[0:00] Welcome to the Pro Mesville Council

[0:01] regular meeting March 24th, 2026 at 5:30

[0:05] p.m.

[0:06] We will do a roll of the elected

[0:09] officials starting with councelor Rachel

[0:11] Whipple, Rachel Whipple,

[0:13] >> Jeff Whitlock,

[0:14] >> Becky Bogden,

[0:14] >> Craig Christensen,

[0:15] >> Krice McKay,

[0:16] >> Gary Garrett,

[0:18] >> and we do have Kyle sitting in for the

[0:19] bear who's unable to be here tonight.

[0:22] Um, we'll have an opening prayer by Doug

[0:25] Robbins.

[0:27] Former

[0:29] Parks and Rec director. We're very

[0:31] excited to see him. He looks so young in

[0:33] his retirement.

[0:34] >> Yes. Welcome home.

[0:37] Our father in heaven, we're thankful for

[0:39] this evening and to be here together at

[0:42] this council meeting. Father, we're

[0:43] grateful for this community and the good

[0:46] people that reside here. We're thankful

[0:48] for the legacy of citizenship

[0:51] and camaraderie that we share here in

[0:53] this community. We ask thee, Father, for

[0:56] thy spirit to be with us here tonight

[0:59] with this community council

[1:02] and the residents of Provo that are here

[1:04] that we might be able to discuss the

[1:07] issues that come before this body.

[1:10] and we pray for thy spirit to be with

[1:13] our elected officials that they'll make

[1:15] wise decisions for the welfare of the

[1:17] community.

[1:19] Father, we're grateful for all these

[1:20] many blessings that we receive on from

[1:23] thee each day and we express our

[1:25] gratitude in the name of Jesus Christ.

[1:27] Amen.

[1:28] >> Amen.

[1:28] >> Thank you, Doug. We'll all stand for the

[1:30] pledge of allegiance, please.

[1:35] I aliance to the flag of the United

[1:38] States of America and to the republic

[1:41] for which it stands. One nation under

[1:44] God, indivisible with liberty and

[1:47] justice for all.

[1:53] right.

[1:56] Oh, we'd like to recognize that Travis

[1:58] Hoben is on Zoom with us. So, we have

[2:00] all seven of us. Um, first of all, we're

[2:03] going to have a ceremony recognizing the

[2:04] proceeding employee of the month. And

[2:05] this will be presented by Tad Smallcom,

[2:09] our interimm director of energy.

[2:21] » Hello.

[2:23] I'd like to introduce to you our

[2:25] employee of the month, Alonso Cardinas.

[2:28] He um he came to Provo Power in 2012

[2:32] with 17 years of experience as a master

[2:35] electrician, seven years electrical

[2:37] engineering consulting experience and

[2:40] with a degree in electrical engineering

[2:41] from Brigham Young University. And then

[2:44] he got busy.

[2:46] He has developed, implemented, managed

[2:50] new and managed new and exciting

[2:52] projects to enable and enhance system

[2:54] automation

[2:56] to boldly and effectively move power

[2:59] forward in our goal to be the most

[3:01] reliable utility in the nation.

[3:04] These include underground and overhead

[3:07] switch automation, which allows us not

[3:10] only to monitor and receive information

[3:13] and data from switches across Provo, but

[3:15] will also provide protection and

[3:18] automatic fault isolation and source

[3:20] restoration when problems arise. This

[3:23] will help reduce the scope and duration

[3:25] of outages. And since automated pushes

[3:27] can't be everywhere, um he's also

[3:30] currently vetting remotely monitored

[3:32] false circuit indicators anywhere else.

[3:46] He's new.

[3:58] fiber connections that uh that run to

[4:00] these pieces of equipment. While he was

[4:02] at it, he uh earned a master's degree in

[4:05] public administration at BYU. In

[4:08] addition, he to developing relay

[4:09] upgrades, in-house steel pole design,

[4:12] skate upgrades, etc., etc.

[4:16] As you see, uh, Alfonso works hard and

[4:19] he's willing to tackle any challenge. He

[4:23] is always happy to work through problems

[4:25] and issues with customers and crews, not

[4:29] to mention jumping in when we need help

[4:31] with electrical needs around the office.

[4:34] Alons Alfonso is an exemplary employee

[4:37] and has implemented numerous changes,

[4:40] improvements and practices that have

[4:42] vastly improved our electrical systems

[4:45] and we are happy to recognize him today

[4:49] as the employee of the month. Thank you

[4:51] Alphonsto. Congratulations.

[5:02] That's what they're giving these days.

[5:07] » And the photo and white.

[5:12] Yeah.

[5:37] Okay, we get close up.

[6:03] That's what I'm talking about.

[6:25] All right. Next, we have a ceremony

[6:28] recognizing Provo City's epic sports

[6:30] park as Utah's sports complex of the

[6:33] year. And we are so excited about this.

[6:35] We built the sports complex as a revenue

[6:37] generator for Provo and when it is

[6:39] finalized it'll be the largest sports

[6:42] complex in the state and that's going to

[6:44] bring a lot of tournaments and revenue

[6:46] to the city and we are so excited about

[6:47] that that that this be presented by Dan

[6:50] Farn sports field management association

[6:52] president from the inter mountain

[6:53] chapter and director of fields and

[6:55] grounds for real Salt Lake.

[7:07] Hello everyone.

[7:10] I just uh erased my talking points.

[7:13] Sorry.

[7:15] Um

[7:17] I appreciate uh the time this evening.

[7:20] Um mayor council people and um yeah, my

[7:24] name is Dan Farms. I'm the senior

[7:27] director of fields and grounds for Real

[7:28] Salt Lake. I'm also the uh president for

[7:32] the inner mountain chapter of the sports

[7:34] field management association.

[7:36] Um over the past few years we've given

[7:39] out these uh field of the years or

[7:41] complexes of the years um awards to

[7:44] people throughout the state and uh I'm

[7:49] excited to be able to um give this award

[7:52] to the Epic Sports Park. Um I have known

[7:55] Cole who runs the park over there for a

[7:58] few years.

[8:00] uh in unique settings where I am a

[8:04] colleague of his and then I also helped

[8:07] with the sod that they put down at the

[8:09] epic sports park as well. So just kind

[8:12] of a unique uh relationship that we have

[8:15] there. Um

[8:18] in my opinion the the sports park is one

[8:20] of the best in the state. Um the amount

[8:23] of fields that you all have were built

[8:25] correctly. They're sandbased fields. So

[8:28] that helps uh keep them level, have good

[8:31] drainage, good playability, so you can

[8:34] program them as much as you as you need

[8:36] to. Um I think what Cole and his staff

[8:39] have done over there has been um

[8:43] amazing. Um I know they've only been

[8:45] open for a couple years. Um but what

[8:47] they've been able to achieve has been um

[8:49] great and we're here to recognize them

[8:51] for that. So I have a plaque for Cole

[8:54] and for Ryland if if those guys want to

[8:56] come up. Um it just says sports complex

[8:59] of the year. Um it's the second year

[9:01] that we've done this. There were five

[9:03] different entries and we felt that uh

[9:05] Epic uh was the best out of all the out

[9:10] of all of them. It just says awarded to

[9:11] Epic Sports Park, Provo Parks and

[9:13] Recreation in recognition of excellence

[9:16] in providing beautiful high quality safe

[9:18] sports fields and playing services for

[9:20] 2026.

[9:22] So uh I'll give this to these guys.

[9:33] Just wanted to say thanks Dan and uh

[9:35] it's an honor to receive this award here

[9:37] in Provo. Um but many past councils,

[9:41] mayors,

[9:42] uh employees, tons have been involved,

[9:45] partnerships that have made this

[9:46] possible. And so for a picture, if it's

[9:49] okay, we'd like to invite anybody who's

[9:51] been a part of the Epic Sports Park to

[9:52] please stand and join us uh in that

[9:55] photo. So if I have to call your name

[9:57] out and embarrass you, you will get up

[9:59] here for the photo. So please come

[10:02] >> here.

[10:04] >> Okay, we'll do it up behind the council

[10:06] up there.

[10:07] >> You guys will be right here.

[10:08] >> Okay, perfect.

[10:12] >> Terra,

[10:15] come on up.

[10:17] Hey, move down, guys.

[10:18] >> Hawk,

[10:19] >> Landon, come on. Lwick. Yep. Here's some

[10:23] of our players, too, that have played at

[10:25] the Epic.

[10:27] Please come up.

[10:43] » Soccer players coming from

[10:51] right there.

[10:53] >> Like a me picture.

[11:25] All right. Next, we have a presentation

[11:27] of a million-doll contribution from the

[11:29] Metropolitan Water District of Provo to

[11:31] support the new drinking water treatment

[11:33] plant project. And this is a very rare

[11:35] thing that we have people give us money.

[11:37] So, we are very grateful and excited.

[11:39] We've done a lot of water projects in

[11:43] the past few years and they're

[11:44] incredibly expensive, but it's um been

[11:46] well worth it. So, we're going to hear

[11:47] from Dan Johnson, the manager of the

[11:49] Metropolitan Water District of Provo.

[11:53] >> I'm just going to quickly introduce Dan.

[11:55] Um I'm Ryan York. I'm the water division

[11:58] director for Provo. Uh I also have the

[12:01] honor of of being the provo appointed

[12:04] member to the uh metropolitan district

[12:07] board. Um and just a really quick

[12:11] background on the metropolitan water

[12:13] district. They were organized in 1938 u

[12:16] to take on the debt obligation of Deer

[12:18] Creek Reservoir.

[12:20] uh the city could not handle that debt

[12:22] obligation at that time and so the um

[12:25] organ the metropolitan water district

[12:27] was formed uh to take on that debt

[12:30] obligation.

[12:32] Uh since that time Provo City has

[12:34] purchased up to 8,000 acre feet of water

[12:36] annually from the district uh from the

[12:38] metropolitan water district of Provo uh

[12:41] who then made payment to Provo River

[12:42] water users uh for construction,

[12:44] repayment and maintenance of the dam. Uh

[12:48] over the more recent decades,

[12:49] Metropolitan Water District of Provo has

[12:51] purchased canal shares, participated

[12:53] financially in drill drilling wells, and

[12:56] most recently helped finance the

[12:58] development of Big Springs in South

[13:00] Fork. Uh today, uh Metropolitan Water

[13:04] District of Provo is back again to help

[13:07] Provo City with our water needs. Dan

[13:10] Johnson is here to uh make a

[13:12] presentation for our drinking water

[13:14] treatment plant.

[13:18] Thanks, Ryan. I'll just read the letter

[13:20] that makes this official and how we came

[13:23] to this point.

[13:25] During a recent quarterly meeting for

[13:27] the Metropolitan Water District of

[13:29] Provo, the board of directors discussed

[13:31] possible ways uh some of their funds

[13:34] could be used to help with Provo's

[13:36] future water needs. This has been an

[13:38] ongoing discussion for the board and

[13:40] Provo City for many years as Ryan said

[13:43] since 1934

[13:45] >> 38 and has led to some very timely

[13:48] funding helping at various times for

[13:51] some excellent water projects that the

[13:53] city has needed. This discussion

[13:56] centered around the new treatment plant

[13:57] being built and the possible need for

[13:59] some additional funding. The board felt

[14:02] like this was an opportunity to help and

[14:05] unanimously agreed to contribute $1

[14:07] million. This money will be transferred

[14:10] electronically for cost related to the

[14:12] new drinking water treatment plant.

[14:15] Sincerely, myself as a manager and

[14:17] Dennis Weir as the chair. And Jimmy's

[14:20] here. Can we do the electronics?

[14:23] Jimmy, I think Gordon is here too.

[14:27] So, I'll give this letter to Ryan and

[14:30] we thank you.

[14:32] >> Thank you.

[14:41] » All right. As indicated on the screen, a

[14:43] required public hearing will be held for

[14:44] certain agenda items prior to council

[14:46] action. After each such item has been

[14:49] presented, time to comment will be

[14:50] provided for all those who wish to

[14:52] speak. For items that do not require

[14:54] public hearing, public comment will

[14:55] start will still be taken following

[14:57] presentation of the item but will be

[14:59] limited to 10 minutes. At this time, up

[15:01] to 15 minutes have been set aside for an

[15:03] open public comment period, which is

[15:05] intended to allow a comment on matters

[15:06] that do not appear on the agenda, but

[15:08] are limited to topics regarding

[15:09] municipal business or within municipal

[15:11] council purview. Persons who speak

[15:13] during this time to an item that is on

[15:15] the agenda will not normally be afforded

[15:16] a second opportunity to speak during the

[15:18] comment period specific to that item.

[15:20] During any public comment period, each

[15:22] speaker will generally be limited to two

[15:23] minutes. Due to noticing requirements,

[15:25] no formal action will be taken in this

[15:27] meeting on matters that do not appear on

[15:28] the agenda. Those with comments are

[15:30] invited to approach the podium. Those

[15:32] participating on Zoom will need to use

[15:33] the raise hand feature to indicate they

[15:35] wish to comment. The chair may choose to

[15:37] alternate between in-person and online

[15:39] commenters. Please begin your comments

[15:41] by starting stating your name and their

[15:43] city of residence. You'll have two

[15:45] minutes to speak. If anyone wants to

[15:46] have public comment, um, now is your

[15:48] chance.

[15:51] All right, we'll move on to council

[15:53] business. First, an implied motion on an

[15:55] ordinance pro city code to require

[15:57] planning commissioners running for

[15:58] public office to take a leap of absence.

[16:01] This will be presented by Tanner

[16:03] Tiguchi, our council policy analyst.

[16:12] » Terrific. Thank you, council, for having

[16:13] me to explain this issue item. Uh, this

[16:16] is a council sponsored issue.

[16:19] uh brought forward by chair mccay and

[16:22] vice chair Christensen

[16:25] and

[16:26] here we go I'll put up the effects of

[16:29] the proposal legal uh legal effects of

[16:31] the proposal the purpose of this uh

[16:34] issue item is to ensure that the

[16:36] planning commission remains a

[16:37] non-political advisory body to the mayor

[16:39] and council and can't be used as a

[16:42] platform for personal campaigning uh

[16:45] during an election year up until this

[16:47] point. Um the practice to avoid the

[16:51] commission becoming such a platform has

[16:54] been that commissioners who run for

[16:56] office would voluntarily resign. This

[17:00] proposal that we're uh considering

[17:02] tonight to change the code does not

[17:04] require a resignation. However, it would

[17:07] require a leave of absence during that

[17:09] campaign.

[17:12] So the this is just one metric that we

[17:15] can use to try to illustrate the the the

[17:18] potential issue here. The city council

[17:20] of course is a political body and so

[17:22] there's no problem there. The

[17:24] neighborhood district uh executive board

[17:26] has a similar provision in code right

[17:29] now to this proposal uh that we're

[17:32] considering for the planning commission

[17:34] already. And you can see there in the

[17:36] graph, uh, the planning commission has

[17:38] much more frequent meetings and a higher

[17:40] engagement than the other boards and

[17:41] commissions in the city.

[17:44] Uh, as I mentioned, the neighborhood

[17:46] district boards have a provision in code

[17:48] similar to the proposal for the planning

[17:50] commission. The only changes that we've

[17:52] made to the language in that

[17:54] neighborhood executive board code is to

[17:57] change the word executive board to

[17:59] planning commission. And I also want to

[18:00] point out one change that has been made

[18:03] since we talked about this in the work

[18:04] meeting that we changed the phrase the

[18:06] election on the bottom half of the

[18:08] screen to their candidacy as you'll see

[18:10] in the top half of the screen. That

[18:13] change was made just to make clear that

[18:15] we're talking about the individual's

[18:18] election. That is to say their

[18:19] candidacy. So if the uh candidate loses

[18:22] in the primary or for another reason

[18:24] stops campaigning then they are free to

[18:26] resume their responsibilities on the

[18:28] commission.

[18:31] Lastly, I just wanted to clear up for

[18:34] the public and for the council just some

[18:36] technical points uh that were discussed

[18:38] in earlier public meetings. The leave of

[18:40] absence would be effective immediately

[18:42] upon filing. So, different uh public

[18:45] offices have different filing periods.

[18:47] For example, if you file for partisan uh

[18:50] state legislative seat, you would have

[18:52] to file in January. If you were running

[18:55] for the city council, that filing

[18:56] period, as I understand, is typically in

[18:57] June. But if you file in January, your

[19:01] absence starts in January. If you file

[19:03] in June, then your absence starts in

[19:04] June

[19:06] until the election is done or the

[19:08] candidacy ends. So, uh, that the

[19:12] proposal is to adopt the ordinance as

[19:15] written. I'm free to answer any

[19:16] questions.

[19:17] >> Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for

[19:18] Tanner? Council Garrett. And just to

[19:21] clarify, Tanner, you did say that the um

[19:25] once, for example, if you were to lose

[19:28] in a primary race, you could retain your

[19:31] seat. You could return to your se your

[19:33] service as a commissioner.

[19:35] >> Yes. So, you would be able to Yeah. The

[19:38] entire time you would maintain your

[19:41] seat. So, to that second point that I

[19:42] didn't talk about, there's no function,

[19:45] there's no provision in the code to have

[19:47] someone step into your seat. You would

[19:49] just be absent. One of the issu is

[19:51] issues that has been brought up through

[19:53] the stages of this uh discussion is that

[19:57] sometimes there's difficulty maintaining

[19:59] a quorum in the planning commission. We

[20:01] have nine members to try to prevent that

[20:03] issue. But if there were multiple

[20:04] commissioners who would were running in

[20:06] a particular year and it becomes

[20:08] difficult to form a quorum, then either

[20:11] council or mayor action would be needed

[20:12] to uh remove those people from the

[20:15] planning commission and appoint new

[20:16] people who could be present.

[20:18] >> Thank you. Any

[20:20] other questions? All right. Thanks so

[20:22] much, Tanner. You

[20:25] >> We'll open this item up for public

[20:26] comment. Is there any public comment on

[20:28] this item?

[20:30] >> All right. We'll move to council

[20:32] discussion. Any council discussion on

[20:33] this item,

[20:35] Council Whitlock?

[20:37] >> Uh I think this is great and I

[20:40] appreciate the work done on this. Uh I

[20:42] was as someone who was on the planning

[20:43] commission who ran for city council, the

[20:45] lack of structure was uh kind of tricky.

[20:48] he was like, "Do I resign? When do I

[20:49] resign?" Um, so I just think making it

[20:52] clear and very structured and then with

[20:53] the opportunity to come back is is is a

[20:56] really good move that makes the planning

[20:58] commission uh fulfill its intended

[21:00] purpose of being a non-political body.

[21:03] >> Thanks, Jeff. Um, any other comments?

[21:07] All right, we will take a vote on the

[21:08] implied motion. Councelor Garrett,

[21:10] >> yes.

[21:11] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[21:12] Christensen,

[21:13] >> yes.

[21:14] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[21:15] >> yes.

[21:15] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[21:16] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,

[21:18] >> yes.

[21:19] >> Councelor Whipple,

[21:20] >> yes. That passes 70. Next, implied

[21:24] motion on ordinance enacting anti-

[21:26] idling restrictions for certain

[21:27] commercial trucks. This will also be

[21:29] presented by Tanner.

[21:31] >> Good evening, council. Thank you for

[21:32] having me to explain this issue item.

[21:35] Uh, this issue was sponsored uh by

[21:37] councelor Bogdan and seconded by

[21:39] councelor Whipple. Uh the purpose of

[21:43] this proposed ordinance is to limit

[21:45] potential uh negative impacts uh to the

[21:48] public from engine idling from heavy

[21:51] trucks. So I'll put up the legal impacts

[21:54] here. The context, sorry, the context

[21:58] for this uh issue is that because there

[22:01] is a shortage of trucks along the WA

[22:04] truck stops, designated truck parking

[22:06] spaces along the Wasatch Front, uh truck

[22:08] drivers are forced to use open available

[22:11] commercial lots or public roadways to

[22:14] park to take their mandatory federally

[22:16] mandated uh breaks and that has left

[22:19] some spillover into other places because

[22:21] there's not enough public truck parking.

[22:24] So, we want to not discourage truck

[22:26] parking per se, but to try to mitigate

[22:29] potential negative effects on resident

[22:31] quality of life. Uh, those impacts on

[22:34] resident quality of life will probably

[22:37] be felt most uh keenly in places where

[22:41] commercial lots are immediately adjacent

[22:44] to residential areas. There are, these

[22:46] are just two, but there are a few

[22:48] located throughout the city where this

[22:50] could uh create an issue hypothetically

[22:54] uh with heavy commercial trucks idling,

[22:56] emitting noise and uh odors into the

[23:00] community. Uh not all trucks will do

[23:02] that. Not all trucks will necessarily be

[23:04] idling, but they could to maintain their

[23:07] electricity in their cabin.

[23:09] So, the benefits of the language in the

[23:12] proposed text amendment is that one, it

[23:14] does not uh discourage truckers per se,

[23:16] but puts limits on uh truck drivers

[23:20] impact on the community. Um, as I was

[23:23] researching this issue, I thought about

[23:26] how the current noise ordinance might be

[23:28] able to be applied to achieve the same

[23:29] results. And, you know, in principle,

[23:32] that could be true. Um, what this would

[23:34] do is essentially streamline the process

[23:37] of eliminating that noise without having

[23:41] to take a measurement because the

[23:42] current noise ordinance requires that a

[23:45] noise measurement be taken and reach a

[23:47] certain decel level at a certain

[23:49] distance. So, as it pertains to heavy

[23:51] trucks, that would no longer be required

[23:53] and also um this would address idling as

[23:57] a concept and so it would take into

[23:59] consideration the odors emitted as well.

[24:02] Thank you, Tanner.

[24:04] >> Um, one last thing just this was covered

[24:07] before

[24:08] um in the work meeting, but as I've

[24:10] talked with law enforcement officials,

[24:12] this is not proactively enforced

[24:15] typically in other cities that have

[24:17] anti-aging ordinances, but it does allow

[24:20] the police to respond to complaints and

[24:23] to step in on behalf of citizens who may

[24:25] be affected by this. And as far as um

[24:28] the impact on the truck drivers that

[24:31] would be involved in this, um the state

[24:34] actually requires that our ordinance uh

[24:37] allow for a warning beforehand. So any

[24:40] enforcement officers would have to issue

[24:42] a warning before giving a citation and

[24:44] that citation would follow the uh

[24:47] parking fee schedule, the parking fine

[24:49] schedule.

[24:52] So uh the proposal is to adopt the

[24:55] ordinance as written. I'm open to any

[24:57] questions.

[24:58] >> Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for Tener?

[25:00] All right. Thank you.

[25:02] We will open this item up for public

[25:04] comment. Is there any public comment on

[25:05] this item?

[25:07] >> All right. See no public comment.

[25:08] Council discussion. Any discussion on

[25:10] this item? Councelor Bogdan.

[25:13] >> I just wanted to explain a little bit

[25:14] about this. We have gotten complaints

[25:17] about trucks idling in some of our

[25:20] places and in Provo. And number one, I

[25:24] didn't want to prevent that because we

[25:25] need trucks for the goods and services

[25:27] that we do have here. And truck drivers

[25:30] do need a place to stop. We do have a

[25:33] couple of truck stops further south, but

[25:36] they are pretty full. And if you've ever

[25:38] been to the Springville Walmart, it gets

[25:41] it starts to to impact there. And I've

[25:44] noticed the East Bay is starting to get

[25:46] impacted as well. So, it's something

[25:49] that we wanted to get ahead I wanted to

[25:50] get ahead of. so that we could have

[25:53] something for the residents because

[25:56] there has been a lot of concern about

[25:57] the noise and about the pollutants in

[25:59] the air of the diesel fuel and and the

[26:02] different things. So, I think this is a

[26:03] good compromise and a good start.

[26:05] Thanks.

[26:07] >> Yeah, councelor Whipple.

[26:09] >> Yeah, I was supportive of this with

[26:11] Becky. She's the one who originally

[26:13] raised the concern. Um, I had the

[26:16] experience where a smaller truck than

[26:18] the ones that are are regulated by this

[26:22] refrigerated truck parked on the street

[26:24] by my house on like a Sunday morning and

[26:27] as it cycled on and off like it was a

[26:30] really really loud um I just went and

[26:33] said hi and asked if they needed

[26:35] anything because you know this guy's

[26:37] parked on my street. Nice person, good

[26:39] interaction. But I can see how,

[26:41] especially with the large trucks, if

[26:43] they're in those big parking lots that

[26:46] are close to residents, that could be a

[26:48] much bigger impact. Um, the noise, the

[26:52] fumes, you know, that immediate local

[26:55] air quality really is adversely

[26:57] affected. So, I'm glad that we are being responsive to these very real

[27:06] concerns of our residents who are close

[27:08] to these important commercial areas and

[27:10] that we are giving our police the tools

[27:13] that they need to protect our residents.

[27:17] >> All right. Any other public comment or

[27:19] council discussion? All right. Yeah.

[27:22] Councelor Garrett,

[27:24] >> Becky, maybe you can just um having

[27:26] studied this issue a little bit, you can

[27:28] help me understand a couple of questions

[27:31] uh issues. So, in an official truck

[27:34] stop, can the trucks leave their motors

[27:37] running?

[27:39] If it's an official designated truck

[27:41] stop,

[27:41] >> the reason why we didn't go any further

[27:43] into this is because there is technology

[27:46] now where they don't have to do that.

[27:48] >> Okay? So, it's it's phasing out

[27:50] >> so that in the winter time they can stay

[27:52] warm and

[27:54] >> Yeah. And and Flying J is renovating

[27:57] from what we understand, right? And

[27:59] they're including some of those I would

[28:02] call them like an EV charging station

[28:03] where they can just plug in and not have

[28:06] to pollute because we did think about

[28:08] that. I mean, if you're going to have

[28:10] trucks come to your property, you

[28:12] probably should be a rest a truck stop,

[28:15] >> provide some kind of services, but it

[28:17] didn't make any sense if that's phasing

[28:19] out. Why have companies put forth all

[28:21] that money to

[28:24] >> for what reason in in five 10 years?

[28:26] >> Okay. Just curious. Thank you,

[28:30] >> Councelor Whitlock.

[28:32] >> So, my father is a retired school

[28:33] teacher, now a truck driver. That's how

[28:35] he got bored, became a truck driver. So,

[28:37] I I asked him a lot of questions about

[28:38] this and to uh counselor Bogdan's point,

[28:42] a lot of the newer trucks actually have

[28:44] an automatic uh switchover from diesel

[28:46] to a backup generator after 3 minutes.

[28:50] Um the general feedback I got was like

[28:52] one minute is quite aggressive. Um I

[28:55] still support 100% the intent of this

[28:57] ordinance, but um that was my my

[28:59] father's point of view is that like one

[29:01] minute a truck driver will regularly

[29:02] turn on their engine to like get it

[29:04] going. Um, and it can what be a minute, and a half. He felt like two to

[29:08] three minutes was much more reasonable

[29:09] for the intent, but as you said, it's

[29:11] oftentimes uh not proactively enforced

[29:15] at the one minute. But that would be my

[29:16] only feedback on the ordinance from the

[29:18] questions I asked.

[29:23] » All right, we will vote on the implied

[29:25] motion. Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[29:28] Christensen,

[29:29] >> yes.

[29:29] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[29:31] >> yes.

[29:31] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[29:32] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,

[29:34] >> yes.

[29:35] >> Councelor Whipple,

[29:36] >> yes.

[29:37] >> And councelor Garrett,

[29:38] >> yes.

[29:39] >> And that passes 70. Last, an implied

[29:42] motion on ordinance requiring payment of

[29:44] civil fines to renew a rental dwelling

[29:46] license. And again, Tanner, this whole

[29:48] meeting is you.

[29:48] >> Great. Well, I'm grateful to be able to

[29:52] present this issue item that was brought

[29:53] forth by Chair McKay and Vice Chair

[29:55] Christensen.

[29:57] Uh, this will affect the business

[29:59] licensing title of the code. Um, this is

[30:02] being brought forth because as it stands

[30:04] right now, there are a list of grounds

[30:06] under which the city can deny or suspend

[30:09] and revoke a residential dwelling

[30:12] license or RDL. Uh, some of those

[30:15] reasons include misrepresenting yourself

[30:17] in the application or being out of

[30:19] compliance with the zoning code.

[30:21] included in those list or what is not

[30:24] included in that list currently is

[30:26] failure to pay civil fines that were

[30:29] acred because of a violation of the

[30:31] zoning code. So what this would do is

[30:33] add that failure to pay fines as a

[30:37] grounds for denial or suspension

[30:39] revocation of RDL. What it also does is

[30:44] although the current code does allow for

[30:47] denial or revocation based on

[30:49] non-compliance, this actually just makes

[30:50] it a little more clear in the code that can be done and should be done at

[30:56] code enforcement's discretion.

[30:58] So the scope of who will be impacted by

[31:01] this text amendment is actually quite

[31:03] narrow. Uh I've created this just to

[31:06] illustrate that. So in the column with

[31:08] the blue house, if there is a violation,

[31:11] say an over occupancy of a rental unit

[31:13] and that is resolved within two weeks

[31:17] and there are no fines acrewed, um this

[31:21] text amendment will not affect that

[31:22] property owner because they were never

[31:24] at risk of having their RDL taken away.

[31:27] Uh and they still will not be at risk

[31:29] for that. In the column with the green

[31:31] home icon, uh that is representing

[31:34] someone in the same situation. and

[31:36] there's a violation, they refuse to come

[31:39] into compliance for whatever reason, uh,

[31:42] this will not change them because under

[31:43] the current code, they could have their

[31:45] RDL denied or their renewal denied or

[31:49] they could have their license revoked.

[31:51] And this really doesn't change that risk

[31:53] to them. In the orange column, in the

[31:57] column with the orange house, this is

[31:58] actually illustrating what will change.

[32:00] So property owners who had a violation

[32:03] who acrewed civil fines because they

[32:06] took a longer time managing that or it

[32:10] was severe and it merited civil fines.

[32:13] They corrected the violation but the

[32:15] fines are still outstanding and they

[32:17] refused to pay fines. That group

[32:20] previously was not at risk of having

[32:22] their license denied or revoked. But

[32:25] under the current text amendment that

[32:26] would now become a risk.

[32:31] So as I mentioned, so this is

[32:33] essentially a method of incentivizing

[32:36] the prompt payment of fines. One other

[32:38] benefit that this gives that might not

[32:40] be as clear is that when a license is

[32:42] denied or revoked, that property owner

[32:45] is entitled to an appeal with a third

[32:47] party arbitrator. So by adding a grounds

[32:50] for denial, so they're out of compliance

[32:52] after getting their license revoked, for

[32:54] example, now they're out of compliance.

[32:56] And if we levied a fine that that

[32:58] failure to pay fines will also come into

[33:00] play potentially. And I spoke with that

[33:03] arbitrator and they say that that would

[33:04] make this decision simpler. Not

[33:06] necessarily um that they wouldn't make

[33:10] the same decision otherwise because of

[33:11] the non-compliance, but it just makes it

[33:13] more obvious and simple. It strengthens

[33:15] the city's case when it comes to that uh

[33:18] having that decision upheld.

[33:21] So with that uh the proposal is to adopt

[33:23] the ordinance as written. I'm open to

[33:24] any questions.

[33:25] >> Awesome. Any questions for Tanner? All

[33:28] right. Thanks, Tanner.

[33:30] >> Oh, sorry. Councelor Whitlock has a

[33:32] question for you.

[33:33] >> Of course. Um, one other potential

[33:36] benefit of this is what would it also

[33:38] potentially incentivize faster

[33:40] compliance?

[33:42] >> It could.

[33:43] >> I think that depends on the property

[33:44] owner and the reasons that they may be

[33:46] taking their time coming into

[33:48] compliance. But having that RDL loss as

[33:52] a potential um consequence of failure to

[33:56] pay fines or to bring your property into

[33:58] compliance is tough because if you have

[34:01] your license revoked and you continue to

[34:03] operate, then that's a whole set of

[34:04] fines that's going to escalate that

[34:06] balance.

[34:07] >> Yep. And then just uh for the benefit of

[34:10] the public in our earlier working

[34:12] session, we talked about how if someone

[34:15] has acred a hefty backlog of fines, the

[34:18] city will often times work with them to

[34:19] get on a payment plan or something along

[34:21] those lines and if they are uh in an

[34:23] agreement and adhering to that

[34:25] agreement, they could still get the RDL.

[34:26] Correct.

[34:27] >> Correct. So yes, I should have included

[34:29] that in there. Yeah. So, it's if they're

[34:32] working with the city to be on a plan,

[34:34] the city is aware of their intention to

[34:36] make payments or to address their fund

[34:38] balance, their fine balance, then yes,

[34:41] that would count. But this is this would

[34:43] apply in cases where despite the city's

[34:45] best intentions, there still is a

[34:46] refusal to pay the balance.

[34:48] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[34:50] >> All right. Thanks, Tanner. I have to

[34:52] admit, I'm so perplexed why we have so

[34:54] many people here just to listen. We're

[34:57] so lucky.

[34:58] Um, we're going to take a Oh, council

[35:00] discussion on Well, we're going to open

[35:02] this item up for public comment. So, is

[35:03] there any public com Maybe this is what

[35:05] you're here for. Any public comment on

[35:07] this item? No. All right. Council

[35:09] discussion. Councelor Christensen.

[35:12] >> Yeah. Uh, again, thank you. Uh, for

[35:14] those of you who are listening, this makes so much sense. Uh, people who

[35:18] violate the law and aren't keeping the

[35:20] rules. Uh, this isn't an extra penalty.

[35:24] It just clarifies. And so I appreciate

[35:26] you taking the the time and energy to

[35:28] clarify this and making it simpler to

[35:30] enforce.

[35:32] >> Any other discussion? All right, we'll

[35:35] go to a council vote. Councelor

[35:37] Christensen,

[35:38] >> yes.

[35:38] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[35:40] >> yes.

[35:40] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[35:42] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,

[35:43] >> yes.

[35:44] >> Councelor Whipple,

[35:46] >> yes.

[35:46] >> Councelor Garrett,

[35:47] >> yes.

[35:48] >> And councelor McKay, yes. That passes

[35:50] 70. And if there's no objection, we will

[35:52] now adjourn the promises council by

[35:54] unanimous consent.

Provo City Council Meeting | March 24, 2026

Transcript