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 Minutes 5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 22, 2025 Council Chambers (Room 100) 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 Councilor Gary Garrett Councilor George Handley Councilor Travis Hoban Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Rachel Whipple Mayor Michelle Kaufusi Council Executive Director Justin Harrison Chief Administrative Officer Scott Henderson City Attorney Brian Jones City Recorder Heidi Allman Conducting: Chair Gary Garrett Prayer – Rachel Breen Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Christensen Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 Provo City Employee of the Month - April 2025 (25-007) (7:32) Mayor Kaufusi and Carla Gordon, Director of Library Services, presented a Provo City Employee of the Month award to Caroline MacFarlane, a librarian in the Children’s Collection. Ms. Gordon said Ms. MacFarlane cared deeply about connecting books to readers. The Council took the opportunity for a photograph. Public Comment (12:55) Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble and opened the public comment period. Andrew Thompson, Provo resident, commented that the City needed an ADA Coordinator. He said he would continue to attend until something was done and pointed out ADA requirements were Federal Law. Mr. Thompson said there was a lot for an ADA Coordinator to do in Provo City. Eric Ellsworth, Provo resident, said he lived on just over an acre of agricultural property. He said his water bills had continued to go up and said he did not understand the reason for different rates on different types of property. Mr. Ellsworth said taxes had gone up on agricultural properties and suggested giving agricultural properties a break on the water rates. He commented that the City was losing open area and said he did not want to see it go. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 1 of 18 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. Naomi Flinders, Provo resident, said it was important to her that an RFP be included in the budget for a study of potential short-term and long-term changes on Center Street. She said anything that happened on Center Street would need to be a communal decision with a lot of public input. Ms. Flinders suggested downtown Center Street could be an attractive reception area for Provo events. She said the downtown area had a lot of potential and spoke of benefits of walkable cities. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Action Agenda 2 A resolution approving an agreement between Provo City and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to make Provo a member of Bee City USA (25-014) (22:08) Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-19, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. David Pyle, Council Intern, said both Parks and Recreation and the Sustainability Committee had indicated support for the proposed agreement with Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation for Provo to become a member of Bee City USA. Mr. Pyle said he and Councilor Whipple had an upcoming meeting scheduled with the Provo Foundation in which they would discuss setting up a donation portal to fund the $500 annual fee through public donations. Responding to a question from Councilor Bogdin, Mr. Pyle said he was confident several years’ worth of donations would be realized based on conversations with the public. He said it would be for the Council to decide what would happen in the future if donations were to run out. Additional initial costs would include a sign declaring Provo to be a Bee City, situated in a prominent location, as well as some administration costs. Mr. Pyle emphasized many of the requirements to participate in the program were already being done by Parks and Recreation and said the required sign could be funded from the Parks and Recreation budget. Chair Garrett asked Mr. Pyle to outline the participation requirements for Provo City. Mr. Pyle said the goal of the program was to use public lands to create a habitat that was conducive to pollinators. Parks and Recreation would be required to prepare a list of recommended pollinator-friendly plants to be used in public areas and create an integrated pest management plan (which was already in place). Councilor Whipple said she was aware of a misperception that the program would advocate for property owners to let their landscaping go, resulting in weeds and long grasses. Mr. Pyle said the program did not advocate wild, untamed grassland, but would ensure that plantings and pesticides used would be friendly to pollinators. Councilor Whipple asked if Parks and Recreation and the Sustainability Committee would provide public education, and Mr. Pyle said the idea had been to create a booth at the Farmer’s Market in which information would be distributed. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said she was not excited about the program, mostly because of the funding. She asked if the resolution could be amended to state that Provo welcomed participation as long as the annual fee would be covered by Provo Foundation or some other private donation. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 2 of 18 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. Naomi Flinders, Provo resident, expressed support for participation in the program, and said she would be comfortable with the annual fee coming out of the City budget. She suggested the sign could be placed on Center Street. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. Responding to a question from Councilor Bogdin, Brian Jones said the agreement was a year-to-year agreement. If the City did not have the funds to continue, the agreement would end. Councilor MacKay said she loved bees but was not confident the plan would translate into more bees in the City. She said she did not like the idea of the City paying money for someone to tell the City what to do and said she would vote against participation. Councilor Christensen expressed the opinion that the program was very worthwhile and emphasized the need to think in terms of ecosystem. He said he was delighted Provo City had already implemented some of the practices and said he did not view the program as someone telling the City what to do. Councilor Christensen said he would be happy to contribute financially as an individual. He suggested the City had already spent more than $500 on research and consideration of the program and said he wanted the City to educate and encourage interdependence with the entire environment. Councilor Whipple said the proposed agreement would require the City to apply for renewal in February of each year by submitting an application, report, and participation fee. If the City did not have the funds, the Council could choose not to apply. Councilor Whipple expressed support for highlighting the good work the Parks and Recreation Department were already doing and being an example for the rest of the community. She pointed out the City paid much higher annual fees to be affiliated with other groups that did not have as happy a purpose. Chair Garrett expressed support for the proposed agreement and said he agreed funding should come through the Provo Foundation. Vote: The motion passed 5:2 with Councilors Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, and Whipple in favor, and Councilors Bogdin and MacKay opposed. 3 An ordinance amending the Conservation and Resiliency Plan to include a new appendix committing Provo to be a Bee City USA affiliate (PLGPA20250139) (40:27) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-22, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. City Planner Hannah Salzl presented proposed Ordinance 2025-22 to amend the Conservation and Resiliency Plan to include a new appendix committing Provo to be a Bee City USA affiliate. Chair Garrett asked if the Sustainability Committee would play a role in the program. Ms. Salzl said the Parks and Recreation Department would be the entity responsible for enacting the landscape management plan and would present an annual report to the Sustainability Committee. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 3 of 18 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 Bogdin said a resident had asked if it would be possible for an interested neighborhood to provide funding and permanent location for the sign instead of the Parks and Recreation budget. Ms. Salzl said the cost of the sign would depend on the design, size, and construction. Councilor Christensen said he was sensitive to the budget, but also sensitive to spending a lot of time micromanaging something like a sign. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 4 A public hearing regarding the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and Year-One Annual Action Plan draft (25-051) (47:16) Melissa McNalley, Community Grant Administrator, said a five-year Consolidated Plan and Year-One Annual Action Plan to prioritize use of HUD Grant funds received from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME were available to review online. She requested the Council open a public hearing, to remain open until June 3, 2026. Chair Garrett opened a public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, Chair Garrett closed the public hearing period for the evening, noting the public hearing would remain open for submitted comment until June 3. 5 An ordinance repealing outdated references to the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (25- 047) (50:02) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-23, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. City Attorney Brian Jones said the proposed ordinance would remove references in City Code to the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which no longer existed. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 6 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding fees and fines associated with code enforcement, and declaring failure to correct grading violations a nuisance (PLOTA20250108) (51:50) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-24, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson presented proposed updates to Title 17 of City Code to: change verbiage from “fee(s)” to “fine(s)”; increase and standardize daily civil fines; define “subsequent Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 4 of 18 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. offense”; correct to whom fines were paid; and update administrative citation fines. Staff answered questions from the Council concerning subsequent offenses, enforcement, and time allowed for compliance. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. Chair Garrett invited Council discussion. Councilor MacKay said she believed the amendment was a long time coming and said she appreciated the work Mr. Johnson had done. She said the amendment was meant to address the issue of repeated serial offenders. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 7 A resolution approving the first amendment to the Lakeview Fields Development Agreement to allow updated plans, optional basements, vinyl fencing, and a separate HOA for the subject property (25-052) (1:05:32) Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-20, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Jessica Dahneke, Planner, presented the proposed first amendment to the Lakeview Fields Development Agreement to allow updated plans, optional basements, vinyl fencing, and a separate HOA for the subject property. The amendment would not include changes to the zone or density. Ms. Dahneke said the proposed amendment had been reviewed by the CRC and City Attorney. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. The applicant said the main reason for trying to amend the Development Agreement was the age of the agreement (approved in 2007), and a need for more flexibility than established requirements would allow. He commented that the requirements in the 2007 agreement would be cost prohibitive in the current economy. Councilor Whipple asked if the applicant would be willing to include in the amendment that a certain percentage of the units would need to be owner occupied and could not be rented in the first year after conveyance. The applicant said he would be comfortable with 70%. Councilor MacKay pointed out the Provo City standard was a 100% restriction on unit rental in the first year after conveyance and expressed the opinion that a reduction to 70% should apply in perpetuity, not just for the first year. The applicant said with developments in which he had been involved in the past, development agreements had included a requirement for a certain percentage of owner-occupied units that would remain in place for a specified number of years. He proposed for the restriction to end after a period of five years. Councilor Handley said he would be comfortable with ending the restriction after five years. He said he wanted to be sensitive to reports that showed only 20% of residents could afford to buy a home in Provo. Councilor Handley said he was concerned about over-restricting the rental market. Councilor Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 5 of 18 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. Bogdin said she would want more than five years. Councilor MacKay expressed support for a 70% restriction for five years. The applicant clarified his intent was to offer all the units for sale. Chair Garrett opened a public comment period. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said she liked the project. She said the 70% owner-occupied restriction felt like a personal property right issue, since some would be able to rent their properties and some would not. Ms. Memmott said a 100% owner-occupied restriction for a certain number of years made more sense to her. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. Mr. Jones explained the development would have an HOA, and a lot of HOAs had capped the number of properties within the HOA that could be rented. The proposed development agreement would require the HOA to cap rentals and have a deed restriction recorded on the properties so that buyers knew about the cap before purchase, with any violation enforced by the City. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 8 An ordinance adjusting the common boundary between Provo and Springville along 1400 North in Springville (25-021) (1:20:23) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-25, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Dahneke stated the proposed ordinance was the final step in the boundary line adjustment process. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. He invited Council discussion. With none, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 9 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses and floor area ratio in the Specialty Support Commercial (SSC) Zone. City-wide application (PLOTA20250083) (1:22:00) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-26, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Mary Barnes, Planner, presented a proposed text amendment to the SSC Zone to add Indoor Storage Units and Drive-Throughs as permitted uses. The applicant requested that the Council entirely remove the permissible floor area ratio requirement, staff recommended a 30% lot coverage requirement, and the Planning Commission counter-recommended a 34% lot coverage requirement based on the concept plan provided by the applicant. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 6 of 18 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 Bogdin said during the Planning Commission meeting, neighbors mentioned an issue with the mailbox on an existing residential property across 3470 North having been hit by traffic many times. Councilor Bogdin asked if the section of street could be widened to resolve the problem. Mr. Haight said a traffic study would be needed. He said the driveway referred to was in the middle of the street and created a weird anomaly. Mr. Haight explained that additional right-of-way would be needed from the subject project in order to widen the road. Mr. Jones said the Council could find that approval should be conditioned on improvement of the road. If the applicant found such improvement would be feasible, they could enter into a development agreement with the City to guarantee the fix. Chair Garrett asked Douglas Nielsen, applicant, if he had concerns about 3470 North. Mr. Nielsen said he was told by the Public Works Department that the current road width was adequate for the proposed project. Councilor MacKay asked if the townhomes would be for sale, and if there would be an owner-occupied requirement. Mr. Nielsen said he intended to keep the units and operate them as rentals. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Robert Hammond, Provo resident, said he spoke on behalf of the Riverside neighborhood. He said Mr. Nielsen had brought development of the property forward three times. He said at a neighborhood meeting, 25 voted in favor of the proposed rezone with one against, and 19 voted in favor of the proposed text amendment with zero against. Mr. Hammond said he appreciated the quality that had already been developed in the Jamestown project. He expressed concern with traffic and the presence of multiple drive-throughs in a small space. Mr. Hammon said drivers came off University Avenue onto 3470 North at a high speed, which would cause traffic problems with the proposed number of drive- throughs. He said he had hoped the townhomes would be owner occupied instead of rentals. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said she appreciated the Planning Commission recommendation for a 34% lot coverage requirement. She suggested widening 3470 North would give a little more leeway and reduce the number of problems with the driveway across the street. Ms. Memmott asked if the percentage would need to be changed in the text amendment if Mr. Nielsen were to give up a couple of feet. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. Councilor Bogdin asked if it was the blind driveway or the width of the road that was the problem. Mr. Haight said he believed the driveway in the middle of the road was the issue. The State would need to be involved to restrict access from University Avenue. Mr. Haight said the traffic study may identify some alternatives that could be considered, but stated that whatever measures were taken, the project would increase traffic in the area and the rate at which the mailbox was hit would probably increase. Councilor Bogdin suggested right-in-right-out only from the retail/commercial access closest to University Avenue on the north. Mr. Haight expressed the opinion that fixing the driveway or doing something on-site would be a better solution. He said the City could meet with UDOT and do a safety analysis for the intersection, and if an adjustment to University Avenue was needed, the time could be spent. Mr. Haight said the traffic study would come back with recommendations. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 7 of 18 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. Barnes noted that the applicant provided additional double-drive-through concepts, but staff had not reviewed them. Mr. Nielsen said he believed it would be great if the intersection of 3470 North and University Avenue were a right-only intersection. Councilor MacKay pointed out that University Avenue was a State road, not a City road, and the decision would need to be made by the State. Mr. Nielsen suggested the UDOT encroachment area along University Avenue could be utilized as a deceleration lane. He said he wanted the intersection to be safe. Vern Keeslar, Traffic Manager, said it was highly likely with the change of land use that UDOT would require a traffic study and a right-in-right-out. Mr. Nielsen said the architect involved had experience designing double-drive-throughs. He said because of the size of the small retail site, the business would be something like a Subway, not a McDonald’s or In-n-Out Burger. He said the double-drive-through concept was working well throughout the State. Chair Garrett said the Council had been trying to move the needle more toward owner-occupied units instead of rental units and asked if Mr. Nielsen would be willing to proffer a percentage of the townhomes to be owner occupied. Mr. Nielsen responded he would not do it willingly. He said he understood the goal but did not think the six-unit project would solve the City’s problem. He said he anticipated that employees in the project would benefit from the rentals. Responding to a question from Councilor Whipple, Mr. Nielsen said it was his intention to keep and manage the units himself through a rental management group. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Naomi Flinders, Provo resident, said she heard the comment that the small project would not solve the problem, and wondered why someone would not want to help provide stability at least a small amount. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor Christensen said he liked the entire Jamestown project and said he was confident traffic issues could be solved with a traffic study. He said the homeownership issue was important, and said every home made a difference. Councilor Christensen said he could not support the project with no home ownership available. Councilor Whipple said she was supportive of the project. She suggested allowing Mr. Nielsen to build and retain and rent the townhome units, but if Mr. Nielsen were to ever decide to sell that portion of the project, the units would be required to become owner-occupied. Mr. Jones said Mr. Nielsen had already demonstrated he was a good landlord, and the issue he had with rentals was not quality of management. He said his issue was with availability of homes for sale and spoke of homeownership being part of the “American Dream.” Mr. Jones said the standard practice was for development agreements to terminate upon certificate of occupancy. He said the City had participated in extended development agreement situations through HOA rules, CC&Rs, and deed restrictions, but none of those would apply to the suggested concept. Mr. Jones commented that the ordinance for the proposed rezone under Agenda Item 10 did not contemplate a development agreement. If a development agreement became necessary to approve a rezone, the item would need to be continued to allow time to change the ordinance. He said the implied motion for Agenda Item 9 anticipated a decision having already been made concerning the permissible Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 8 of 18 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. floor area ratio requirement. The applicant proposed removal of the requirement, staff recommended a 30% lot coverage requirement, and the Planning Commission recommended a 34% lot coverage requirement. Mr. Jones said the proposed text amendment under Agenda Item 9 was proposed because of the specific project, but if approved, it would apply City-wide. He suggested the Council consider if they wanted to move forward with the text amendment at that time if they anticipated tabling the rezone. Chair Garrett read in Agenda Item 10, and invited Council discussion. (2:03:24) 10 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property, generally located at 3433 N 100 E, from the Professional Office (PO) Zone to the Specialty Support Commercial (SSC) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zones, Riverside (PLRZ20250082) (2:03:24) & (2:35:42) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-27, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Councilor Hoban said he was supportive. He said he knew the City wanted owner occupancy, but would view business, retail, and six nice rental units on a previously vacant property as a benefit. Councilor Handley said he agreed and suggested the location would not be conducive to homeownership. He expressed confidence that the units would have stability and provide local housing for workers. Councilor Handley said he agreed it would be unnecessary to approve Agenda Item 9 if the Council did not approve Agenda Item 10. Chair Garrett opened public comment on Agenda Item 10. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, said the neighbors had not voted against the project at the recent neighborhood meeting. She said the concerns had been about traffic on 3470 North. She expressed support for the idea of allowing Mr. Nielsen to rent the units and requiring owner occupancy if he ever decided to sell. Chair Garrett closed public comment, and seeing no further comment from the Council, called for a vote on the Agenda Item 10 implied motion. Vote: The motion failed with a vote of 3:4, with Councilors Handley, Hoban, and Whipple in favor, and Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, and MacKay opposed. Motion: Chair Garrett made a substitute motion relative to Ordinance 2025-27 amending the Zone Map classification to pass the rezone pending a development agreement wherein the developer would be willing to sell 66% of the townhome project and rent only two of the six units. The motion failed for lack of second. Motion: Chair Garrett made a motion to continue Ordinance 2025-27 to the May 6, 2026 Council meeting and encourage the developer to submit a development agreement. Councilor Christensen seconded the motion Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 9 of 18 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. Mr. Nielsen asked what would happen in the units were put up for sale but there were no buyers. Councilor Whipple suggested the same could be said of the whole project. Mr. Nielsen expressed the opinion that investors were more likely to be the parties interested in purchasing the units to rent out than owner-occupiers. He said the units would not have a playground or common areas, and suggested buyers looking to purchase a three-bedroom townhome for a long-term home would look in projects that offered amenities. Mr. Nielsen said he believed the units were better suited to renting and asked the Council to reconsider his argument. Chair Garrett thanked Mr. Nielsen for his comments, and said the Council had reason to believe there was a great demand for owner occupancy in Provo. Councilor Whipple asked Mr. Nielsen if it would be possible to build the rest of the project without the housing element. Mr. Nielsen said it would be possible to bifurcate the residential from the commercial portion. Motion: Councilor Whipple made a substitute motion to amend Ordinance 2025-27 to only include rezone of the SSC portion of the property and exclude the LDR portion from the ordinance. Councilor Handley seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed with a vote of 6:1, with Councilors Handley, Hoban, Christensen, Garrett, MacKay, and Whipple in favor, and Councilor Bogdin opposed. Mr. Jones said the portion of the road that would be affected by changes to the Agenda Item 9 text amendment was adjacent to the LDR portion of the project, which was removed from the rezone text. He advised the Council that a motion for Agenda Item 9 would be appropriate. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-26, as currently constituted (Agenda Item 9). Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Mr. Jones pointed out the Council needed to decide which Exhibit B to include prior to voting on Ordinance 2025-26. Motion: Councilor Hoban moved to reconsider the previous vote. Councilor Bogdin seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Motion: Councilor Whipple moved to amend Ordinance 2025-26 to include Exhibit B with the 34%. Councilor Handley seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 10 of 18 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 called for a vote on the implied motion to approve the amended Ordinance 2025-26. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Mr. Jones said he would bring back the changes drafted to amended Ordinance 2025-27 later in the meeting. 11 An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of real property, generally located at 1780 South State Street, from the Agricultural (A1.5) Zone to the Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zone, Spring Creek Neighborhood (PLRZ20240369) (2:24:12) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-28, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Ms. Barnes showed on a map the property for proposed rezone, and said the applicant requested the rezone to be able to build flex-office warehouse space, including a drive-through component. She said concerns expressed in a neighborhood meeting included access for pick-up and drop-off at the neighboring charter school, and proximity to the school. Ms. Barnes said the Planning Commission had concerns about types of uses permitted in the PIC Zone and permitted noise levels. She said the applicant indicated there was no room for any kind of formal loading dock that would fit a semitruck. The applicant planned overhead doors to accommodate smaller delivery trucks. Dustin Cutler, Lehi resident and applicant, responded to questions and comments from the Council. Councilor MacKay said she liked Mr. Cutler’s other projects and hoped he would build a good high-end project at the subject location. Mr. Cutler said he had developed next to a charter school before and knew from experience that charter school traffic was worse than any traffic that would result from his small commercial building. He said the school impact was short and was not expected to disrupt business tenants. Chair Garrett spoke of disruption caused by construction and asked for the anticipated build-out time. Mr. Cutler said the work would take less than a year and would have minimal noise impact. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. He invited Council discussion, and seeing none, called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Mr. Jones presented the amended Ordinance 2025-27 (Agenda Item 10), with all references to the Low- Density Residential Zone (LDR) removed. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the amended implied motion. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 11 of 18 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. 12 An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of real property, generally located at 130 S. 2050 W., from the One-Family Residential (R1.8) Zone to the One-Family Residential Performance Development Overlay (R1.8PD) Zone, Provo Bay (PLRZ20240323) (2:37:37) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-29, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Dustin Wright, Planner, explained an application to apply the Performance Development Overlay (PDO) to three acres currently zoned One-Family Residential to build clustered townhomes. The northern portion of the same parcel was rezoned to Mixed-Use Zone in 2023 and developed with commercial and 60 residential units. Mr. Wright said the General Plan showed residential for the area. The Planning Commission found the concept plan presented to them did not meet the requirements for the zone. The proposed rezone before the Council did not include a concept plan. He said the Southwest Plan recommended three units per gross acre. Councilor Bogdin asked for a brief recess. Chair Garrett called a ten-minute recess at 8:06 pm. The Council reconvened at 8:16 pm. Chair Garrett welcomed comment from the applicant. Steve Turley, applicant, distributed physical copies of presentation pages he had amended during the meeting. He said he watched the recent Housing Summit and saw it as an invitation for the community to come together and provide affordable housing opportunities. Mr. Turley said the subject property was narrow and subject to a driveway prohibition on 2050 West. He said he put together a hybrid of a pocket neighborhood and clustering and pointed out that property across the street from the subject property was also zoned R1.8PD. Mr. Turley said staff suggested he request the PDO for flexibility. He said the base density of the proposed project would be 15 units, and with added variation to the units, the project would qualify under the PDO for a variation to 17 units. Speaking of sewer capacity, Mr. Turley said sewer holding tanks were widely used across the United States to overcome sewer capacity issues. Mr. Turley said he did not have a problem with putting together a development agreement. He said he would be happy to deed restrict to ensure owner occupancy at R2 density, which would allow five more units. Mr. Turley said he found it painful that less than 5% of Provo residents could qualify for a $450,000 townhome and said he would not build single-family homes on the subject property considering the current housing market in Provo. He said he hoped for an opportunity for dialog with the Council to find solutions to any concerns. Chair Garrett opened and closed public comment seeing no one come forward. He invited Council discussion. Chair Garrett said he would benefit from time to review and get feedback from staff regarding the material revised by Mr. Turley that evening. Councilor Handley said a lot of information was presented that had not been available for Council review prior to the meeting and said he did not know anything about sewer holding tanks. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 12 of 18 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. Vote: The implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-29 failed 0:7 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple opposed. 13 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding use of Transportation Utility Fee funds and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule (25-028) (3:08:13) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-30, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Vern Keeslar, Traffic Manager, shared a history of Transportation Utility Fees (TUF) in Provo City, and showed current TUFs for eight use categories (Residential A and B, Commercial, A, B, C, and D, and Public Use A and B). The total annual revenue from TUFs in 2024 was $2,700,000. Provo had only increased the TUF once since implementation in 2014. Staff pointed out that the fees implemented by the City in 2014 were half what the study reported they should be. Mr. Keeslar emphasized that Provo followed the “good roads cost less” idea, and said roads were maintained conservatively. Mr. Keeslar presented a proposed TUF increase and a proposed ordinance amendment. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Eric Davis with Brigham Young University said the Supreme Court approved Transportation Utility Fees in principle, but not as applied. He said the challenge would always be whether an ordinance could be drafted that met the test of equity and proportionality that was constitutionally required. Mr. Davis said the concern of BYU was that City streets were not truly a utility, but were public property, and that Transportation Utility Fees were not truly fees, but a property tax. He said proposed changes to the ordinance would exacerbate the problems and said it appeared the intent would be to have property owners bear all costs of road maintenance, while other users of the roads paid none of the cost. Mr. Davis said the more the fees were expanded, the more they looked like revenue generation instead of fees for services provided. He asked who the intended beneficiary of the fees would be, what services would fee payers get that the general public would not get, what was included in “reasonable administrative costs,” and were the administrative costs truly related to services provided. Naomi Flinders, Provo resident, asked why BYU would be against Transportation Utility Fees because the whole community was connected, and everyone used the roads. Silvia Andrew, Provo resident, said she agreed with Mr. Davis that the roads should be a user fee, not a property fee. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, thanked the Council for the Transportation Utility Fee, and for not exempting non-profit organizations. She questioned why the proposed increase for the next three years was so high and asked what constituted reasonable administrative costs. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Councilor MacKay said the study done in 2014 reported the TUF should be more than $6.00 per home, but the Council chose to implement half the recommended amount. The TUF had only been increased once since 2014, and the cost of the fee with the proposed increase would still be under the $6.00 per home recommended in 2014. She said the proposed ordinance amendment would allow TUF revenue to be used to fund the transportation studies required by the Federal government for the TUF. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 13 of 18 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 Whipple asked if revenue from the TUF would cover all costs of road maintenance. Mr. Keeslar said the TUF revenue would not come close to paying the entire cost of road maintenance. Councilor Whipple said everyone, including BYU, benefited from maintained roads. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 14 An ordinance amending water fees on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule (25-013) (3:26:42) Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-31, as currently constituted, has been made by Council rule. Mr. Haight described analysis done by staff, and said staff recommended the Council consider a 5% increase (2025) on a tiered water rate structure. Mr. Haight said he personally believed it would be possible to meet infrastructure and conservation goals without a fee increase. Keith Larsen of Bowen Collins and Associates said the recommended rate increase schedule previously presented to the Council had been updated to consider potential income from developer contributions, a decrease of $1.1 million in administrative costs, and a shift in project timing. He presented the following rate increase schedule. Updated Previous Year Recommended Recommendation Rate Increase 2025 12% 5% 2026 8% 5% 2027 7% 5% 2028 6% 8% 2029 6% 8% 2030 6% 7% 2031 6% 7% 2032 6% 4% 2033 6% 4% Mr. Larsen said House Bill 274 (2025): required water supplier rates to incorporate increasing block units of water used (i.e., tiered structure); required water suppliers to consider water conservation when setting water rates; and stipulated that water rates must be based on a generally accepted rate setting method, including a standard or method established by the American Water Works Association. He said the proposed rate schedule complied with the requirements of HB274. Mr. Larsen presented tier breaks and showed that moving from the current structure to a tiered structure would result in less of a monthly increase for low and average users. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 14 of 18 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 said she had worked on calculations for residents who had contacted her and found the increase to not be consistent across different users. She said she found that the increase for most users would be 5% or less, and the increase for top users would be crazy high. Councilor MacKay said she did not think some users should be charged so much higher, and said it felt punitive. She said she did not understand the idea that larger lots put more stress on the system. Councilor MacKay asked why staff called it a 5% increase. Mr. Larsen clarified that the revenue the City would receive would increase by 5%. He said the proposed structure tiered by user type would result in higher users paying a higher rate. Responding to a request from Councilor Bogdin, Mr. Larsen explained proposed base rates, tier volume breaks with three tiers, and tier volume costs. Councilor Hoban said other cities in the area had between four and eight tiers, which he believed took the lot size into consideration. He asked why staff did not recommend more tiers/size classifications. Mr. Larsen said additional tier volumes would have necessitated higher proposed rates. He said staff tried to find a balance to cover 95% of the customers with the existing subsidy removed. Councilor Hoban said the other 5% of customers would see a large monthly increase, which he did not believe was fair. Mayor Kaufusi thanked citizens for their outreach and feedback. She read aloud a statement underscoring that the responsibility for setting water rates lay with the Council. She said she was actively exploring options that reflected citizen and Public Works Department input and respectfully asked the City Council to allow her the opportunity to fully vet alternatives and present a proposed water rate and tier approach in two weeks as part of her budget presentation. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Mark Sutra, Provo resident, said he did not agree with the idea that residents with larger lots used more water than higher density housing. He spoke of xeriscaping restrictions, and suggested residents should be allowed to xeriscape with fewer restrictions to actively conserve water. Mr. Sutra asked the Council not penalize people with larger lots in Provo. John Bennion, Provo resident and member of the Conserve Utah Valley Board, said the Board urged the Council to follow the recommendation of the expert study commissioned by the City and increase expenditure on replacement of water mains with funds coming from a three-tiered rate schedule. He said the proposed structure would equitably align and place the burden on those who burdened the ancient water mains the most, with the least cost to those who used less water, encouraging conservation. Mr. Bennion said he had heard nothing that evening to change his opinion. Derek Brutton, Provo resident, said the City was facing large water infrastructure investment, and said he appreciated the serious thought put into the matter by staff, the Council, and the community. He expressed support for the City taking the long-term view in doing what was right for the citizens. Lisa Rivera, Provo resident, said she understood there was a need for increasing rates, and asked the Council to think through the tiers more. She said landscaping made Utah beautiful and said she believed the tiered system would discourage gardening and landscaping. Ms. Rivera said it saddened her that families who were already struggling would see significant increases in water costs. She said the City needed to find a way for everyone, particularly high-density housing, to contribute. Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 15 of 18 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. Dave Lewis, Provo resident, said he agreed the City needed to be proactive with old water lines, but said he believed the proposal would raise the rates more than necessary, and appreciated the Mayor asking for a couple of weeks to be able to include a proposal with her budget presentation. Silvia Ander, Provo resident, asked the Council not raise water rates to the extent proposed. Joann Ellsworth, Provo resident, said she had an agriculturally zoned lot, a large garden, and an above- ground pool where she taught swimming lessons in the summers. She said the proposed rate structure made her feel like Provo did not want anything but high-density houses. She asked if the City did not want agricultural land anymore. Ted Tronson, Provo resident, said he lived in an HOA. When the HOA was built, Provo City required a lot of grass, trees, and mow strips. The green space used a lot of water, and the proposed increase would have an impact. He said water was cheap, and the biggest cost was the infrastructure. Mr. Tronson said the pipe size and amount of water did not matter and suggested the City should pursue a bond arrangement to fund infrastructure costs. Tina Carter, Provo resident, said the proposed Tier 2 rate for Provo was higher than the current Orem City Tier 2 rate, and asked why it would be higher since Provo water came from wells and did not need to be treated. She suggested the City ask Orem how their rates were so much lower. Ms. Carter expressed concern that there were so many Provo residents who were not aware of the proposed increase and asked if the Council had really considered whether the Tier 3 residents would even be able to afford the proposed increase. She emphasized residents needed to know what was happening before the Council made a decision. Joseph Billings, Provo resident, said the tiered structure seemed unfair, and asked why the proposed rate increase was so high. Amanda Burnell, Provo resident, said she could not afford to buy a home and did not want to have to tell her kids they could not play in the sprinklers. She said she had questions about the rates for different pipe sizes. Sharron Memmott, Provo resident, asked if the current winter and summer rate structure would go away, and said she did not understand how anyone’s rate would go down with the proposed structure. She asked the reason for the proposed increase if needs could be met without an increase as Mr. Haight said. Ms. Memmott said she would appreciate additional tiers, and suggested each tier not increase by more than 5%. She expressed interest in the Mayor’s proposal. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited Council discussion. Councilor Whipple said she took Public Works seriously when they said the City had an $80 million shortfall in repair and maintenance of water pipes because inflation had gone up, and the cost to repair and replace pipes had increased every year. She said the standard of pipes had gone up overtime, and pipes installed now would last longer than the existing pipes. Councilor Whipple said the Council had received the presentation in nine public meetings and said the proposed structure would cause those who used the most water and caused the water to cost more for everyone, would bear the majority of the burden. She said the Mayor’s Office asked for more time to look at the rates in February when the Council considered a 12% increase, and the proposed 5% increase was the result. Councilor Whipple said Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 16 of 18 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. she was uncomfortable with the reduction to 5% because she took the need for repair and replacement of water infrastructure seriously. She expressed the opinion that the original plan presented to the Council was the most responsible way to address infrastructure needs, and said the revised proposed structure had an element of speculation that made her nervous. Councilor Whipple said she would be willing to go along with the proposed structure because it would be reevaluated by the Council every year. She said she did not agree with the political pressure to do nothing. She said she was grateful the administration was looking at different options but frustrated that they did not begin looking sooner. Councilor Whipple said the City had enjoyed cheap water for a long time, but conditions had changed. She pointed out there were more and less efficient forms of landscaping, and property owners had some control over how much water they used. Councilor Whipple said she was surprised by Mr. Haight’s statement that needs could be met without an increase, and surprised by the Mayor’s request for more time, because she felt the statements undermined the hard work the Council had been doing, and diminished willingness to make the hard, responsible decisions. She said she did not want to kick the can down the road. Councilor Handley said he felt misled about what the problem was because he had taken the reports seriously for the last two years. He said every study he had looked at reported that if the City did not raise the needed revenue to do needed work in a timely manner, the work would end up costing the City at least 60% more. He stated not raising the rates was the fiscally irresponsible thing to do. Councilor Handley said not enough had been said about the need for conservation. He said the law passed by the State required that the City had meaningful tiers that adequately accounted for impact to the system and contributed to water conservation. He said he could not find any factual evidence to support the claim that higher density would be subsidized by raising rates on heavier water users. Councilor Handley pointed out that more tiers would mean even higher rates for the higher users. He said there was an exception to gardening, and more efficient forms of landscaping than Kentucky Blue Grass. He said he believed the Council had been very transparent and felt strongly the Council should move forward with the proposed rates. Councilor Hoban said there was not a gardening exception, but there was an urban farming exception with no attached criteria. He suggested criteria should be adopted. Councilor Hoban expressed the opinion that Conserve Utah Valley did not get to be the moral police on when his water use was too much. He said his family used his grass space, and he had a right to have grass. He said he did not understand the comment that having a large lot did not mean he had to use a lot of water. Councilor Hoban said an urban farming exception should be delivered before the Council voted. He asked the Council to wait and give the Mayor a chance to present another option. Councilor Christensen said he did not like the current inflationary environment. He said as a member of the Council, he wanted to do his part for the City and do what was right for the City. He expressed confidence in the way the Council had gone about the issue and said he did not agree with kicking the can down the road. He said he was willing to wait two weeks if the Mayor and Mr. Haight believed they had an alternative. He said he was willing to make the hard decision and do what was best for the City. Councilor MacKay said she wanted to wait the two weeks and acknowledged that something needed to be done. She said she also did not want to kick the can down the road. She said she did not agree with paying enormous differences per gallon and did not understand the concept that higher users were responsible for the higher rates. Councilor MacKay said she was interested in knowing why rates were Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 17 of 18 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. so much less in Orem. She said she did not believe there had been intentional lack of transparency by anyone. Councilor Bogdin said she was frustrated because the Public Works Department fell under supervision of the Mayor’s Office, and she assumed the Mayor’s Office would have signed off on a presentation by Public Works. She said she felt the Council had been thrown under the bus that evening and believed some of the communication should have happened prior to the Council meeting. Councilor Bogdin said the City hired independent consultants to study and tell the City where the tiers needed to be, what the law said, and how to abide by industry standards. If funds were not raised and needed maintenance done, bigger waterline breaks would happen more frequently. She said she hoped if the Council waited two more weeks it would be the end of the administration acting surprised and asking for more time. Councilor Bogdin expressed support for the proposed tier structure. Motion: Chair Garrett motioned to continue this item to a future Council meeting. Councilor Hoban seconded the motion. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 4:3 with Councilors Christensen, Garrett, Hoban, and MacKay in favor, and Councilors Bogdin, Handley, and Whipple opposed. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 10:26 pm. 26th of May, 2026 Provo City Council Meeting – April 22, 2025 Page 18 of 18