[0:00] Welcome to the Provo City Council and

[0:02] the Provo RDA Governing Board and the

[0:03] Stormwater Service District Governing

[0:05] Board regular meeting. It is June 9th,

[0:07] 2026. It's 5:31 p.m. We'll have a roll

[0:11] call of each of the councilors.

[0:15] Jeff

[0:17] >> Jeff Whitlock

[0:18] >> Becky Bogden

[0:19] >> Rachel Whipple

[0:20] >> Craig Christiansen

[0:21] >> Patrice McKey

[0:23] >> Gary Garrett

[0:24] >> Today's opening prayer will be provided

[0:26] by our state rep, Grant Pace, and then

[0:29] we'll have the pledge of allegiance by

[0:30] Councilor Whitlock.

[0:41] » Our gracious heavenly Father, we come

[0:43] before thee at the commencement of the

[0:44] City Council meeting and pray as always

[0:46] thy blessings upon those chosen to

[0:50] perform important duties for the

[0:52] wonderful city in which we live. We

[0:54] thank thee for thy many blessings. We

[0:57] acknowledge them and pray that I will

[0:59] that thou will send rains of which thou

[1:01] knowest we need. We pray for wisdom and

[1:03] judgment, for protection and the distant vision to make those

[1:10] decisions which will serve us and our

[1:11] community now and in the future. This we

[1:14] pray for humbly in the name of Jesus

[1:16] Christ. Amen.

[1:17] >> Amen.

[1:18] >> Thanks, Grant.

[1:19] >> Please rise and join me for the pledge

[1:21] of allegiance.

[1:23] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:26] United States of America and to the

[1:28] republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:31] under God,

[1:32] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:35] for all.

[1:37] >> Thank you.

[1:40] » As indicated on the screen, a required

[1:42] public hearing will be held for certain

[1:44] agenda items prior to council action.

[1:46] After each such item has been presented,

[1:48] time to comment will provided for all

[1:50] those who wish to speak. For items that

[1:52] do not require a public hearing, public

[1:54] comment will still be taken following

[1:55] presentation of the item, but will be

[1:57] limited to 10 minutes. At this time, up

[2:00] to 15 minutes have been set aside for an

[2:01] open public comment period, which is

[2:03] intended to allow comment on matters

[2:04] that do not appear on the agenda, but

[2:06] are limited to topics regarding

[2:08] municipal business or within the

[2:09] municipal council purview.

[2:11] Persons who wish to speak during this

[2:12] time to an item that is on the agenda

[2:14] will not normally be afforded a second

[2:16] opportunity to speak during the comment

[2:17] period specific to that item.

[2:19] During any public comment period, each

[2:21] speaker will generally be limited to 2

[2:23] minutes.

[2:24] Due to noticing requirements, no formal

[2:26] action will be taken in this meeting on

[2:28] matters that do not appear on the

[2:29] agenda.

[2:30] Those with comments are invited to

[2:32] approach the podium, and those

[2:33] participating on Zoom will need to use

[2:34] the raise hand feature to indicate they

[2:36] wish to comment.

[2:38] The chair may choose to alternate

[2:39] between in-person and online commenters.

[2:42] Please begin your comments by stating

[2:43] your name and the city of residence.

[2:45] You'll have 2 minutes to speak. Do we

[2:47] have any public comment right now?

[2:52] All right, seeing no public comment,

[2:53] we'll move on to council business.

[2:56] First of all, we have an implied motion

[2:58] on a resolution to place 5.079

[3:01] acres of real property generally located

[3:03] to the south of the Epic Sports Park on

[3:06] Lakeview Parkway on the surplus property

[3:07] list. This was presented to us by Cody

[3:10] Hill. He's our division director of

[3:12] economic development.

[3:13] >> Chair, we skipped item number one.

[3:16] The presentation.

[3:20] » Yes, we did.

[3:22] Thank you.

[3:24] All right, sorry, Cody. You're delayed.

[3:26] Um

[3:27] First of all, we're going to do a

[3:28] presentation regarding the 2027 Provo

[3:31] City Citizens Budget. And this will be

[3:33] presented by um Britain.

[3:36] Yes. He is our new council office

[3:38] intern, and the citizens budget is

[3:41] something that we choose to do as a

[3:42] council to kind of just do an

[3:44] easy-to-understand

[3:46] overview of the entire budget.

[3:50] » Couldn't have said it better myself.

[3:51] Thank you. Um

[3:53] counselors, uh here to present the

[3:55] citizens budget today for the fiscal

[3:57] year 2027,

[3:59] um which will begin July 1st of this

[4:01] calendar year.

[4:03] Um and this citizens budget is meant to

[4:06] highlight some of the key components of

[4:09] the full tentative budget and is based

[4:11] off of

[4:12] um that document, which will is linked

[4:14] at the bottom,

[4:16] um which we'll get to in a minute.

[4:20] Here's my clicker. Perfect. Okay. So,

[4:22] the first page here is the revenue

[4:24] summary.

[4:25] Um and for total revenues and transfers

[4:28] in projected for the fiscal year 2027,

[4:31] uh we're anticipating approximately

[4:33] $334.62

[4:35] million. Um and that's derived um from

[4:39] three um

[4:40] main revenue sources, which include the

[4:43] sales of utility services,

[4:45] fees, and sales tax.

[4:47] Um and below there's a graph showing the

[4:50] total revenues and transfers in from the

[4:51] past five

[4:53] uh fiscal years, from 2023 to today.

[4:57] Um there's also a section to the right

[5:00] um explaining

[5:02] a little bit more about the taxes and

[5:03] fees that Provo City

[5:05] um

[5:06] charges, as well as how some of the

[5:09] transfers work.

[5:10] Um the bottom paragraph explains briefly

[5:13] um

[5:14] our sales tax revenue projection.

[5:17] Um and I'm pleased to announce that

[5:19] there has There's about a 14% increase

[5:22] from what was budgeted for the fiscal

[5:23] year 2026 and what we anticipate

[5:26] um actually um receiving.

[5:28] So, that is um also

[5:32] shown in the budget for fiscal year

[5:34] 2027. We have a little bit higher sales

[5:36] tax revenue projection, which is

[5:38] approximately $30.26 million. Um and

[5:43] Um onto expenses, our total expenditures

[5:45] and transfers out projected for fiscal

[5:48] year 2027 is $341.6

[5:51] million

[5:52] and to the left is another graphic

[5:55] showing

[5:57] total expenditures and transfers out for

[5:58] the last five fiscal years.

[6:01] The most significant expenses come from

[6:04] enterprise funds, so

[6:06] our airport and utilities. The general

[6:09] fund and then internal service funds.

[6:11] Below that is a little explainer bubble

[6:15] talking about the six different funds

[6:16] that comprise the entire city budget. Um

[6:21] which you can read about.

[6:23] As well, we have an explainer about

[6:26] general fund expenditure expenditures

[6:28] and transfers out that are

[6:30] being recommended for fiscal year 2027.

[6:33] Um which is approximately $94.22

[6:36] million. Um as well as a graphic to the

[6:40] right of all of the different

[6:42] departments and their general fund

[6:44] expenses.

[6:45] Um expected in fiscal year 2027. The top

[6:48] three being police at 27.9 million, fire

[6:52] at 16.8 million and parks at

[6:55] approximately 15.3 million.

[6:58] Uh

[6:59] the capital projects page here

[7:01] shows our capital

[7:04] improvement plan budget which is

[7:06] approximately $57.79 million for this

[7:09] upcoming fiscal year.

[7:10] Um as well as a breakdown of the

[7:13] different departments and their

[7:14] anticipated capital project costs.

[7:17] Um the top three being wastewater at

[7:19] approximately $14.8 million, energy at

[7:22] 13.03

[7:24] million and our water department at

[7:26] 7.88. Um below that we have given a

[7:31] little explainer on some significant

[7:34] capital projects that you can expect to

[7:35] see in fiscal year 2027.

[7:37] Um

[7:39] all of them have to do with water in

[7:40] some way.

[7:41] Um and one that I specifically wanted to

[7:43] highlight was the drinking water

[7:44] treatment plant that is entering its

[7:46] final phase of construction here in fall

[7:48] of 2026 with the plant um, projected to

[7:51] be open next calendar year. Um, and it

[7:54] will transform water into drinking

[7:57] quality water, which we all need. Um,

[8:00] and if you're interested in learning

[8:02] more about um,

[8:04] additional capital projects in the

[8:06] future that usually span more than a

[8:07] year, um, the full five-year capital

[8:09] improvement plan uh, can be viewed at

[8:11] the bottom of the page.

[8:13] Um, utility rates and rebates is a new

[8:15] page that I added this year.

[8:18] Um, or I should say the Municipal

[8:19] Council staff. Um, and

[8:23] on the page it explains a little bit

[8:24] about some utility rate adjustments that

[8:26] are proposed in the tentative budget for

[8:28] fiscal year 2027, including a 6%

[8:31] increase uh, for residential water

[8:33] rates, as well as a 4% increase for

[8:36] small commercial, 7% for large

[8:38] commercial, and 10% increase for

[8:40] industrial power customers to

[8:42] electricity rates. Um, I do want to note

[8:45] though that no increases are expected

[8:46] for residential power customers this

[8:49] upcoming fiscal year.

[8:50] Which is great.

[8:51] Uh, additionally on this page there are

[8:54] some resources for residents and

[8:56] business owners um, for utility rebates

[8:59] and sustainability programs to help

[9:01] offset some of the uh, increased costs

[9:03] of providing high-quality utilities to

[9:05] the city. Some of those include um,

[9:08] discounts on sprinkler controllers so,

[9:11] to help save water during this drought

[9:13] season. Um, shade trees that are

[9:16] absolutely free once every three years

[9:17] you can uh, they're eligible any

[9:19] residents are eligible for that. Um, and

[9:21] then rebates on sprinkler heads.

[9:25] Um, the funding and saving page uh,

[9:27] analyzes some ways that Provo City is

[9:30] trying to uh, operate more efficiently

[9:33] by cutting on expenses and um,

[9:37] improving revenue.

[9:39] Um and I've chosen to highlight five of

[9:41] the things from the budget that both the

[9:43] council, the mayor's office, and city

[9:45] staff

[9:46] um have attempted to do. Um

[9:48] one of those is a stricter

[9:50] approach to supplemental appropriations.

[9:53] So, department directors are now being

[9:54] asked to identify potential funding

[9:56] sources for every proposed project um

[10:00] ahead of time, which is a big deal.

[10:02] Uh secondly, is establishing an annual

[10:04] vehicle fleet budget. Uh wasn't a defined budget previously.

[10:09] Um addressing operational overtime in

[10:11] the fire department. Um and we've been

[10:13] able to hire more fire officers or

[10:16] firefighters, excuse me,

[10:18] um and lower their overtime costs, um

[10:20] saving the city money.

[10:22] Um investing in an economic development

[10:24] strategic plan has been one of the

[10:26] priorities of the council that I wanted

[10:28] to highlight. And then lastly, is

[10:29] improving building permit processes. Um

[10:31] and we've been able to add a new

[10:33] building inspector under this proposed

[10:34] budget at no cost to the general fund.

[10:37] Uh moving forward,

[10:39] um

[10:40] Provo is a great city and um that's been

[10:43] recognized by others. So, there's a

[10:45] little section about some achievements

[10:47] and rankings for the city of Provo, as

[10:48] well as the community vision that was um

[10:52] created in 2010 by the um Vision 2030

[10:56] steering committee and Provo city staff.

[10:59] Um and then at the very bottom is a

[11:01] little looking ahead um paragraph

[11:03] talking about how um this proposed

[11:06] budget meets those community aims.

[11:09] And then lastly, is contact information

[11:12] for all the councilors and the mayor, as

[11:14] well as a little explainer on how to get

[11:16] involved in the budget process

[11:18] um

[11:18] if you are a citizen interested in

[11:20] learning more. Um

[11:23] and at the very bottom is uh

[11:26] a link to the full fiscal year 2027

[11:29] tentative budget. Um I'll now welcome

[11:31] any questions if you have any. Thank

[11:33] you.

[11:34] >> Any questions for Britain?

[11:37] I think we're good. Thank you so much

[11:38] for doing that.

[11:39] >> Awesome.

[11:40] >> We'd like to recognize that we've been

[11:41] joined by Councillor Travis Hoban and

[11:42] the Mayor Marsha Judkins.

[11:45] Next is an implied motion on Now's your

[11:47] chance, Cody. A resolution to place

[11:49] 5.079 acres of real property Jerry

[11:52] located to the south of the Epic Sports

[11:54] Park on Lakeview Parkway on the surplus

[11:55] list.

[11:59] » Thank you, Council. Appreciate it. Um,

[12:01] so yeah, I'm here to discuss the

[12:04] surplussing of this property. It is

[12:05] located just south of the Epic Sports

[12:07] Park. It is about 5.

[12:10] Uh, 079 acres. It was originally

[12:14] included in the purchase for the land

[12:16] for the Epic Sports Park, which is just

[12:17] over 100 acres. And then looking ahead,

[12:20] the

[12:21] um,

[12:22] Development Services Department worked

[12:24] with Parks and Recreation to to zone the

[12:28] bottom portion of it, that 5 acres on

[12:29] the bottom as SC2. So, uh, commercial

[12:32] for that area. And

[12:35] we've been discussing this in the in the

[12:37] previous work session about the the RFP

[12:39] that went out for it. Um, and so the

[12:41] city is contemplating its development

[12:44] and looking at surplussing it so that it

[12:46] could be sold and developed. Um, and I'm

[12:49] happy to field any questions, additional

[12:51] questions you have about this property.

[12:53] But I feel like we've been talking about

[12:54] it quite a bit lately.

[13:00] » All right, any questions for Cody?

[13:04] All right, thank you.

[13:07] Brian, I did do open public comment

[13:09] before I went back and did

[13:11] >> Okay.

[13:12] >> Got you.

[13:12] >> Thanks for checking.

[13:13] >> I asked, well, never mind. Go ahead.

[13:15] Great.

[13:17] » Okay. Is there any public comment on,

[13:20] um,

[13:21] the surplus property of Lakeview

[13:23] Parkway?

[13:27] All right, seeing no public comment, any

[13:29] council discussion on this item?

[13:32] All right, we will do a vote on the

[13:34] implied Oh.

[13:36] Councilor Whitlock.

[13:37] >> If if I may just cuz I think sometimes

[13:40] the way in which [clears throat] these

[13:41] things get decided, the surplus property

[13:44] action happens sometimes before everyone

[13:45] has the full context. So, this is just

[13:47] by the airport and there's if you look

[13:49] in the work meeting, there's a really

[13:50] nice plan for a hotel and some

[13:54] restaurants next to the Epicenter Sports

[13:55] Park. So, we're putting this as a

[13:57] procedural thing we need to do in order

[13:58] to make that happen for people who use

[14:00] the airport and the Epicenter Sports

[14:02] Park.

[14:04] » Thank you. All right, next

[14:07] we'll do a vote on the implied motion.

[14:08] Councilor Garrett.

[14:10] >> Yes.

[14:10] >> Councilor McKay, yes. Councilor

[14:12] Christensen.

[14:13] >> Yes.

[14:13] >> Councilor Whitlock.

[14:14] >> Yes.

[14:15] >> Councilor Bogdan.

[14:16] >> Yes.

[14:16] >> Councilor Houben.

[14:17] >> Yes.

[14:18] >> And Councilor Whipple.

[14:19] >> Yes.

[14:20] >> That passes 7-0.

[14:22] Next, we have an implied motion and

[14:23] ordinance amending the zone map

[14:24] classification of real property

[14:26] generally located at 5568 North Canyon

[14:29] Road from the medium density residential

[14:32] MDR zone to the Arbors on the Avenue Pro

[14:35] A-10 zone, North Timpview.

[14:37] And this will be presented by Aaron

[14:38] Ardmore, our planning supervisor.

[14:42] >> Thank you, Council. So, this is uh

[14:45] maybe the third time you've seen this

[14:46] property come before you.

[14:48] Um so, if you recall, those of you that

[14:50] were on the council last year approved

[14:52] the medium density residential zone

[14:54] that's shown on the map on the left

[14:56] along with a development agreement to

[14:58] tie it down to 16 uh town home units.

[15:02] Uh so, the developer has come back now

[15:04] with uh

[15:05] new uh

[15:07] proposal to

[15:09] produce 46 condo units using the Arbors

[15:12] on the Avenue zone.

[15:14] Um so, this has gone through staff

[15:17] review and planning commission. Uh the

[15:19] concept essentially shows that it can

[15:22] meet the zone if if approved.

[15:24] Part of this is also

[15:26] amendment of the development agreement

[15:28] on record that's recorded at the county

[15:30] to to reflect the changes with this

[15:32] proposal.

[15:33] So that's what's before you and I'm

[15:35] happy to address any questions and the

[15:36] applicant is also here to address any

[15:38] questions you might have.

[15:39] >> Thanks Aaron.

[15:41] All right, any questions for Aaron?

[15:46] Councilor Christensen.

[15:48] >> So

[15:49] it just be helpful to know about the

[15:51] sewer capacity

[15:52] that we did not talk about in the work

[15:54] meeting.

[15:56] I'm just curious as to how this now

[15:58] works and it didn't before.

[16:01] >> I can't speak to sewer capacity but if

[16:03] there's someone from public works here

[16:04] that can that would be Looks like there

[16:05] is.

[16:06] >> Okay, great.

[16:08] >> We have Gordon Haight joining us. He's

[16:10] our public works director.

[16:12] >> Thank you.

[16:14] No, that that's an important question.

[16:15] So when they first came through the city

[16:17] had gone through with its master plan

[16:20] and looked at the cap the uh

[16:22] the city master plan and allocated for

[16:24] undeveloped property how many

[16:28] sewer spaces or connections would be

[16:30] allowed on each of those properties.

[16:32] This property was in the general plan of

[16:34] 12 units per acre or total of 12 units.

[16:37] And so we had allocated all the capacity

[16:40] in the southwest

[16:42] um knowing that we had some

[16:44] until excuse me the northwest

[16:46] >> northwest

[16:46] >> northeast section based upon some

[16:49] capacity restraints.

[16:51] Since that time we have looked at some

[16:53] properties that we have

[16:55] we had large apartment projects and

[16:58] others that did not come through that

[17:00] had different zonings and so we were

[17:03] still we were able to allocate

[17:06] units to this area after we did the mask

[17:08] after the master plan was adopted by the

[17:10] city

[17:11] and we looked at that we said okay let's

[17:13] pull some of these and we have the capacity for this. It's

[17:17] still tight. I think we've we've ended

[17:19] up with um after this project 150

[17:24] connections, but some of those again are

[17:26] allocated for undeveloped property that

[17:28] we say will develop in the future. So,

[17:32] we if there's a up-zone on some of those

[17:34] properties, it could be a real challenge

[17:36] for us and we may not be able to do

[17:37] that. So, this project is taking more

[17:40] than the 12 we had allocated for it. We

[17:42] can do that because of

[17:43] allocations that we now believe are

[17:47] what's really going to happen with the

[17:48] master

[17:49] >> initially it was 12 and now it's going

[17:50] up to 40.

[17:52] >> 48.

[17:53] >> Um

[17:55] So, does that put in jeopardy uh

[17:58] these I'm just wondering how tight that threshold is. What are we trading

[18:02] on?

[18:03] >> we believe that going ahead and

[18:04] approving this is going to be fine cuz

[18:05] we've looked at all the properties based

[18:07] upon the master plan the city council

[18:09] adopted and we have the capacity to meet

[18:12] that. Now, if something comes in and

[18:14] zones over that, would be a challenge.

[18:18] >> Okay. All right, thanks Kurt.

[18:21] >> All right, any other questions for

[18:23] Aaron?

[18:25] Councilor Whitlock.

[18:27] >> Um

[18:29] I I just had a question. So, this was

[18:31] previously there was a previous

[18:33] development agreement that was

[18:35] associated with this project, right?

[18:36] >> Correct.

[18:37] >> And are we still operating under that

[18:39] previous development agreement?

[18:41] >> As of right now we are.

[18:43] >> So, um can you just some questions about

[18:45] that? Um so, one was there any uh owner

[18:48] occupancy stipulated in that development

[18:50] agreement?

[18:51] >> There was.

[18:51] >> Can you explain?

[18:53] >> Yes, so it it's that portion of it has

[18:56] been continued in the proposed

[18:57] development agreement for tonight uh

[18:59] where the developer has committed to

[19:01] provide at least 50% of uh deed

[19:04] restricted owner occupant uh units

[19:06] within the project.

[19:08] >> And answer this as you're able, but part

[19:11] of the I guess justification to the

[19:14] public for more units but smaller is

[19:17] that these would perhaps be more

[19:18] affordable. Do you can you speak to

[19:20] maybe what the cost of these would be?

[19:21] >> Yeah. Uh

[19:22] David uh Peronje can can speak to that

[19:25] much more than I can but yes the the

[19:27] units that they were looking at before

[19:29] were going to be quite expensive um and

[19:31] be kind of counter to what the city has

[19:33] focused on with affordability.

[19:36] >> And then in the neighborhood meeting it

[19:38] seemed the primary concern for those who didn't want this development was

[19:42] traffic. What in the development

[19:44] agreement would address those concerns?

[19:46] >> Um there's road improvements tied to

[19:48] this. Uh there's infrastructure utility

[19:50] improvements tied to this. So uh it will

[19:53] actually be a benefit to the area in the

[19:56] in that regard.

[19:57] >> So it'll actually improve the overall

[19:58] system.

[19:59] >> Correct.

[20:00] >> And then sorry I said last but one more.

[20:02] And then the current uh

[20:04] property is effectively like a

[20:05] discontinued gravel pit. Hot topic

[20:07] lately.

[20:08] >> Yes.

[20:09] >> Okay.

[20:09] >> Thank you.

[20:10] >> Yep.

[20:11] >> I have a question.

[20:12] >> Councilor Christiansen.

[20:13] >> And so what was the answer to the

[20:15] current uh

[20:17] development agreement in terms of owner

[20:19] occupancy?

[20:20] >> I believe it's the minimum of 50% of the

[20:22] units.

[20:23] >> The the existing?

[20:24] >> The existing.

[20:26] >> It's my understanding that that was

[20:27] actually 100% owner occupancy.

[20:30] >> I can I can look up the city the the

[20:32] county record and double check that but

[20:33] I believe it was the 50%.

[20:35] >> Okay, that that would be helpful to

[20:36] know.

[20:37] >> Okay.

[20:41] » Councilor Bogdan.

[20:44] » Okay, Aaron.

[20:46] So

[20:47] this includes the trails too if I

[20:49] remember right that existing

[20:51] agreement he's going to develop the

[20:53] trails.

[20:54] >> Yes, develop the trails to connect up to

[20:55] our current trail system.

[20:57] >> And then parking was also brought up in

[20:59] the neighborhood meeting.

[21:01] So they were concerned that it didn't

[21:03] have enough parking and there would be

[21:04] parking on the trail head up above.

[21:07] That's

[21:08] >> There were some concerns about parking,

[21:09] but the proposal the concept plan meets the

[21:13] parking standard for the city for the

[21:14] zone.

[21:15] >> Right, but how many What is it?

[21:17] 2.something?

[21:18] >> 2.25 per unit.

[21:20] >> And then there's they're three-bedroom

[21:22] units.

[21:22] >> Yes.

[21:23] >> So, if you stick three students in there

[21:26] with three cars, it's still

[21:28] 2.25 still not going to meet the demand.

[21:31] >> city standard.

[21:33] >> Yes, and so

[21:36] where would that third car sit?

[21:41] Theoretically, is it going to be parked

[21:42] on the road on Canyon Road? Is it going

[21:44] to be parked up on a trail head?

[21:47] >> You're talking about a theoretical cars.

[21:49] I I I can't respond to that. I don't

[21:51] know.

[21:53] It It meets the city standard. It meets

[21:55] the city standard, so that's what we

[21:56] review.

[21:57] >> Right.

[21:57] >> Yep.

[21:58] >> But, where do we project some of this

[22:01] over I mean, it couldn't probably go up

[22:03] to the trail head because trail head

[22:05] would be

[22:07] no parking from 11:00 to 5:00, right?

[22:10] >> Right, and there's no parking on the

[22:11] adjacent streets, so.

[22:12] >> There's no parking on Canyon Road?

[22:14] >> No, not section of Canyon Road, no.

[22:16] >> Okay, so that should take care of that

[22:18] issue.

[22:18] >> I would believe so.

[22:20] >> Okay, thank you.

[22:21] >> Yep.

[22:23] » Councilor Whipple.

[22:25] >> Yeah, I was just looking at the numbers,

[22:26] so 19 town homes even if all of those

[22:29] had been o-

[22:31] owner occupied, the proposal now for 46

[22:34] condos with half would give us, you

[22:36] know, 23.

[22:38] So, we would be getting more

[22:40] owner occupied units for sale with this

[22:43] change than we would have with the

[22:44] earlier one, and the price for each of

[22:46] them would probably be a little bit more

[22:48] affordable.

[22:49] Um

[22:50] I also just note that this was a

[22:52] difficult property to work with with the

[22:54] substation and the other issues that

[22:57] were going through and next to the

[22:59] property.

[23:00] Um

[23:02] I think that there was support for it earlier and it

[23:07] was just but for that sewer capacity

[23:09] issue

[23:10] that we weren't able to do this, but I

[23:12] think this proposal's probably better

[23:13] than what we were looking at in that

[23:16] earlier iteration.

[23:23] » Yeah. What's that?

[23:25] >> Councilor Christensen.

[23:27] >> Well, uh yes and no. Um the concern is

[23:30] also the

[23:33] uh there was discussion about it the

[23:35] density at this point coming down the

[23:37] Canyon Road, parking, all those things.

[23:39] So, again, the challenge it may meet the

[23:41] city standard. The question here is not

[23:44] just does it meet the city standard,

[23:46] but like where do you park? In the other

[23:48] place you can park on, you know, surface

[23:50] streets. There are no surface streets

[23:51] here. So, that could be a problem.

[23:54] And also the uh just the the density of

[23:56] this can be an issue, especially in this

[23:58] location. Uh you come down off that

[24:00] street.

[24:01] Um it's a it's a very challenging spot

[24:05] um

[24:06] for I think this kind of density. We

[24:07] also talked about that.

[24:11] » Do you want to talk to us, David, as the

[24:12] developer?

[24:17] » I want to talk about theoretical

[24:18] parking. That's how we're going to start

[24:20] today. I can opine on that. I know it's

[24:23] a big concern. So, I just want to walk

[24:25] you through what would happen here. Um

[24:27] so, somebody comes in, buys a condo,

[24:30] they get two parking spots, one

[24:32] underground and then one surface. With

[24:35] about I I think it's like eight or so

[24:37] would be able to pay an additional fee

[24:39] and they would be able to have two

[24:40] spaces uh underneath. That's how it sets

[24:43] up. That's how it's set up. Then,

[24:44] there'll be

[24:46] I forget 10 or 11 visitor parking spots

[24:49] uh right there.

[24:50] Um so, if somebody did that and they

[24:53] come, they say, "Well, I'm going to put

[24:55] my three college students in this

[24:57] place."

[24:58] The first thing they would have to

[24:59] figure out is are they carpooling or

[25:02] where are they going to park? And as we

[25:03] walk through here, there's not a

[25:05] somewhere to park in this area. Um all

[25:07] of the places that are available, you

[25:09] could walk across the street in

[25:11] University Avenue. There's a new

[25:13] crosswalk there and try and get away

[25:15] with it there for a while. You could try

[25:16] and get away with it in the you know, up

[25:19] top in the trailhead parking for a

[25:20] while. None of these are great long-term

[25:23] solutions. And so in the end, you just

[25:26] couldn't do it. If you're parking in the

[25:28] visitor parking provided on site, same

[25:31] thing. Neighbors, HOA, they're going to

[25:34] squash that as well. So in the end,

[25:36] people who buy here,

[25:38] um

[25:38] they're going to be limited to two cars.

[25:40] That's going to limit the people who go

[25:42] there. Um I think that's good. If you're

[25:44] looking for a place where students

[25:46] aren't going to be able to go and live

[25:48] and take over an area, uh this is it.

[25:50] There's just not a place for them to do

[25:52] it.

[25:54] So that's that's how I see that. I don't

[25:55] see another solution there for them to

[25:57] park.

[25:58] >> So you are going to be managing the

[25:59] parking closely and doing assigned spots

[26:01] or assigned

[26:02] >> Yes, it'll be assigned. Everyone will

[26:03] have two assigned spots and visitor

[26:06] parking spots. Um there is an option if

[26:08] somebody, this is another theoretical,

[26:11] um

[26:12] if somebody wanted to have three cars in

[26:14] there, and you might you might have

[26:15] somebody maybe someone's turning 16,

[26:17] maybe someone is trying to put a third

[26:19] adult in there who drives, you could go

[26:21] to the HOA and try and rent a parking

[26:24] spot from another tenant in there. That

[26:26] happens in a condo project. That's an

[26:28] option.

[26:29] Uh you know, it's not a guarantee. It's

[26:31] a limited option. You're renting uh the

[26:33] parking spot. You don't own it. So maybe

[26:36] you could do that.

[26:39] >> Could you speak to the pricing? I think

[26:42] someone asked about the pricing.

[26:44] >> Um yes.

[26:46] Uh so the previous townhomes that I had

[26:49] designed on that I have designed on this

[26:51] site, they're all

[26:53] uh 3,000 or 2,500 square feet. They're

[26:56] larger. They're going to be priced

[26:57] higher. These are just going to be less

[26:59] because they're condos.

[27:02] The square footage as it's designed up

[27:04] there is about 1,525 per unit. That's a

[27:08] really good size for a a three-bedroom

[27:11] condo.

[27:13] In there we have eight two-bedrooms as

[27:14] well. They can be two or three-bedrooms.

[27:16] It's going to be mostly three-bedrooms.

[27:18] That's what the market wants. There is

[27:21] some demand for a two-bedroom

[27:24] you know, double primary kind of set up.

[27:26] So, we have eight in there

[27:29] in the proposal. Whether it's eight or

[27:31] four or zero, I guess we could change

[27:34] that. But so I don't have any

[27:36] These aren't going to be entry-level

[27:37] condos just given their location. The

[27:40] underground parking is is premium.

[27:43] That's an expensive feature. That's

[27:45] something that people want, but um

[27:49] Again, I see I've always thought that

[27:51] this will entice more people from the

[27:53] area who are moving out of older homes

[27:56] who are aging out of their homes. I

[27:58] always thought that would be more of the

[27:59] market. You can You'll be able to trade

[28:02] out an older home in the area for a new

[28:04] condo here.

[28:06] >> I was thinking that's going to be a

[28:07] large part of the market, too. I'm

[28:08] curious is there going to be an elevator

[28:10] in the building?

[28:10] >> Yep. You'll be able to drive in, park

[28:12] underground in whatever kind of weather,

[28:15] and get right on an elevator and go up

[28:17] to whatever floor you're on. That'll be

[28:19] pretty nice for a lot of people.

[28:21] Especially people who are you know,

[28:22] they're aging out of their home, but

[28:23] they're not going to an assisted living

[28:25] place. They just don't want stairs. They

[28:27] don't want a yard. They don't want an

[28:28] old home.

[28:32] Um

[28:33] >> Councilor Christian said

[28:35] >> David, um I asked the question of Aaron.

[28:38] My recollection was 100% home ownership

[28:42] in the current development agreement.

[28:44] >> Um it's 50% is what we agreed last time

[28:46] we were here. That's in there. Aaron

[28:48] told me he just verified it.

[28:49] >> Okay.

[28:50] >> I have it. I've read it. It's 50% I'm

[28:52] proposing that.

[28:53] >> Okay.

[28:53] >> Um so

[28:54] >> Thank you for verifying that. Um can you

[28:57] tell me how you're thinking about where

[28:59] home ownership would be and where rental

[29:03] rentals would be?

[29:04] >> Um yes. So

[29:06] uh the 50% um will make it a condo. So

[29:09] it won't be a

[29:10] uh an apartment building. This will be a

[29:12] condo project. That's minimum for FHA

[29:15] standards anyway. You have to go through

[29:16] the whole FHA process if you want to

[29:19] provide that kind of financing there. Um

[29:22] that also puts long-term

[29:24] uh limits on the project as far as owner

[29:27] occupancy. You have to maintain certain

[29:29] owner occupancies over time. Otherwise

[29:31] it can get hard for people to to sell

[29:34] their condos if they refinance. So again

[29:37] for me the the 50% is a uh we just set a

[29:40] minimum floor for owner occupancy. Um

[29:44] uh you know, as far as how many above

[29:46] that

[29:47] uh

[29:48] I don't plan on on owning anything in

[29:50] there. Uh so

[29:53] who knows how high it will be.

[29:54] >> Yeah.

[29:55] >> It is important to keep some flexibility

[29:57] in it as well. When you build this

[29:59] project has to be built in one building.

[30:01] That's 46 units at a time. Hopefully you

[30:04] can pre-sell during construction.

[30:06] Hopefully you can sell most of them

[30:08] within the year after that. So there is

[30:11] some to make the project work it's it's

[30:14] helpful to have some flexibility there.

[30:16] >> Thank you.

[30:19] » Can I have I have one other I think I

[30:21] have some slides in here.

[30:23] Oh, applicant slides. There we go.

[30:27] Okay. Oh, height. I was going to talk a

[30:29] little bit bit about height. That comes

[30:31] up often. Um the change in zoning I

[30:34] don't need for any height requirements.

[30:35] This building as it's shown here meets

[30:38] the current MDR height. Um it's also

[30:41] lower than the bottom of the substation.

[30:44] So, the top of this building lower than

[30:47] the substation, which is my closest

[30:49] neighbor.

[30:50] Um,

[30:51] uh, the change in zoning is needed to

[30:53] allow parking to be in front of the

[30:55] building. The way the building's

[30:56] designed, the parking structure would

[31:00] help retain the hill behind it and allow

[31:02] for more parking on the front.

[31:05] The

[31:06] um, the sewer capacity that's been

[31:08] talked about, there's more sewer

[31:09] capacity out there and available than

[31:12] what I've requested for the project.

[31:14] It's just parking that's the limiting

[31:16] factor here. How much parking can you

[31:18] get? So, this meets the requirement. It

[31:20] allows for

[31:22] two parking stalls per unit plus visitor

[31:24] parking as well.

[31:25] That's the why the zone change is in

[31:27] there. Um, also as far as height's

[31:30] concerned, the current plan has

[31:32] townhomes backing up to Canyon Road. Um,

[31:35] in my mind, this is just a a better

[31:37] project for the area. The front the

[31:39] front of the condo is going to be better

[31:41] than

[31:42] the back of townhomes, no matter how

[31:44] nice you make the back of the townhomes.

[31:57] Uh, units are under

[31:59] Let's see.

[32:01] I think these are my slides from the

[32:02] previous one.

[32:04] Or from planning commission.

[32:05] Anyway, there you go. Any other

[32:07] questions?

[32:08] >> I have a question for you, David. Um, we

[32:10] had a presentation this morning by a

[32:12] condo developer.

[32:14] And he mentioned that it's their

[32:15] standard that they do 80% owner occupied

[32:18] 20% rentals.

[32:20] And um, he talked about the FHA and I

[32:23] know I I've spoken to I've spoken to a

[32:25] few citizens in Provo who live by

[32:27] condos.

[32:28] And people can't resell them or

[32:30] refinance or buy with it because the

[32:32] percentage of ownership is so low.

[32:34] And I'm wondering it would meet our

[32:36] goals

[32:37] as a council if you'd be willing to like

[32:39] up who do work at 80% there.

[32:44] » Um

[32:46] you know, I'm not opposed to 80% owner

[32:48] occupied or 100% owner occupied. Again,

[32:51] I'm

[32:52] request just that I have the flexibility

[32:53] that I can. I think also you can have

[32:55] some people buying a a second home up

[32:58] here. I don't know how that would fit in

[32:59] to the requirement

[33:01] >> home is still owner occupied.

[33:02] >> occupied. Okay.

[33:03] I think that that's a group of people,

[33:06] you know, from

[33:06] >> Yeah.

[33:07] >> Provo living

[33:09] places south of us that are horrible in

[33:11] the summer.

[33:12] >> Yeah.

[33:14] Councilor Whitlock.

[33:15] >> Yeah, um if you could just kind of paint

[33:18] for us the picture of what will happen

[33:21] to the hill. Cuz right now, you know,

[33:24] it's sort of like you have this

[33:25] a narrow gravel pit area.

[33:28] You just help us kind of visualize it

[33:30] cuz it doesn't look like this right now.

[33:32] >> Um

[33:33] Correct. There's a couch on it right now

[33:35] that's not shown on the current

[33:36] pictures. That's a recent addition to

[33:38] the property. I someone else did that

[33:40] for me. I didn't have to pay for that.

[33:42] Um

[33:44] So, where the building itself sits,

[33:46] uh it sits pretty much in the footprint

[33:49] that's there. There'll be a little bit

[33:50] of retaining into the hillside there.

[33:52] The The current slope that's in the area

[33:54] was designed by Northern Engineering.

[33:56] It's two to one. And so, this building

[33:58] would retain a little bit of there. Most

[34:01] of the change would happen on the south

[34:04] the entrance way in between the Canyon

[34:07] Road and the substation. Um that's

[34:10] another thing I know we're talking about

[34:12] uh

[34:13] just the road and access there. I had a

[34:15] another picture I wanted to show, but we

[34:17] don't have to see it. It's It was just

[34:19] what the property looked like when I

[34:20] acquired it.

[34:22] was seven parcels overlapping with the substation as well.

[34:27] I owned property inside the substation.

[34:29] I owned where the new substation access

[34:32] is right now and um um

[34:35] this was a couple years ago we sat down

[34:37] and renegotiated all the boundaries. I

[34:39] paid for a joint survey with the city so

[34:41] we could identify everything. We were

[34:43] negotiated that. Um and now the

[34:46] substation has its defined boundaries.

[34:49] It has its new access. They've abandoned

[34:52] the current access road.

[34:54] Um and also I have I have an agreement

[34:56] with the city a signed agreement with

[34:58] the city to swap the parcel where the

[35:00] road this road expansion that's one day

[35:03] will happen there and that's on property

[35:05] that I own at the moment. Um but I

[35:08] already have a signed agreement with the

[35:09] city to transfer ownership to the city.

[35:11] works is going to do some work

[35:13] on site to offset that.

[35:18] » Councilor Ripple.

[35:20] Yeah, just following up on what you were

[35:22] saying Councilor McKay about the

[35:25] presentation we had from Edge. One thing

[35:27] that they noted is that they had to work

[35:30] really hard to sell six condo units in a

[35:34] development in a period of a year.

[35:36] >> A month.

[35:37] And so what we're

[35:40] Yes, so we're looking at, you know,

[35:44] they could only do that when they were

[35:46] doing, you know, significant incentives

[35:48] like interest rate buy down and things

[35:50] like that.

[35:51] Um and we're asking him to sell

[35:55] more than half of this, you know, that

[35:58] that's a significant amount of time that

[36:00] he's going to be probably holding some

[36:01] of these properties and I don't know if

[36:03] you have those same kind of

[36:06] financing options for the people who

[36:08] would be looking at purchasing these things.

[36:13] >> That was for first time home buyers

[36:14] though. That's not really his market.

[36:16] >> Right. And so that may make it harder

[36:19] for him to sell these as quickly.

[36:22] >> Easier.

[36:23] >> You think it would be easier?

[36:25] Listen.

[36:26] I don't know. But I was just wondering

[36:28] like how quickly do you anticipate being

[36:31] able to sell the for-sale units as

[36:34] opposed to how long do you think it

[36:35] would take to fill the rental units?

[36:39] >> You know, I'll respond to that in and

[36:41] one thing that matters a lot is interest

[36:43] rates. And right now, we're definitely

[36:44] in an environment where interest rates

[36:46] have ticked up when everyone thought

[36:48] that was was hoping they would go down.

[36:51] Interest rates were ticking down and

[36:52] they were at a multi-year low just

[36:54] before the Iran war. Unfortunately,

[36:56] they've ticked back up. That makes it

[36:58] harder, especially for

[37:01] uh first-time home buyers. That's a very

[37:03] interest rate sensitive segment of the

[37:06] market.

[37:07] You know, if we're talking about people

[37:08] selling their homes and moving into

[37:10] these, they're not getting loans, so

[37:12] that's helpful. Um that would help us

[37:14] out as well. But, definitely there's a

[37:16] concern. There's an absorption rate that

[37:18] the mark- the market's only going to

[37:19] absorb so many of these a month, a year.

[37:22] Um

[37:24] so

[37:25] there's a little bit of a roll of the

[37:26] dice there when you when you build

[37:27] something like this.

[37:29] And again, though, this is this is in

[37:31] Provo. You know, some of the the starter

[37:33] homes are in other areas of the county

[37:36] that, you know, maybe aren't as

[37:37] desirable.

[37:39] >> Councilor Bogdan.

[37:41] But, didn't he say that

[37:43] somebody that didn't try as hard as he

[37:44] did could sell three

[37:46] a month? And so, that's still 36 units.

[37:50] That's How many units did you have? 45?

[37:52] >> 46.

[37:53] >> Yeah.

[37:54] And so,

[37:55] I I don't see it as a problem.

[37:57] >> And and you don't have to, you know, if

[37:59] you sell 36 of these in the first year,

[38:02] you then you're doing pretty good at

[38:03] that point. I mean, at that point your

[38:05] carry cost is is much lower. It's a much

[38:07] more manageable. You've You've been

[38:08] successful at that point.

[38:13] » Councilor Whitlock.

[38:14] >> Is uh so, it's been great to help uh

[38:17] you you help us refresh our memories

[38:19] about this development agreement. I'm

[38:20] just wondering, is there anything else

[38:23] uh from the development agreement that

[38:24] would be helpful to highlight for us and

[38:26] for the public that people would

[38:28] appreciate? Like, for example, I think

[38:29] you that

[38:31] behind this condo there is going to be a

[38:32] trail connecting to Indian Indian

[38:34] Trailhead or Indian Trail Trail.

[38:36] >> So, I I have that in the drawing. I

[38:37] didn't propose that specifically as a

[38:40] something that would be in the

[38:41] agreement. It hasn't been designed yet.

[38:43] It looks very feasible. There's

[38:45] companies out there that just come and

[38:46] cut these trails in the hillside. Um I

[38:49] wasn't going to include that in the

[38:51] uh in the development agreement. For

[38:54] example, for some reason we didn't have

[38:56] access off the back of the property,

[38:57] which I think is unlikely, then

[39:00] all of a sudden you got to figure out

[39:01] how to do a trail around it. So, um I I

[39:04] think it will happen. Obviously, that

[39:06] that'd be a great amenity for the condo

[39:08] to be able to get right up on the trail.

[39:10] >> Are there any other things you'd

[39:11] highlight?

[39:17] » Um yeah, I think something that's

[39:18] important to to note when the project

[39:20] goes in, uh

[39:22] water will be looped in this area from

[39:25] Canyon Road to the other side of

[39:26] University. That'll be a a benefit to

[39:29] everyone who uses water in this area.

[39:32] Um same with sewer will be brought

[39:33] across University Avenue as well in this

[39:36] area for the first time. Uh to we'll

[39:39] connect there. Gas as well um has to be

[39:42] looped in this area. Um that'll improve

[39:45] gas pressure for

[39:47] anyone who obviously for the

[39:48] development, anyone who lives there.

[39:50] Um Google Fiber will be brought over to

[39:53] the area. So, there's lots of This is

[39:55] kind of a dead zone for utilities. So,

[39:58] lots of improvements will happen when

[40:00] the project goes forward.

[40:06] » Is this a accurate representation of the

[40:08] building or is this just like AI

[40:10] generated?

[40:12] >> I

[40:12] >> We've got a lot of AI generated ones

[40:13] lately.

[40:16] » Um

[40:17] uh I used AI to reskin this. I paid an

[40:21] architect a lot of money to draw

[40:22] something up and get everything exactly

[40:24] right. And when it was

[40:26] but we've been working on that for years

[40:28] now, right? When I started working out

[40:29] there was no AI generated anything. It's

[40:31] hard to just generate a an accurate

[40:33] building from AI. If I just go and say

[40:35] build me a four, you know, a a

[40:37] four-story high building, then it can't

[40:41] do it. So, this

[40:42] >> pretty accurate?

[40:43] >> Yes, this is very accurate. This is what

[40:44] the architect drew up and then it's been

[40:46] reskinned with AI. So, the finish

[40:48] materials on it are different. You know,

[40:50] the some of the roofs and stuff, but no,

[40:52] this was an architect. I had to pay them

[40:54] a lot of money.

[40:57] » And do you

[40:59] What does the build-out look like? The

[41:01] Are you building through the whole thing

[41:03] at at once or is there phases to this?

[41:06] >> Um, it's going to have to be built all

[41:08] at once. If you tried to You'd have to

[41:10] build the parking structure either way.

[41:11] I just

[41:12] >> Mhm.

[41:13] >> By the time you built the parking

[41:14] structure and did everything else and

[41:16] built half the building, you might as

[41:17] well build the second half. You know,

[41:19] the The underground parking structure

[41:21] could be

[41:22] a quarter [clears throat] to a third of

[41:24] the cost. And it's expensive.

[41:26] >> Okay, I just need to clarify, Aaron and

[41:28] David. I did remember like, um, Jeff,

[41:31] that there was a trail included in the

[41:32] development agreement.

[41:36] » Well, we never moved forward with that

[41:37] condo project and so there wasn't in the

[41:39] town homes we didn't have it.

[41:41] >> I think I think the section that you're

[41:42] remembering might be this. The developer

[41:44] must cause the ownership of the Indian

[41:46] Trail, uh, Bonneville Shoreline Trail

[41:48] section running through parcel

[41:50] 2014-111 to be transferred to the city

[41:52] via via deed transfer or easement prior

[41:54] to the issuance of building permit.

[41:56] Maybe that's the trail commitment that

[41:57] you remember.

[41:58] >> So, effectively it it transfers that

[42:00] portion of the Bonneville Shoreline

[42:01] Trail

[42:01] >> That's on his property.

[42:02] >> to the city.

[42:04] Thank you.

[42:04] >> Yeah.

[42:08] » Thanks, Aaron.

[42:09] Councilor Garrett.

[42:11] >> Um,

[42:12] Jason, to whatever extent this project

[42:16] is public, have you had is there

[42:17] pre-sale interest? Have you had people

[42:20] contact you with interest in being owners or renters? What kind of

[42:24] interest is there in

[42:26] >> No, not in final end users. I think it's a little early. Hasn't been

[42:30] marketed that way. Um, obviously as you

[42:35] once the zoning's in place, then there's

[42:37] a lot of things that need to happen and

[42:39] as the design was finalized more, you'd

[42:42] definitely start doing that.

[42:45] >> You've had the for sale sign up there

[42:46] forever. Are you planning on just

[42:48] entitling it then selling it? Are you

[42:49] planning on doing it?

[42:51] >> Um, entitling it and selling it. I would

[42:54] stay on as a as a partner, but

[42:56] um, I you just need someone who's built

[42:59] this before. I know a lot about it and I know enough that I I shouldn't build

[43:03] it myself.

[43:07] And if I again if I could go back to to

[43:09] one we had several parcels, a an

[43:11] experienced developer, they were out

[43:13] there, you know, they just walked away.

[43:15] They're like, well, that's a mess. I

[43:16] don't want to deal with that.

[43:23] I'm the

[43:24] >> The third time is the third time.

[43:25] >> questions? Okay, we're going to open

[43:27] this item up for public comment then.

[43:40] » Hi guys. I'm um, David Chappell. I live

[43:42] in Waquim. So, I'm not not nearby, but I

[43:45] just had some thoughts. Um,

[43:47] I support the higher density. I think

[43:49] that's good. I would even support more

[43:50] if they could make some of the um, units

[43:53] affordable. I think it would be good to

[43:54] have a mix of units cuz it could also be

[43:57] more marketable that way.

[43:58] Um, I also think that 100% would be

[44:01] easier to enforce, 100% owner occupancy.

[44:04] I think 50% is pretty hard for an HOA to

[44:07] enforce.

[44:08] And maybe the city through some sort of

[44:10] deed restriction or a like code

[44:13] enforcement could enforce 50%, but I

[44:15] think 100% is wiser.

[44:17] Um so, I think what we could do is offer

[44:20] like a a time period, maybe 5 years for

[44:24] the the developer. They can rent in the

[44:26] meantime so that they don't go under,

[44:28] but then within the 5 years they have to

[44:30] sell all the units so that it is

[44:32] eventually 100% owner-occupied.

[44:35] Um I think the parking

[44:37] appears fine, and that's all I have.

[44:41] Those are my thoughts.

[44:42] >> Thank you.

[44:45] Any other public comment?

[44:48] All right, we'll open this up to council

[44:50] discussion.

[44:54] To expand on what that gentleman said,

[44:57] um we do deed restrict it cuz it is

[44:59] really hard to enforce. So, Aaron, it

[45:02] per the development agreement it would

[45:04] be deed restricted at the 50, correct?

[45:08] And the HOA would also have to Is that

[45:09] also in there that the HOA language

[45:11] would have to

[45:12] manage that, too?

[45:19] » Yeah, it says it's implied because it

[45:21] says through deed restriction and CC&Rs

[45:23] on the property CC&Rs would be enforced

[45:24] by an HOA.

[45:25] >> Great, thank you.

[45:29] Any council discussion?

[45:33] All right, we'll vote on the implied

[45:34] motion.

[45:41] » I'll just make a comment while you're

[45:42] doing that. I just want to say thanks to

[45:44] the developer for sticking with it, and

[45:46] uh it's been a long haul for you, so

[45:47] happy to see you're at this point. Well,

[45:49] hopefully where you get approval here.

[45:53] >> Councilor Garrett.

[45:56] >> Yes.

[45:57] >> Councilor McKay.

[45:59] >> Yes.

[45:59] >> Councilor Christensen.

[46:00] >> Yes.

[46:01] >> Councilor Whitlock?

[46:02] >> Yes.

[46:03] >> Councilor Bogdan?

[46:04] >> Yes.

[46:05] >> Councilor Howden?

[46:06] >> Finally, yes.

[46:08] >> Councilor Whipple?

[46:10] >> Yes.

[46:10] >> 7-0.

[46:14] All right. Next, an applied motion

[46:16] ordinance amending the Provo City Code

[46:18] regarding flood plain management and

[46:19] development standards. This will be

[46:21] presented by Thomas Shribble.

[46:25] He is our engineer flood plain manager.

[46:31] You get your first work meeting and your

[46:33] first council meeting in the same day.

[46:35] >> Yep.

[46:38] Uh thank you for having me. Uh my name

[46:40] is Tommy Shribble.

[46:41] I'm you know, I work I work for Provo

[46:43] City uh public works as a storm water

[46:45] engineer as well as the flood plain

[46:47] manager of Provo.

[46:49] Uh I'm accompanied today by Benjamin

[46:51] Ruthy. He's on uh Zoom. And then uh he's

[46:55] from WSP. He is the contractor that

[46:57] helped write this ordinance.

[47:00] Uh and then also Shane Winters.

[47:02] Um

[47:04] So,

[47:05] this stems from uh

[47:08] FEMA first of all.

[47:10] Uh

[47:10] we are part of the National Flood

[47:13] Insurance Program uh through FEMA. Uh we

[47:16] had to apply to be a part of this

[47:17] program.

[47:18] And we had to adopt uh a resolution of

[47:21] intent to participate.

[47:22] And um

[47:24] So, this is all all stemming from FEMA

[47:28] uh and changes that uh have been made to

[47:30] our flood plain maps.

[47:32] Uh so, we are uh currently trying to

[47:35] adopt and enforce a flood plain

[47:36] management ordinance that meets or

[47:38] exceeds FEMA's minimum standards.

[47:41] Um and these will

[47:43] uh change

[47:46] basic language that are currently in our

[47:48] uh standards uh to meet um better better

[47:52] meet

[47:53] uh FEMA's minimum standards.

[47:55] Uh as well as using their flood plain

[47:58] maps that they have uh uh, changed in

[48:00] the last few years. Uh, this is a long

[48:03] time coming. Uh,

[48:04] some of you may have been hearing it for

[48:06] over 10 years from my understanding.

[48:08] Uh, and then oh,

[48:10] this uh,

[48:13] ordinance will help enforce development

[48:15] regulations within within flood hazard

[48:18] areas.

[48:19] So, uh,

[48:20] the ordinance itself, uh, like I said,

[48:23] is meeting the FEMA standards uh,

[48:27] and is changing um, minimally as far as

[48:31] what our current standards are. Uh, but

[48:33] it is uh, broadening

[48:35] those standards uh, so that is there is

[48:38] less confusion when um, building within

[48:42] flood plain

[48:43] uh, areas.

[48:44] Uh,

[48:45] so

[48:46] that that's that's basically

[48:49] uh,

[48:50] what is changing within the ordinance

[48:51] itself. Uh, just

[48:53] um, being more uh, additional definitions. There

[48:58] there's more authority uh, from

[49:00] administrative perspective. There's more

[49:02] details from for the permits and uh,

[49:05] flood proofing etc.

[49:07] So, um,

[49:09] what I have uh, next here are maps um,

[49:14] from FEMA FEMA showing the changes in

[49:17] the flood plains uh, within Provo City.

[49:20] Uh,

[49:21] these maps are just a few of them and

[49:23] they're where the the changes are

[49:25] greatest. Um, so if we look at these two

[49:28] maps, uh, the one on the left is what is

[49:30] currently adopted for Provo City. Um,

[49:34] and it was uh, created in 2020. Um, and

[49:37] it shows uh, the this blue area that you

[49:40] can kind of see it's kind of hard to see

[49:42] but it uh, the blue area is what we call

[49:45] the 1% uh, flood area. Um,

[49:49] and it is

[49:50] uh, changing with the new maps.

[49:53] Uh if you look on the right, this is

[49:55] what uh

[49:56] we'll be hoping to be adopted uh

[49:59] to be a greater area within this um

[50:04] within this map area. So,

[50:07] uh the 1% is all the blue area,

[50:11] and this is what is required if

[50:13] uh for

[50:15] FEMA

[50:16] uh to have a federally in a flood

[50:19] insurance for federally backed

[50:21] mortgages.

[50:22] Um

[50:23] all the orange area is uh

[50:27] a 0.2% chance flooding area, and these

[50:30] are not

[50:31] uh ones that are restricted for the

[50:34] those

[50:35] um

[50:36] flood insurances

[50:38] uh from federally backed mortgages, but

[50:41] uh they're still shown there, and I I

[50:43] want to make sure that uh that is

[50:45] understood. Uh you can't see that same

[50:47] kind of area in the left map. It's

[50:49] hashed, and it's harder to see,

[50:51] uh but it is there as well. So, we have

[50:53] just uh three maps here uh showing the

[50:57] west side of Provo and how there it is

[50:59] changing.

[51:00] Uh as you can tell uh

[51:02] in the on the first map, there's a

[51:03] greater uh area of 1% chance of

[51:07] flooding, and then uh here on this next

[51:10] map, it's basically the entire uh

[51:13] airport that is going to be now in the

[51:16] flood

[51:17] uh hazard area, as well as this map

[51:20] here.

[51:22] Um so, that is again, just to reiterate,

[51:25] this is a directive from FEMA. Um

[51:28] we we worked with FEMA, we worked with

[51:30] the Department of Emergency Management

[51:32] with uh Utah,

[51:34] uh as well as Benjamin Ruth from WSP to

[51:37] uh make these changes for our ordinance

[51:39] to follow FEMA's standards.

[51:41] >> Okay. Thank you, Thomas. Any questions

[51:43] for Thomas?

[51:46] All right. Thank you.

[51:47] We'll open this item up for public

[51:49] comment. Is there any public comment on

[51:51] the flood

[51:53] plain management? This is something

[51:54] that's really not up to us. It is

[51:56] federally mandated.

[51:59] All right. Um

[52:02] council discussion.

[52:04] All right, we'll take a vote on the

[52:05] implied motion. Council May Kay, yes.

[52:08] Council Christensen.

[52:09] >> Yes.

[52:09] >> Council Whitlock.

[52:10] >> Yes.

[52:11] >> Council Bogdan.

[52:12] >> Yes.

[52:12] >> Council Hoban.

[52:15] >> Yes.

[52:16] >> Council Whipple.

[52:17] >> Yes.

[52:17] >> And Council Garrett.

[52:19] >> Yes.

[52:19] >> So that passes 7-0. Next a public

[52:21] hearing regarding the

[52:24] year-end 2027 budget for Provo City.

[52:28] Not year-end.

[52:30] I don't know what FY stands for.

[52:31] >> Thank you.

[52:32] >> Fiscal year 2027

[52:34] budget for Provo City. It'll be

[52:36] presented by Kelsey Zarback.

[52:44] » Good evening.

[52:45] I'm Kelsey Zarback with finance and two

[52:48] week Sorry, on May 5th, the

[52:51] administration delivered the tentative

[52:53] fiscal year 27 budget.

[52:56] Did I say May 5th? Delivered that budget

[52:58] to the council.

[53:00] And this is the first of two public

[53:02] hearings on that budget.

[53:04] It can be accessed by going to provo.gov

[53:07] and then there's if you scroll on the

[53:09] home page down a little bit, there's a

[53:10] transparency portal.

[53:12] You click on financial and then budget

[53:15] and financial reporting, annual budget

[53:18] and then you can just click right into

[53:19] that 2027 tentative budget.

[53:23] Um a few pages that might be of interest

[53:25] to the public. Pages 5 to 6 is where

[53:28] you'll find the mayor's letter that kind

[53:29] of shows what her priorities were and

[53:31] then on pages 9 to 10, there are the

[53:33] council priorities listed there.

[53:36] Page 16 and for several pages after

[53:38] that, there are budget highlights so you

[53:40] can see what was added and just what

[53:42] some of the revenue sources are and so

[53:44] on.

[53:45] So, hopefully the public has had a

[53:46] chance to already look at that document,

[53:48] but if not, it's there and there's

[53:49] another public hearing on the budget on

[53:52] June 23rd before the council would adopt

[53:54] it. So, that's all I have and at this

[53:57] point if unless there are questions, we

[53:59] would just open it up to the public for

[54:00] the public hearing. Thanks, Kelsey. Any

[54:03] questions for Kelsey?

[54:05] All right, thank you.

[54:06] We'll open this item up for public

[54:08] comment.

[54:12] See no public comment.

[54:15] And there's no council discussion, we'll

[54:16] just go to the next item. All right, so

[54:19] we have continued item number six and

[54:21] seven. So, at this time if there's no

[54:23] objection, we will now adjourn the Provo

[54:25] City Council and convene the RDA

[54:27] governing board by unanimous consent.

[54:31] >> All right, we'd like to uh look at RDA

[54:33] business a resolution adopting a project

[54:36] area budget for Lakeview Parkway

[54:38] Community Reinvestment Area.

[54:40] And this will be presented by Melissa

[54:42] McNally, Redevelopment Agency Director.

[54:48] Unless she's not here, then it's going

[54:49] to be very difficult for her to do that.

[54:52] >> She's here.

[54:55] » Thank you, Bill.

[55:13] You know, how about if we uh Kelsey, do

[55:14] you mind if we go ahead and go to your

[55:16] topic? Thank you. We'll give uh Melissa

[55:19] a chance to rally here. Uh public, we'll

[55:21] go to item nine, a public hearing

[55:23] regarding the Redevelopment Agency FY27

[55:25] budget. And this will be presented by

[55:27] Kelsey Zarbuck,

[55:29] budget officer.

[55:32] >> Thank you. So, the Redevelopment Agency

[55:35] is a component unit of Provo City, so

[55:38] that means it's a legally separate

[55:40] entity, but financially intertwined with

[55:42] primary government, which is the city.

[55:44] So, we have a separate public hearing

[55:46] for that for its budget. However, its

[55:48] budget is also found in the Provo FY27

[55:52] tentative budget found on the website.

[55:54] You can go to page 144 and you'll be

[55:57] able to see what the budget is for that

[56:00] legally separate entity. Any questions?

[56:03] >> Any questions for Kelsie?

[56:06] All right. We'll open this up for public

[56:08] comment. Any public comment?

[56:15] Okay, any further board discussion?

[56:19] All right, then we'll go ahead and go

[56:21] back to a resolution adopting a project

[56:23] area budget for the Lakeview Parkway

[56:25] Community Reinvestment Area

[56:28] and we're back to Melissa

[56:30] McNally.

[56:33] Welcome, Melissa.

[56:36] » Hey, thank you.

[56:38] So, um this Lakeview Parkway um

[56:42] budget is anticipating three different

[56:45] parcels that are in the project area

[56:48] um

[56:49] as retail

[56:52] uh sites and commercial sites.

[56:55] Um the Epic Sports Park is anticipated

[56:58] to have um sorry, the parcel by the Epic

[57:01] Sports Park

[57:02] is anticipated to have a hotel as well.

[57:05] So, there is some transient room tax um

[57:08] figured into

[57:10] the budget as well.

[57:11] So, um these are just estimates because

[57:14] nothing's been built yet. So,

[57:17] um the

[57:19] uh and um based on the uh budget up

[57:24] on the screen, those are uh prop current

[57:27] property values. Um I know when this

[57:29] came up in work session, there was a

[57:31] question about that.

[57:33] The parcel by like

[57:34] the parcel by the Epic Sports Park

[57:37] is owned by the city currently. So, it

[57:40] has no taxable value. That's why that

[57:42] parcel shows no value on the

[57:46] um

[57:47] on the

[57:50] prop

[57:51] Okay.

[57:53] >> [laughter]

[57:55] » Apologies. My brain it just like shut

[57:58] off.

[57:58] >> That's why it's blank because there is

[58:00] no

[58:00] >> Yeah, that's why it's blank. There is no taxable value on that property

[58:04] currently.

[58:06] Um

[58:08] and the other the other parcels and the

[58:12] rest of the budget just anticipates

[58:15] like I said

[58:16] um

[58:18] the possible sales tax that could be

[58:21] gained from from those parcels if all of

[58:23] the retail and commercial space is

[58:26] developed and then there's also it shows

[58:31] on page three of the budget. It does

[58:34] show incremental property values on

[58:37] those um

[58:40] on the in the entire area and how that

[58:43] would benefit all of the taxing

[58:44] entities. Um

[58:46] Let me see if there's anything else

[58:49] I want to highlight.

[58:52] Um

[58:54] I think that's it as far as the as far

[58:56] as the budget. Any changes that that

[58:58] come up you'll see an amendment to this

[59:00] budget if other incentives are

[59:03] anticipated in this area.

[59:05] >> So. Okay. Thank you, Alyssa. Any questions for Alyssa? Please, Becky.

[59:11] >> So, just so that I understand correctly,

[59:13] we spoke about

[59:15] the parcel

[59:17] south of the regional sports park as

[59:20] having the value that it would have if

[59:23] it was not owned by the city to be the value. So, that will come back as an

[59:28] amendment to this

[59:31] once we work all those details out.

[59:33] Yes.

[59:35] Yeah. As soon that that'll all be worked

[59:37] out um with the RDA board with leadership and

[59:42] then with the full RDA board any changes

[59:45] like that as far as

[59:47] um

[59:48] because that would anticipate property

[59:50] tax increment rate um given. So, at that

[59:53] point yes, it would come back to the

[59:54] board. You come back to the board and

[59:56] amend this document. They'll probably

[59:58] just come joint with the the contract

[1:00:01] with

[1:00:02] the sport the

[1:00:03] portion below the sports park.

[1:00:05] Um they could potentially be done

[1:00:07] simultaneously.

[1:00:09] Um

[1:00:11] potentially. Okay, thank you.

[1:00:14] >> Any other questions?

[1:00:16] All right, we'll open this up for public

[1:00:18] comment.

[1:00:20] Any public comment?

[1:00:24] All right, then we'll see if there's any

[1:00:25] board discussion.

[1:00:29] All right, seeing no board discussion of

[1:00:30] all call for a vote.

[1:00:32] Um

[1:00:34] I Gary Garrett.

[1:00:35] >> Yes.

[1:00:37] >> Katrice Mackay.

[1:00:39] >> Yes.

[1:00:40] >> Uh

[1:00:40] >> Yes.

[1:00:41] >> Craig Christensen, yes.

[1:00:43] Jeff Whitlock.

[1:00:43] >> Yes.

[1:00:44] >> Becky Bogden.

[1:00:45] >> Yes.

[1:00:45] >> Travis Hoban.

[1:00:46] >> Yes.

[1:00:47] >> Rachel Whipple.

[1:00:48] >> Yes.

[1:00:48] >> Okay, and that's 7-0.

[1:00:51] All right, I'll now uh see if there's no

[1:00:53] objection, we'll now adjourn Provo RDA

[1:00:55] Governing Board and convene the Storm

[1:00:57] Water Service District Governing Board

[1:00:59] by unanimous consent.

[1:01:02] >> All right, next we have a public hearing

[1:01:04] regarding the fiscal year 2027 budget

[1:01:07] for the Storm Water Service District.

[1:01:09] And again, Kelsey Surbaugh.

[1:01:13] This is the last one, I promise.

[1:01:15] So, this is the Storm Water Service

[1:01:17] District's um public hearing for the

[1:01:20] fiscal year 2027 budget. You can find

[1:01:22] this budget on page 142 of the Provo

[1:01:25] City budget on the website.

[1:01:28] So, we will just open that up for a

[1:01:29] public comment. Um public hearing. Thank

[1:01:32] you.

[1:01:34] >> Thanks, Kelsey.

[1:01:35] Um we'll open this item up for public

[1:01:37] comment.

[1:01:39] I'm just dying to know why you're all

[1:01:40] here.

[1:01:42] >> I've been thinking the same thing.

[1:01:43] >> Budget. I know.

[1:01:45] Um

[1:01:46] >> be a second public hearing on this

[1:01:47] budget.

[1:01:48] >> And there will be a second public

[1:01:49] hearing on all of these, too.

[1:01:51] Remember to say your name and city,

[1:01:52] please.

[1:01:55] >> David Campbell, Provo.

[1:01:56] Um

[1:01:57] again,

[1:01:59] looking at the budget, I'm not seeing

[1:02:01] anything close in the water world close

[1:02:04] to what the

[1:02:05] uh consultants projected would be the

[1:02:07] cost. I know there are plans to um

[1:02:10] amend the budget with increased rates

[1:02:13] and etc. I just uh throw my two bits in

[1:02:17] to uh recommend that we get the the water infrastructure

[1:02:22] problem solved. It's just so easy to

[1:02:25] ignore because it's

[1:02:27] not super visible. So, that's it.

[1:02:29] Thanks.

[1:02:30] >> Uh just a update on that. We did have a

[1:02:32] work meeting today where we voted to do

[1:02:35] the 6% increase that the consultants

[1:02:37] recommended. So, we're on par with that.

[1:02:41] All right. Any more public comment?

[1:02:45] All right. If there's no objection,

[1:02:46] we'll now adjourn the Storm Water

[1:02:47] Service District Governing Board by

[1:02:49] unanimous consent.

Provo City Council Meeting | June 9, 2026

Transcript