Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to phase-in higher transportation utility fee; removes traffic‑signal funding from new TUF scope
Summary
Council approved a three‑year, phased increase to the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) to boost maintenance funding toward a $4.0 million annual target. Members voted 6–0 to adopt the schedule but removed a proposed expansion of TUF-eligible uses that would have explicitly allowed TUF monies to pay for traffic signal replacements.
The Provo City Council voted on April 8 to advance a phased increase in the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) aimed at raising annual maintenance funding to approximately $4.0 million. The measure was set to phase in over three years; staff said the increase would move TUF revenue from about $2.7 million today toward the target maintenance level.
Jimmy McKnight (Public Works presenter) framed the request as an effort to reduce the need to use other capital funds for routine maintenance, preserve pavement life through timely crack sealing and resurfacing, and keep the city’s pavement service life within a recommended range. Staff said the extra funding would allow the city to limit the use of bonds and other non‑TUF funds for maintenance projects and preserve those funds for capital projects such as sidewalks.
Council discussion focused on permitted uses of TUF revenue. Staff had proposed three code changes: (1) explicitly allow TUF funds to support traffic signal replacement and similar transportation assets; (2) allow TUF funds to pay for studies needed to set and monitor the fee; and (3) allow a modest portion of TUF revenue to be used for administrative costs tied to running the program. Council members agreed that studies and reasonable administrative costs are appropriate uses, but several members raised concerns about explicitly financing traffic signal replacement with TUF money because it could broaden the fee’s scope and invite legal challenge. Staff said signal replacement requires a predictable revenue source and discussed alternatives.
Councilor Katrice McKay moved to adopt the proposed three‑year phase‑in schedule while removing the traffic‑signal allowance (staff item #2 in the draft ordinance). The motion passed unanimously, 6–0 (Roll call: Bogdan, Hanley, Garrett, Whipple, Christiansen, McKay — yes; Holden excused). That vote directs staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the phased TUF increases with the narrower permitted uses and to return it for formal adoption. Public Works will also prepare the technical studies and the proposed ordinance language for the public and for council review.
