Provo city staff told the Transportation Mobility Committee on Aug. 21 that the City Council adopted a multi‑year increase to the transportation utility fee to bolster street preservation funds.

City staff described the council action as a unanimous decision to approve an approximate 14% annual increase for three years. “We’re going to increase our fee from $2,700,000 to 4,000,000 on our transportation utility fees over the next 3 years,” a staff presenter said at the meeting. Committee members present acknowledged the action and asked about legal and political pushback from tax‑exempt institutions.

Background and rationale: Provo first studied and adopted a transportation utility fee in 2014 to provide a stable revenue source for roadway maintenance. Staff said the fee schedule is based on land‑use trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and that the original 2014 fee covered roughly half the amount needed to maintain a 10‑year remaining service life. Inflation and rising construction costs have eroded purchasing power, staff said, and the recent council action is intended to recover lost ground and move the system back toward a “sweet spot” for remaining service life (staff said 12–15 years is a practical target).

Legal and political context: Staff recounted prior litigation in other states and said transportation utility fee authority has been upheld in other places; they also noted pending and recurring state‑level bills seeking exemptions for religious institutions. Committee members referenced earlier public comment and outreach with large local landowners, including BYU and other tax‑exempt organizations, which expressed concern about the fee. Staff said the council discussed those concerns and adopted the increase anyway. At the meeting staff said there had been no new public comments in favor or opposed since adoption.

Budget impact and timing: Staff projected that the fee increase would raise annual transportation utility fee revenue from about $2.7 million to about $4 million over three years. The committee was told the increase will be implemented under the city ordinance adopted by council; staff did not provide a roll‑call vote total in the committee meeting but described the council action as unanimous.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to continue updating TMAC on pavement condition measures and preservation plans; staff said they will report back as projects and budgets are scheduled.