming. She recommended making the city's rate calculator available on the Open City Hall platform to allow more public input and suggested considering one or two-year increments for rate increases rather than locking in a long-term plan. She also highlighted discrepancies in the calculations for rate increases, with one neighbor facing a potential $80 monthly increase, which she felt was unfair, especially given issues with irrigation lines not being addressed. Sharron called for further public engagement and for addressing existing issues with irrigation systems before increasing rates. Councilor Hoban read the following note from Kristin Rich, of Provo: the increases unfairly land on people with a family or larger lot. Our job wages cannot keep up with all the inflation and tax increases already happening. We already practice water conservation, and our water bill is already hard to pay. More creative solutions should be considered. For example, the hybrid Bermuda grass that the state approved in July. It can go six weeks without water. She lives on point two, three acres. James Paxman, of Provo, shared concerns about the water meter sizes in his area, explaining that most homes were given one-inch meters due to low water pressure during the late 1990s and early 2000s, regardless of lot size. He pointed out that his base rate is $28 a month, but his water bill exceeds $100 during peak summer months. He expressed opposition to the tiered pricing system, preferring a fixed rate increase across the board instead of variable pricing. James also inquired about how large water users like schools, parks, hospitals, and BYU are impacted by the proposed changes. He suggested a per- door rate for large complexes and emphasized the importance of maintaining lawns and fruit trees, which he feels contribute to Provo's character. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Chair Garrett acknowledged the valuable input from residents, both in person and via email, noting that it has highlighted the need for better communication about the importance of maintaining Provo’s water delivery system. He recognized that many residents now understand the need for changes, which is a positive first step. He supported ideas such as adding a calculator to Open City Hall for more transparency and considering conservation programs. He also mentioned empowering the public works Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 20 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. director to explore alternative funding sources, potentially alongside a rate increase, to meet the city's water infrastructure needs. Motion: Chair Garrett motioned to continue the discussion, launch an educational program through the district and Downtown Business Alliance, and give staff more time to explore alternative funding sources, potentially leading to a more modest rate increase. Councilor Christensen seconded. Councilor MacKay supported the motion and clarified two points. First, implementing gray water would require a complete re-piping of the city, making it unfeasible. Second, she explained that while the state offers a uniform conservation program, Provo opted for its own system that better suits its groundwater resources, including incentives for smart meters and Bermuda grass. She also offered to share a memo on the matter if anyone was interested. Councilor Bogdin asked for clarification on why irrigation has been shut off in certain parts of the city. Mr. Haight clarified that while the city has shares in irrigation companies, it does not directly manage them. Irrigation systems are run independently, and individual users must contact their irrigation company to determine why they lost or do not have water rights. He emphasized that the city is not responsible for cutting off rights; it is up to the irrigation companies, who may sell or lease rights. Mr. Haight explained that when only a few users are on a line, the burden of maintaining the entire system falls on those users, which makes it financially unsustainable. In the past, when a farmer owned the land, they were responsible for maintaining the ditches, making it cost-effective. However, when just one or two users are left to cover the maintenance costs from the water source to their properties, the liability becomes overwhelming. He noted that this issue is not unique to Provo but has been seen historically across Utah counties, including Salt Lake, Utah, and Davis, where irrigation systems were lost due to similar challenges. Councilor Bogdin asked about backflow regulators that were mentioned by a resident. Mr. Haight explained that the city is required by state law to have backflow preventers on every meter. The city council passed an ordinance to ensure that new developments install them. They are starting with businesses and will gradually address residential properties, focusing on remodels or cases where contamination is identified. While the implementation is not aggressive, the city must comply with this mandate. If a resident remodels or has issues with contamination, the city will work with them to ensure compliance, but the backflow preventers are a legal requirement. Councilor Hoban expressed strong opposition to the high user tier, arguing that it unexpectedly burdens residents, particularly older individuals on fixed incomes, who may face significant bill increases. He acknowledged that the tier only adds a $26 increase for most, but for a small group, the impact could be devastating. He emphasized that the messaging will be difficult as more high users, who are significantly impacted, will likely speak out in the coming weeks or months. Motion: Councilor Hoban made a substitute motion to remove the high user tier and continue discussions. No second received. Councilor MacKay expressed a desire to rework the plan, specifically eliminating the high user tier, but emphasized that this is just one aspect of a larger issue. She believes there are many other factors to Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 21 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. address and is uncertain about the impact of only removing the high user tier, as she feels the entire system needs to be re-evaluated. Chair Garrett expressed that it feels premature to begin discussing the issue at such a detailed level. Mr. Haight agreed that continuing the discussion is a good approach but emphasized the importance of clear communication with the public about the issue. He noted that clarity has emerged through the discussion, but there may be a need for further talks to ensure that everyone, especially the Council, is aligned on what is being asked of them before proceeding further. Councilor Handley expressed that the discussion is ongoing and requires more time to reach clarity, especially regarding the tiered system, which is central to the issue. He acknowledged that the Council has voted on the tier system twice but noted that more discussion is needed to address the rate impacts, such as how slowing down the increase might affect the city and water users. He suggested continuing the discussion to a future meeting, ideally two weeks later, where the Council could clarify their stance, debate the issues, and potentially propose a tentative plan, including a public education period before finalizing decisions. Councilor Bogdin expressed that the information about the 12% increase and the calculators are already available to the public. She emphasized the importance of gathering feedback from businesses, as most of the feedback so far has come from residents. She suggested putting the proposal out for further feedback to understand how the tier system and rate increase will affect businesses. Based on that feedback, the Council can then reassess whether changes are needed, as the current discussion remains hypothetical without more input. Councilor Whipple highlighted that the Council has been working on the water rate issue for over a year, holding eight work meetings since mid-2023. She explained that the process took time due to the need for clear direction on the $80 million shortfall and rate scenarios. Once the Council narrowed down its approach, Public Works could provide more accurate data on the proposed rate increase and its impact. While she acknowledged the delay, she emphasized that the issue is not new, and that the Council has been transparent throughout the process. She encouraged residents to stay informed and engage in the discussions to help make better decisions. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion was approved 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Chair Garrett thanked everyone for attending the meeting and sharing their input and feedback on the important issue at hand. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 9:30 PM. Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 22 of 23  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. 8th day of April, 2025 Provo City Council Meeting – February 11, 2025 Page 23 of 23