Developers propose moving Splash Summit less than two blocks; neighbors urge city to keep Slate Canyon land public

Brian Bayless, the owner's representative for the Splash Summit property, told a packed Neighborhood District 2 meeting that his team is proposing to relocate the Splash Summit water park less than two blocks from its current site and develop an integrated project with a water park, neighborhood‑scale retail, resort lodging and residential areas.

"We are committed to a world class development that will be safe and secure and thoughtful of our neighbors," Bayless said during a presentation in which he stressed the concept is preliminary and that details will evolve with public feedback. He added, "We're going to continue to pursue what we feel is best." The developers said their bubble plan also shows a 400–500‑foot buffer of residential and open space intended to reduce sound and sight impacts.

City staff members stressed the proposal is at the idea phase: no application has been filed, no planning commission or city council review has occurred, and any sale of city land would require formal city processes. Malia, a council policy analyst who reviewed zoning and the critical hillside overlay, said the land includes areas zoned OSPR (open space preservation and recreation) and cited Provo City code 14‑33‑a as a relevant reference; she also noted the city purchased roughly 29 acres at the mouth of Slate Canyon in 2021 that were intended for park use.

The developers framed the relocation as a way to accelerate long‑delayed Slate Canyon park improvements that residents had planned but which currently lack funding in the city's capital improvement plans. Bayless said the project could increase sales tax revenue, create seasonal jobs, and provide funding that might be used to build park amenities sooner than the city could alone. He also promised to follow applicable hillside‑overlay rules and to coordinate with the city and UDOT on traffic mitigation.

Residents who spoke during the two‑minute public‑comment period largely objected. Several urged the city to keep the Slate Canyon acreage public and to prioritize park funding rather than sell or transfer parkland to private ownership. "This project is not going to happen here," said Melanie McCord in one of the earliest comments. Others raised concerns about erosion and geotechnical risk on steep slopes, amplified noise and light that would echo in the canyon, increased traffic through residential streets, and a history of large projects that later stalled or left unfinished sites.

Questions from the audience also focused on who would own the land after a transaction and how infrastructure costs would be allocated. Bayless said the blue‑shaded area shown in slides would be the acquisition target and that the city would have to proceed through its public sale and approval processes (planning commission and city council) before any transfer occurred. He acknowledged the city would likely retain existing infrastructure such as water tanks and roads and said developers expect negotiations over funding for improvements and park amenities.

The meeting did not include any formal application, motion or vote. Neighborhood leaders collected written cards and said they would forward them to the city council and staff; Bayless and his team offered to stay after the meeting to take additional, personal feedback in the hall. No timeline was provided for any planning commission or council review.

What happens next: the concept remains nonbinding and at the idea stage. Residents who want to raise questions to the city were directed to opencityhall.gov and to neighborhood representatives; the district plans to continue outreach and will include the matter among future agendas if and when a formal application moves forward.