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 Redevelopment Agency Governing Board Stormwater Service District Governing Board Regular Meeting Minutes 5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 17, 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 (Remote) 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 – Jennifer Dees Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Hoban Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 Provo City Employee of the Month - June 2025 (25-007) 0:00:00 Mayor Kaufusi emphasized the importance of celebrating exceptional employees whose dedication and professionalism positively impact the community. She invited Gary Calder, Water Division Director, to present the June 2025 Employee of the Month Award to a member of the Public Works team, Shellie Turnbow, and invited him to speak about her accomplishments. Mr. Calder stated that Shellie does not enjoy being in the spotlight but emphasized her significant contributions to the Public Works Department. He explained that Shellie manages the lab at the water reclamation plant and is a strong advocate for Dave Torgersen, who also helps manage the plant. In addition to her work at the plant, she is responsible for water sampling of the city’s drinking water, fulfilling a dual role. Gary noted that Shellie is highly respected, well-liked by her peers, and known for her strong work ethic. He also pointed out that her family was present in the audience and described her as a key leader at the plant who leads by example. He expressed deep appreciation for her service. Ms. Turnbow said that speaking before the City Council was a personal goal for the year and thanked the Council for the opportunity. She said she felt honored and humbled to receive the Employee of the Month Award and extended sincere appreciation to Provo City and the Water Resources Division for the recognition. Shellie emphasized that the award reflected the collective efforts of her entire team, not just her own. She thanked her manager, Dave Torgersen, for his guidance and support, and acknowledged her colleagues for their collaboration and teamwork. She concluded by expressing Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 1 of 12 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. gratitude for the opportunity to work at the Water Reclamation Facility and reaffirmed her commitment to contributing to its ongoing success. 2 A presentation recognizing Provo Power line crew participants in the Light Up Navajo initiative (25-007) 0:05:00 Mayor Kaufusi shared that she had the honor of introducing a group of four individuals who participated in a recent event, noting that three of them were present at the meeting. She stated that a video would be shown to tell the full story of their experience. Scott Bunker, Energy Director, thanked the Council for the opportunity to recognize the linemen and spoke about the pride and dedication they bring to their work. He noted that linemen often perform at their best during the worst conditions such as bad weather, late nights, and challenging situations that most would avoid. He introduced Elijah Konchar, Braeden Walker, and Brian Groesbeck, and acknowledged Alan Hone, the foreman who accompanied them. Scott highlighted the impact of their recent deployment, noting that 10,000 families on the reservation were still without power and that over 40 companies participated in the effort to restore electricity. He expressed hope that Provo Power can continue supporting similar efforts in the future, emphasizing that while these experiences benefit those being served, they also provide valuable perspective and growth for those who serve. He concluded by thanking the linemen for their efforts. Public Comment 0:15:52 Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble and opened the public comment period. Andrew Thompson, of Provo, expressed frustration that several issues he previously raised have not been addressed. He listed concerns including the utility poles and sidewalks, lack of handicap parking at the farmers market, and the need for loading zones and a curb cut on 100 South to improve accessibility. He also shared a personal experience about being unable to access Rock Canyon in a wheelchair due to closely spaced steel posts at the trailhead, despite the presence of accessible parking and restrooms. Additionally, he raised concerns about the need for better coordination with UTA on bus stop placements, noting that blame is often shifted to the City. He requested to know who is responsible for liaising with UTA and called for a dedicated coordinator to address these ongoing accessibility and transportation issues. Mike Roan, of Provo, addressed the Council regarding two letters he had sent expressing concern over the use of a statement stuffer that he believes violates both state and federal election laws. He explained that the material, recently included with utility bills, appeared to promote a specific candidate by referring to them as the "sewer mayor" and providing them with widespread exposure during an election period. He estimated the cost of producing and distributing the material to 38,000 households at approximately $200,000, which he viewed as an unfair advantage. Mike referenced IRS guidelines included in his second letter and warned that such use of public resources could jeopardize the City’s tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3). He noted that he consulted a retired federal judge who, while unofficial, believed the situation likely constitutes a legal violation. Mike urged the City to take the matter seriously to avoid repeating costly legal disputes, referencing a past issue involving signage near a medical clinic in North Provo. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 2 of 12 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. Mary Sorenson, of Provo, shared her experience from June 7, stating that she was unable to leave her neighborhood due to road closures for the Utah Valley Marathon. She noted that the 10K typically starts near Canyon Crest and the marathon proceeds down University Avenue, making travel from her area difficult. Mary expressed frustration that there was no clear communication about the closures this year. She checked the marathon website but found no updates, unlike in previous years when information was shared through the Mayor’s Instagram and City Pages. She also contacted both the non-emergency police line and Provo City customer service but was placed on hold for over five minutes by both. Mary stated that this reflected a broader communication issue within the city and urged the City to improve external and internal communication, especially regarding road closures for large events like the Utah Valley Marathon and the Freedom Festival. She emphasized that a single post made less than 24 hours before the race was not sufficient. Cindy Reid, of Provo, commented on the notice regarding the transfer of utility funds, expressing frustration with both the content of the notice and recent utility rate increases. She noted that the notice claims the transfer helps keep property taxes low, yet her property taxes have increased by 61% since 2020. She also pointed out that water rates were raised this year, while $2.6 million was transferred from the water utility to the general fund. Cindy expressed particular concern about the storm drain utility, referencing an incident in August when manhole covers along 3950 North blew off due to heavy water flow. She described recurring flooding issues near her home at the bottom of 3950 North and Canyon Road, attributing the problem to inadequate storm drain infrastructure that has not been updated to account for new residential development in the area. Despite investing thousands of dollars in private drainage improvements, she stated that water regularly overwhelms the system and floods her property, noting that it has happened at least a dozen times during her time living there. Chair Garrett closed public comment. Action Agenda 3 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding covered parking structures on historic landmark properties. (PLOTA20250179) 0:26:42 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-36, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Dustin Wright, City Planner, explained that the proposed text amendment applies to properties in ADU overlay areas that are also on the Provo Historic Landmark Register. The amendment would remove the requirement for covered parking on these properties while still requiring four total parking spaces. The applicant owns a historic property without covered parking and wants to add an ADU. Staff reviewed the proposal and believed it would help support the preservation and financial stability of historic properties. The Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation, and the legal department later revised to align the amendment with state requirements. Staff recommended approval of the updated version. Councilor MacKay asked what particular house that brought this to light. Mr. Wright said the property is the Hendrickson Mansion located at 600 West and 300 South. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 3 of 12 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. Wendy Holdaway, applicant, shared that she purchased the Henriksen Mansion in 2015 and was captivated by its history, referring to the home as “Isabella.” Despite a pre-sale inspection, she discovered significant structural issues, including a failed roof that caused adobe walls to deteriorate and a collapsed sewer line with a junction box under a neighbor’s carport. She has since invested heavily in restoring the Victorian home, even working with the same masons who rebuilt the Provo Tabernacle. Wendy expressed her deep commitment to preserving the house and requested a change to the civil code to allow her to use the property as a multi-generational home, as it was originally intended, without compromising its historical character. Councilor Bogdin asked in order for the property to qualify for an ADU, there would need to be an external entrance point. Ms. Holdaway explained that the home was originally designed as a multi-generational house and still includes two separate entrances and two distinct living spaces, all up to code and inspection standards. She noted that the property has four off-street parking spaces, meeting requirements, with the only remaining issue being the lack of a covered parking structure. She expressed concern that adding a modern carport would detract from the historic appearance of the home. Due to a setback limitation— 19 feet instead of the required 20.5 feet—she is unable to build a traditional garage and prefers not to install a vinyl carport that would compromise the home’s historic character. Ms. Holdaway explained that she had explored several options and was advised by the Planning Commission that pursuing a text amendment would be the most efficient route, as a variance for a Victorian-style garage would likely not be granted due to setback limitations. Councilor Bogdin questioned whether a variance could resolve the setback issue, to which Ms. Holdaway reiterated the challenges involved. Councilor Bogdin also asked if the interior of the home had been modernized. Ms. Holdaway responded that while the home now includes modern features such as five bathrooms and two kitchens, she has made every effort to preserve the historical character by maintaining original layouts, ceiling heights, and overall appearance. She emphasized her commitment to restoring the home to its original 1886 condition, not simply updating it. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he invited a council discussion. Councilor MacKay thanked Ms. Holdaway for restoring the beautiful home. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 4 A resolution approving the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement to authorize Provo City’s participation in the Utah Valley HOME Consortium (25-069) 0:36:39 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-32, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 4 of 12 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. Melissa McNalley, Redevelopment Director, requested approval of a resolution allowing Provo City to continue participating in the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, which provides HUD funding for affordable housing initiatives. She explained that the consortium includes Provo City, Utah County, Lehi City, Orem City, and the addition of Eagle Mountain. The agreement allows HOME funds to be used across participating communities. Ms. McNalley noted that the renewed agreement would take effect on October 1 and that Provo City would continue serving as the lead entity, responsible for reporting and ensuring compliance with HUD regulations. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 5 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding certain employee retirement programs (25-064) 0:39:19 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-37, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Daniel Softley, Director of Human Resources, requested an amendment to Section 4.04.100 of the Provo City Code to increase supplemental retirement contributions for employee groups that do not participate in Social Security. He explained that Social Security, formally known as Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), is a federally mandated retirement program, but state and local governments may opt out if they provide an alternative retirement plan of equal value. He noted that Provo City previously opted out of Social Security for sworn police officers and firefighters, while all other employees continue to participate. Mr. Softley stated that the current code allows the City to match up to 2% of employee contributions to a supplemental 401(k) plan. He explained that market research showed agencies that do not participate in Social Security typically offer higher supplemental retirement contributions, with a median match of 4%. The proposed ordinance amendment would increase the City’s matching contribution from 2% to 4% for sworn police officers and firefighters in order to remain competitive with similar agencies. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 6 A public hearing regarding management salary increases (25-073) 0:42:46 Mr. Softley explained that the item was a public hearing required under Utah State Code 10-3-818 before adoption of a final budget or amended budget that includes compensation increases for executive municipal officers. He noted that executive municipal officers include the chief administrative officer, department heads, assistant department heads, and division directors. He stated that the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget includes a 2.5% merit increase for executive employees, consistent with the step increases planned for regular employees, as well as 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment currently included in the budget. He also noted that a complete list of executive positions by Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 5 of 12 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. department and division is available on the City’s website under the Human Resources pay and compensation page. Chair Garrett confirmed that the increases were already included in the proposed budget. Councilor Christensen asked Mr. Softley to explain why the proposed compensation increase for executive employees is important at a time when the City is experiencing rising expenses. He noted that the proposal represented a significant increase and asked what value the pay adjustment would provide to Provo residents and the community. Mr. Softley explained that compensation adjustments are intended to help the City attract and retain highly qualified employees with expertise in their respective fields. He noted that many nearby agencies actively compete for experienced personnel, making competitive compensation important for retention. He stated that the City conducts an annual compensation study comparing salaries across approximately 25 similar agencies and bases pay decisions on those findings. Mr. Softley described the City’s approach as conservative but competitive, explaining that the goal is to remain near the median of comparable agencies in order to retain key executive staff. Chair Garrett asked Mr. Softley about the City’s current employee turnover rate and how it compares to similar agencies and the broader market. He also asked specifically about turnover among management and executive employees. Mr. Softley stated that turnover among management employees is very low and is typically due to retirements. He explained that the City’s overall employee turnover rate averages around 10% annually, which includes retirements, deaths, and employees leaving for other opportunities. He noted that voluntary turnover, which more accurately reflects employees leaving for other agencies, is closer to 5% annually. He added that Human Resources has tracked these trends for several decades. Chair Garrett opened item for public comment. With none, he invited a council discussion. Councilor Bogdin shared a conversation she had with family members about issues occurring in another city, where residents were dissatisfied with city leadership and operations. She stated that the concerns appeared to stem more from staffing and administration issues than from elected officials. She said the discussion made her appreciate the quality of Provo City employees and emphasized the importance of maintaining competitive compensation to retain experienced and capable staff. Councilor Bogdin expressed concern that without competitive pay, talented employees could be recruited by other agencies. She voiced strong support for the proposal, stating that Provo is fortunate to have highly skilled employees and that losing them would be a significant loss to the City. Chair Garrett thanked Mr. Softley for the information. 7 An ordinance adopting a public safety impact fee combined table and amending city code in reference to it. (25-065) 0:49:59 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-38, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 6 of 12 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. Brian Jones, City Attorney, explained that the ordinance addressed updates related to the City’s public safety impact fee. He stated that the City previously combined separate police and fire impact fees into a single public safety impact fee to better align with state law terminology. He emphasized that the change did not create a new fee or increase existing fees but simply combined the two existing fees into one category. Mr. Jones noted that the consolidated fee schedule included in the proposed budget reflects this combined fee. He explained that the ordinance updates the City Code to reference the public safety impact fee using the correct terminology and reorganizes the related code section accordingly. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 8 An ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026, in the amount of $319,675,508. (25-025) 1:04:25 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-39, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Chair Garrett announced that the order of the next two agenda items would be reversed in order to first hold the required public hearing regarding the annual disclosure of funds transferred from utility enterprise funds to other funds as part of the upcoming budget process. *The council moved to Item 9* Kelsey Zarbock, Budget Officer, stated that the proposed budget represented the culmination of approximately six months of work to develop a balanced budget that incorporates Council priorities. She expressed appreciation to the Council, Mayor, departments, and staff for their efforts throughout the budget process. She explained that the Council received the tentative budget on May 6 following multiple budget presentations and noted that the first required public hearing was held on June 3, with the current meeting serving as the second and final public hearing on the budget. Ms. Zarbock outlined that the proposed ordinance would adopt the Fiscal Year 2026 budget and its amendments, approve the certified property tax rates without increasing property taxes, adopt the pay range table, and approve the consolidated fee schedule with updated fees. Councilor Christensen expressed appreciation to Kelsey Zarbock and the Finance team for their extensive work on the budget process. Chair Garrett opened the second of the two required public hearings on the proposed Fiscal Year budget and invited members of the public to provide comments. He stated that since there were no comments, he closed the public hearing and returned to the Council for discussion. Councilor MacKay stated that although she was unable to fully participate in the previous Council meeting due to travel and technical difficulties, she had since reviewed the budget in detail and was generally supportive of it. However, she expressed continued concerns regarding the proposed tiered water rate structure, specifically the adopted 3.3% adjustment. She stated that while she supports Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 7 of 12 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. tiered rates and recognizes the need for additional revenue to maintain water infrastructure, she did not agree with what she viewed as a punitive impact on larger residential lots. She questioned the reasoning that larger lots are the primary driver of infrastructure demands and noted that major water users also include parks, sports complexes, commercial properties, schools, BYU, and golf courses. She argued that larger residential lots represent only a small portion of overall water usage and are often older properties that existed long before more recent development and growth. Councilor MacKay also expressed concern about the effect of higher water costs on landscaping, trees, and overall neighborhood quality of life. She emphasized the environmental and community benefits of trees and green space and cautioned against policies that could encourage residents to remove landscaping. She noted that citywide water usage has remained relatively flat despite population growth and stated that residents are already conscious of water conservation. She further stated that the proposed structure does not directly measure actual conservation efforts, noting that some residents on larger lots may use water more efficiently than those on smaller properties. While she acknowledged that revisions had improved the proposal from its original version, she remained opposed to the current structure and stated that she would vote against the budget if the 3.3% water rate adjustment remained included. Chair Garrett asked Councilor MacKay whether she preferred the proposed 2.5% increase rather than the 3.3% increase. Councilor MacKay responded that she supported increasing revenue for infrastructure improvements, even up to 5% overall, but felt that implementing the tiered rate structure was more complex than a simple rate increase. She stated that she believed the Mayor’s proposed 2.5% approach was responsible and appropriate. Councilor MacKay added that establishing the tiered system was an important first step and that future general increases could then be implemented gradually as needed to meet infrastructure goals. Councilor Hoban stated that he agreed with Councilor MacKay’s concerns regarding the water rate proposal and noted that he had supported a different option discussed previously, although he did not intend to make a motion to revisit the issue. He then asked a question regarding the urban farming provision, noting that the current language states that the Water Resources Director may grant exemptions for customers participating in urban farming. He sought clarification on the scope and application of that provision. Mr. Jones explained that the urban farming exemption language was currently part of a draft policy still under consideration. He stated that because the Council establishes utility rates, any exemptions to those rates would likely require a formal ordinance amendment approved by the Council. He noted that the new rates would not take effect until September 1 and that state law requires the City to have an urban farming policy in place. Mr. Jones advised that Public Works would need to return with a proposed ordinance before September 1 defining the applicable exemptions. Councilor Hoban expressed support for creating an urban farming exemption, noting that it could benefit residents with larger lots who use their property for purposes such as fruit trees and gardening. However, he raised concerns about the draft policy language being too open-ended and lacking clear criteria for determining eligibility and exemptions. He cautioned that leaving such decisions solely to the discretion of the Water Resources Director could create inconsistency and expose the City to complaints or challenges regarding unequal treatment. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 8 of 12 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. Jones agreed that the current draft language was only preliminary and stated that he would not recommend adopting an ordinance without clearly defined criteria. He explained that the draft policy included in the meeting materials was not part of the budget ordinance and carried no legal effect. He clarified that the City is required by state law to have an urban farming policy in place before the new rates take effect on September 1 and expressed confidence that a formal ordinance with appropriate standards could be brought back to the Council before that deadline. Councilor Hoban stated that he wanted to ensure the City was not adopting an unclear or legally questionable policy, and Mr. Jones confirmed that no such policy was being approved as part of the current budget action. Councilor Handley stated that he was pleased with both the budget process and the proposed budget. He acknowledged the earlier discussion regarding water rates and appreciated Councilor MacKay having the opportunity to fully express her concerns. He noted that the Council had already voted on the issue and stated that he did not believe further discussion was necessary. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 5:2 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, and Whipple in favor. Councilors Hoban and MacKay opposed. 9 A public hearing regarding the annual disclosure of funds transferred from the utility enterprise funds to other funds for the upcoming budget. (25-025) 0:53:18 Dan Follett, Division Director of Finance, presented. He explained that the City recently distributed notices to utility ratepayers regarding transfers from utility enterprise funds to other City funds, as required by state law. He stated that Provo City has historically budgeted transfers from utility revenues to the general fund as a dividend to taxpayers based on their investment in the City’s utility infrastructure. He noted that these funds help support services such as police, fire, parks and recreation, and other general City functions, while also helping keep property taxes lower. Mr. Follett explained that if utilities were privately owned, those dividends would instead go to private investors. He stated that the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget includes $16.36 million in utility transfers, along with an additional $1.71 million to reimburse the general fund for administrative services such as legal, human resources, information technology, and finance. The total proposed transfers equal approximately $18.08 million. He concluded by noting that state law requires the City to hold a public hearing regarding the transfers. Chair Garrett asked Mr. Follett to provide context on how the proposed utility transfer total compares to previous fiscal years, including the prior year and earlier budgets. Mr. Follett stated that the total utility fund transfer increased by approximately 1.5% compared to the previous fiscal year. Councilor Bogdin addressed comments made during the public comment period and asked Mr. Follett to explain how the utility fund transfers help keep property taxes in Provo low. Mr. Follett explained that if the $16.36 million in utility fund transfers were instead funded through property taxes, the burden would fall solely on taxable properties within Provo. He noted that many entities in the city, including churches, government-owned properties, schools, and hospitals, are Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 9 of 12 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. exempt from property taxes and would not contribute toward those costs. As a result, taxable property owners would have to absorb the full cost of maintaining services such as police, fire, parks, and recreation, which would significantly increase property taxes for those residents and businesses. Councilor Bogdin asked about the percentage of non-taxable property within Provo. Mr. Follett responded that he did not have the exact figure available but estimated it to be around 50%. Councilor MacKay added that the percentage typically ranges between 48 and 52%. Councilor Bogdin noted that if the utility transfer revenue were replaced with property taxes, only the taxable portion of the community would bear the cost, whereas the current system allows all utility users to contribute toward City services. Mr. Follett added that all entities in Provo, including county, state, federal, hospital, and educational institutions, utilize City services such as police and fire protection. Councilor Bogdin then asked about the breakdown of property tax distribution between the City and the school district. Mr. Follett stated that he did not have the exact figures available but noted that the largest share of property tax revenue goes to the school district. Councilor Bogdin commented that only about 7% of a property tax bill goes to the City, while the school district receives the majority of the revenue. Justin Harrison, Council Executive Director, explained that approximately 60% of the property taxes paid by Provo residents go to the school district. He stated that Provo City receives roughly seven cents of every property tax dollar collected, which is further divided among the general fund, library operations, and bond payments for buildings and facilities. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Cindy Reid, of Provo, stated that the discussion helped her better understand the utility fund transfers and acknowledged that the system allows the City to collect revenue from students and others who use City services but do not pay property taxes. She indicated that the explanation addressed some of her concerns regarding property tax increases, though she reiterated her desire for the City to address ongoing storm drain issues in her neighborhood. Chair Garrett closed the public comment period. Councilor MacKay stated that she carefully considered the proposed increase and discussed it with department directors and staff before reaching a level of comfort with the proposal. She noted that her experience serving on the Energy Board helped provide additional perspective, particularly regarding the importance of supporting employees and departmental operations. Councilor MacKay stated that utility fund transfers benefit both employees and the community, and she compared the transfers to dividends paid to shareholders in private utility companies. Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 10 of 12 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 Christensen noted that although the Council may appear to move through budget items quickly during meetings, the Council had already spent several months reviewing detailed departmental budget presentations. He stated that the process included many hours of discussion and review, all of which are publicly available online. He explained that the lack of extensive questioning during the meeting should not be interpreted as a lack of engagement, but rather that many Council comments and suggestions had already been incorporated into the proposed budgets through the earlier review process. *The council returned to Item 8* With no objections, the Provo Municipal Council adjourned and reconvened as the Stormwater Service District Governing Board of Provo City with Chair Garrett conducting. Stormwater Service District 10 A resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $3,377,755 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026. (25-025) 1:23:30 Motion: An implied motion to approve 2025-SSD-06-17-1, as currently constituted. Andrea Wright, Budget Analyst, presented. Andrea Wright explained that state law requires two public hearings before adoption of the Stormwater Service District budget. She stated that the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget totals $3,377,755, with the first public hearing held on June 3 and the second held during the current meeting. She noted that following the second public hearing, the budget could be adopted. Chair Garrett opened the public hearing. With no comments, and no board discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Board Members Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. With no objections, the Stormwater Service District Governing Board adjourned and reconvened as the Redevelopment Agency Governing Board of Provo City with Chair Whipple conducting. Redevelopment Agency of Provo 11 A resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, in the amount of $1,488,791. (25- 025) 1:25:55 Motion: An implied motion to approve 2025-RDA-06-17-1, as currently constituted. Ms. Wright explained that the item was the second required public hearing for the Redevelopment Agency Fiscal Year 2026 budget in the amount of $1,488,791. She noted that the first public hearing was held on June 3 and that the second hearing was being held during the current meeting. She stated that Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 11 of 12 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. following the public hearing, the Board could consider adoption of the budget and asked if there were any questions. Chair Whipple opened the public hearing. With no comments, and no board discussion, she called for a vote. Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Board Members Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 7:04 PM. 26th day of May, 2026 Provo City Council Meeting – June 17, 2025 Page 12 of 12