City Council Meetings

Please note: These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Joint Meeting with the Provo City District Board October 23, 2025 | 12:00 PM Community Room Hybrid meeting: 445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 or https://www.youtube.com/provocitycouncil Agenda Roll Call Council Chair Gary Garrett Council Vice-Chair Rachel Whipple ,conducting Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Craig Christensen (Excused) Councilor George Handley (Excused) Councilor Becky Bogdin Councilor Travis Hoban (Remote) Business Item 1: A review of annexation proposals received by Provo City from May 1, 2025, through October 20, 2025. (25-099) Justin Harrison, Council Executive Director, presented an overview of the four annexation petitions submitted to Provo City since the previous joint meeting on May 1, 2025. He explained that the petitions were at various stages of the process, and noted that one annexation—16.67 acres of property via Canyon Road—had been approved by the Council in the regular meeting on Tuesday night. Councilor Gary Garrett sought clarification on the pre-approval process. Mr. Harrison confirmed that only the Canyon Road annexation is currently in the “yellow phase” of the process. Councilor Whipple inquired about the county’s involvement in annexations, expressing frustration with a prior annexation experience. Mr. Harrison stated he was not fully aware of the county’s internal process and offered to research and share additional information. School Board President Jennifer Partridge asked about the timeline from the Council’s initial receipt of an annexation petition to its official annexation. Mr. Harrison explained that the timeline varies and generally involves the City working with the county and the property owner before final Council approval. He noted that, once approved, Development Services would notify the relevant taxing entities of the annexation. Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 1 of 6 The discussion addressed the complexity of the annexation process as outlined in state code. Council members expressed concern about the lack of a clear process from the county’s perspective and the potential need for legislative clarification. Item 2: Provo City Workforce Housing and Land Trust Project (PLRZ20250397) Councilor Rachel Whipple introduced the Provo City Workforce Housing and Land Trust Project, noting its proximity to recently discussed annexation areas and the high school. She emphasized that this was a Council-driven priority to address housing needs using City-owned property. Bill Peperone, Development Services Director, provided details on the project. He explained that the City acquired the approximately 12-acre parcel as leftover land from the Lakeview Parkway right-of-way purchase. The proposal includes 68 homes, with 34 market-rate units and 34 workforce housing units to be placed in a land trust managed by a subsidiary of the Provo Housing Authority. Mr. Peperone highlighted the partnership with Nilson Homes, a builder experienced in similar developments. He noted that the workforce housing units would likely be priced in the high $300,000s to low $400,000s. He also reported that 47 City employees are on a waiting list for the 34 available workforce units. Council members expressed enthusiasm for the project as an innovative approach to providing affordable housing for City employees. They discussed the potential for similar public–public partnerships with other entities, including the school district and Intermountain Health. The Council addressed concerns raised by some community members, particularly regarding misconceptions about workforce housing and its impact on the neighborhood. Members emphasized the need for clearer communication about the project’s benefits and the rigorous process used to develop the proposal. Mr. Peperone and Council members clarified several aspects of the proposal, including the mixed-income nature of the development, the land trust mechanism for maintaining long-term affordability, and the homeowners’ association structure that would include all residents. Item 3: A Discussion Regarding Safe Routes to School (25-099) Councilor Rachel Whipple introduced the item and invited Jennifer Partridge to lead the discussion. Ms. Partridge reviewed the Safe Routes to School process, explaining that each school’s community council—composed primarily of parents, with teachers and the principal—meets monthly during the school year. Councils review and designate safe routes annually, post the routes on an official website, and communicate them to families at the start of the year (often coinciding with a “Bike to School” week in September). Councils also identify areas of concern and may recommend improvements such as crosswalks, crossing guards, stop signs, or school-zone signage. These recommendations are submitted to the district, after which Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Jarod Sites, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools, compiles the list and coordinates with the City to review and begin the process. Mr. Sites reported that principals are asked to work with their councils so that, by their November meetings, recommendations for infrastructure improvements and areas of concern are ready for review. He and Vern Keeslar have been attending council meetings at each school to answer questions and hear concerns directly. He noted a new practice of meeting quarterly with the crossing guard supervisor and the district’s transportation director to ensure alignment throughout the year and to evaluate recommendations within regulatory and operational constraints. Council members acknowledged improved collaboration between the district and the City. Ms. Partridge highlighted significant progress compared to prior years and expressed appreciation for City Council funding that has supported sidewalk and route improvements near schools. Two specific areas of concern were discussed. First, regarding construction on the University Avenue bridge and its potential effects on Franklin Elementary students, Ms. Partridge noted that in the spring the Board approved a bus route for students who would otherwise cross Fifth West, anticipating increased traffic from detours. Mr. Keeslar stated that the Board’s decision significantly improved safety, as some students and parents had been attempting to cross at uncontrolled locations rather than using the signal at 300 South. Councilor Becky Bogdin described broader traffic constraints related to train activity blocking multiple crossings and urged continued communication with bus drivers to use alternate paths (including freeway options) when trains cause extended delays. Ms. Partridge and staff confirmed that families are using the approved bus route. Second, Mr. Keeslar provided an update on the upcoming 820 North bridge work. Demolition will begin on November 10, 2025 (with the official detour via Fifth North to Independence Avenue and 500 West/US-89 State Street). The crosswalk with a crossing guard at Eighth North will remain in place throughout construction. The project is expected to last approximately seven months. Mr. Keeslar referenced ProvoRiverBridge.com for construction updates and noted recent restriping on Fifth North to include bike lanes and narrower travel lanes intended to reduce speeds. He added that the Provo River Trail segment under 820 North will be temporarily closed with a posted detour and that detour maps for pedestrians and cyclists are available online; an open house was held the prior week at the Provo Parks and Recreation Center to share details and gather feedback. Public Works Director Gordon Haight advised that traffic control and signal timing will be adjusted as conditions evolve; residents who observe issues should contact Public Works so signs or timing can be modified promptly in coordination with UDOT where applicable. A transportation representative noted that school bus routes affected by 820 North were adjusted at the beginning of the school year. Mr. Keeslar added that he is in frequent contact with the transportation office and coordinates responses to unplanned road closures (e.g., water or sewer repairs), commending the professionalism of City and district staff. Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Item 4: A Discussion Regarding Crosswalk Updates (25-099) Traffic Manager Vern Keeslar (Public Works) provided an update on recent and upcoming crosswalk changes. He reported that on Timpview Drive—serving Rock Canyon Elementary and Centennial Middle School—the existing school crosswalk near 2445 North, by the LDS Church, will be converted to a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing beacons. He explained that elementary schools receive crossing guards while middle schools do not; studies indicated the safest route for Rock Canyon students is at the four-way stop where vehicles are required to come to a complete stop and a crossing guard is posted. The beacon equipment for Timpview Drive has been ordered and installation will proceed upon delivery. Mr. Keeslar stated that the crossing at 3700 North and 180 East will also be converted from a school crosswalk to a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing beacons. Counts showed only four children using that location. The upgraded crossing serves routes to Edgemont Elementary and Timpview High School. He added that staff are also evaluating treatments near Provo Peaks and at 700 East mid-block (near BYU), where speeding and sight-distance concerns have been noted. At Westridge Elementary, Mr. Keeslar reported that a study found two reduced-speed school zones; one did not meet the required warrants and has been removed, while the zone directly in front of the school was retained. That crossing was converted to a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing beacons, and a “Your Speed” sign was installed. Speed studies there showed approximately a 5 mph reduction, which Mr. Keeslar characterized as a strong result. Similar pedestrian-activated beacon treatments were recently installed on Ninth East and at Eighth North to serve high-density BYU pedestrian traffic. He also described ongoing “daylighting” of crosswalks using delineators and bollards to prevent parking that obstructs visibility. Councilor Gary Garrett asked whether a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing beacons near a school means no crossing guard. Mr. Keeslar responded that, in most cases, yes; however, the City has committed to maintain crossing guards at Timpview High School/Edgemont Elementary and at Rock Canyon Elementary through the remainder of the school year while hiring continues. For 3700 North, the crossing guard will remain through December to support a safe transition. Councilor Rachel Whipple sought clarification on the location of the 3700 North and 180 East crossing; Mr. Keeslar confirmed it is at the base of the hill near the car wash. A participant expressed appreciation for staff engagement with the Edgemont community council and noted that school-day counts at 3700 North were conducted on fair-weather days and still showed fewer than four children using the crossing. Mr. Keeslar added that state law governing crosswalk warrants is changing at the end of December; he plans to attend a UDOT conference next week to learn details of the new requirements. Councilor Whipple observed that statutory warrants for school crosswalks differ from those for regular or pedestrian-beacon crosswalks and that beacon-equipped crossings can serve the broader community throughout the day, not just during times when a crossing guard is present. Councilor Katrice MacKay offered thanks for the improvements. Public Works Director Gordon Haight commented that the project scheduling will avoid school-year disruptions where possible. Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 4 of 6 Jennifer Partridge asked about crossing-guard staffing. Mr. Keeslar explained that the Police Department classifies crossings as Level 1 or Level 2 based on usage; one Level 2 location is currently unstaffed for two days per week, and the City is recruiting. Director Haight noted the posting is open until filled and available online through Human Resources; Councilor Becky Bogdin asked about sharing the link with principals and councils, and staff confirmed it could be shared. In response to a question from Ms. Partridge, Mr. Keeslar announced that the four-way stop at the Timpview High School/Edgemont Elementary intersection will be converted to a traffic signal next summer. Design is underway, bidding is planned for the spring, and construction is scheduled for summer to enhance safety for children and school buses. Director Haight added that, while the location bordered on meeting warrants, observed conditions supported the signal and summer construction will minimize impacts. Item 5: A Discussion Regarding the County Property Tax Valuation and the Truth in Taxation Process (25-099) Councilor Rachel Whipple introduced the item and invited Jennifer Partridge to debrief the Council. Ms. Partridge explained that the Board pursued the Truth in Taxation process this year to raise $4,000,000 for teacher salary increases. Preparations began in March, with staff following checklists, consulting with the county, and reviewing applicable law. A public hearing was held in August, followed by a business meeting, consistent with past practice and prior guidance received. In early September, staff were informed that the proposed increase would not be approved because code prohibits holding any meeting after the Truth in Taxation hearing. Despite the Board’s view that the process had been followed in good faith, the increase was not certified. As reflected in recent property tax notices, taxpayers will generally pay amounts similar to the prior year. The Board plans to repeat the process next year and, in the interim, will rely on fund balances and careful budgeting to honor the teacher raises. Ms. Partridge noted that the state’s checklist has since been updated to clarify post-hearing restrictions. She added that approximately 35 entities were not approved this year; many denials involved a new requirement to cross-post Truth in Taxation notices when overlapping entities are also pursuing increases, and to avoid holding hearings on the same night. She and Council members discussed recent statutory changes requiring a virtual participation option for public comment. Members referenced legislative discussions about a cleanup bill to clarify virtual-comment expectations and other procedural ambiguities. Regarding appeals, Ms. Partridge stated that the Board submitted a letter that was treated as an appeal, but the State Tax Commission indicated it lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals of certification decisions. As a result, judicial remedies were the only remaining option, which would not be timely for the current tax year. Councilor Gary Garrett inquired about cross-posting and scheduling limits when multiple entities pursue Truth in Taxation. Ms. Partridge summarized broader legislative context: some lawmakers have acknowledged the unusually high denial rate (referenced at about 60% in interim discussions) and signaled interest in adjustments, while others have suggested more extensive changes. She and Devyn Dayley Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 5 of 6 discussed factors contributing to recent increases in homeowners’ property taxes, including a prior five-year hold on the basic rate during a period of rapid home-value growth and comparatively stable commercial valuations that shifted more burden to residential properties. Looking ahead, Ms. Partridge and Ms. Dayley indicated the Board will likely initiate next year’s Truth in Taxation process earlier than the June 1 notification deadline in order to select a workable date and ensure compliance (including virtual participation). Ms. Dayley also noted the district will undertake Truth in Taxation in 2026 and 2027 related to recently issued municipal bonds. The Board is concurrently evaluating programs and efficiencies to minimize the required increase. Councilor Katrice MacKay asked about the inclusion of certain homes (e.g., in the Sundance area) in the district’s tax base. Ms. Dayley explained that county land within Provo’s boundaries is taxed to other school districts (e.g., Alpine), which can be confusing for properties with Provo ZIP codes; he suggested statutory cleanup would be beneficial. He also observed that Provo has a higher proportion of tax-exempt property than neighboring cities, which presents budget challenges. Councilor Whipple confirmed that boundary adjustments and related planning remain underway and asked about next steps for Dixon. Ms. Partridge reported the Board recently voted to build an elementary school at the Dixon property and move Timpanogos Elementary students there, with the current Timpanogos facility to be repurposed for other district programs; timelines will be discussed at the next Board meeting. Public Works Director Gordon Haight raised coordination needs regarding a school-district-owned parcel within an Ivory development. If the site is not intended for a school, Public Works could stub utilities and streets to support integrated development; design decisions will begin locking in within one to two months. Councilor Whipple observed the parcel might be suitable for a land-trust workforce-housing concept. Director Haight requested direction so that roadway and utility plans can accommodate the intended use. Adjournment Provo City Municipal Council Joint Meeting with the Provo City School District Board– October 23, 2025 Page 6 of 6