[0:00] Progress.

[0:03] Welcome to the Douglas Council work

[0:05] meeting

[0:12] Welcome [clears throat]

[0:13] to the Douglas Council work meeting. It

[0:15] is April 28th, 2026 and it is 1:00 p.m.

[0:20] We'll do a roll call of the elected

[0:22] officials.

[0:25] Jeff Welock. Stacy Bogdan.

[0:27] Patrice McCay. Gary Garrett. Rachel

[0:29] Whipple.

[0:30] And Craig Christiansen.

[0:32] we have online and

[0:35] Travis Hoban will be in a minute.

[0:38] Although this is a public meeting, only

[0:39] the presenters and those invited by the

[0:41] council may speak or ask questions

[0:42] unless otherwise invited by the chair.

[0:44] Please wait to speak until called on by

[0:46] council chair. When speaking, please be

[0:47] sure to use a microphone

[0:49] so the director is clear and those

[0:50] attending virtually can hear you.

[0:52] Please also be sure to limit side

[0:54] conversations as they interfere with the

[0:55] audio recording. If you make a side

[0:57] conversation, please step out of the

[0:58] work room.

[0:59] Is there a motion we approve the

[1:01] following minutes?

[1:02] April 24th, 2026 council meeting, April

[1:06] Sorry, March 24th, 2026 council meeting,

[1:08] April 14th, 2026 work meeting and April

[1:11] 14th,

[1:12] 2026 council meeting. Are there any

[1:14] objections or requested changes?

[1:18] Seeing no objection, I'll declare the

[1:19] minutes approved by unanimous consent.

[1:21] Our first item is a resolution amending

[1:23] the council audit committee charter and

[1:26] internal audit charter. This will be

[1:28] presented to us by Tanner Tokuchi and he

[1:31] is our council policy analyst.

[1:41] I want to get this

[1:42] Terrific. Thank you, council, for having

[1:44] me here today.

[1:46] Uh per our current audit committee

[1:48] charter and internal audit charter,

[1:50] uh the audit committee is required to

[1:53] review the charters on a regular basis

[1:56] and to present any changes. We've met

[1:57] with the audit committee and we've

[1:59] discussed a few proposed changes to the

[2:02] audit charters, which I wanted to review

[2:04] briefly

[2:06] here.

[2:07] So, the main changes in the audit

[2:09] committee charter that I wanted to

[2:10] highlight are that we're going to allow

[2:12] greater flexibility in the composition

[2:14] of the committee itself. Currently, uh

[2:17] it requires two councilors and two

[2:19] members of the public chosen by the

[2:20] council. That will be changed to allow

[2:24] like a varying uh composition between

[2:27] three to five members with at least one

[2:29] member of the public and at least two

[2:31] members of the council,

[2:33] uh which is it currently is right now.

[2:35] Uh after we've had the recent

[2:37] uh term ending

[2:39] this month.

[2:41] The next uh major change in the audit uh

[2:44] committee

[2:46] charter is that it will more explicitly

[2:48] designate the council executive director

[2:50] as the chief audit executive, which is

[2:53] an industry term for the person who

[2:55] deals with the board or in this case the

[2:58] committee. So, those are the two major

[2:59] changes to the audit committee charter.

[3:03] And then in the audit internal audit

[3:04] charter, it's the main change is

[3:06] changing uh the terms external and

[3:09] internal and the terms financial and

[3:11] performance to provide greater greater

[3:13] clarity for both the committee, the

[3:15] council and the public about what the

[3:17] functions

[3:19] uh of the audit function are of the

[3:21] audit committee are.

[3:23] And also adding a more explicit process

[3:26] for responding to fraud hotline uh

[3:29] complaints that are issued through the

[3:31] city.

[3:33] So, um I created just I sent out a memo

[3:36] that was updated on Monday uh kind of

[3:39] addressing some of the principles of

[3:42] auditing and government auditing that

[3:44] have come up.

[3:45] Sorry.

[3:46] >> Quick question, how often do we get

[3:48] fraud hotline complaints?

[3:50] I think maybe Justin would be best to

[3:52] answer that. I think it's a few I don't

[3:54] know. Actually, I won't speak. Yeah, so

[3:56] typically uh the audit committee meets

[3:59] about once a quarter. Um

[4:02] the average um number of complaints that

[4:04] come in are between one and two

[4:06] each quarter.

[4:11] In the four years I've been here, there

[4:13] have only been two that are actually

[4:17] related to the purpose of the hotline

[4:19] being

[4:20] um

[4:22] submissions related to fraud or abuse

[4:26] within the city. They're typically

[4:28] submitted by members of the public um

[4:31] who feel they have been either defrauded

[4:35] um

[4:36] by some private business, typically on

[4:39] social media, and so we will respond

[4:42] with standard language saying, "Thank

[4:44] you for your submission. Please report

[4:46] this to X division of the police

[4:48] department that deals with those types

[4:50] of claims." So,

[4:52] um

[4:53] Sorry, I should have kind of

[4:55] hit the hit the lead there, but so as

[4:59] far as real claims, there are very few

[5:01] that come in, um but we do receive them

[5:04] and then direct direct the public to the

[5:06] correct um place within the the police

[5:09] department where they can submit those

[5:11] uh

[5:11] claims if they have them

[5:13] in the private sector. Like a couple per

[5:15] year, Justin, right? Is you say? Yeah, a

[5:17] couple

[5:18] if that.

[5:20] One every every other year.

[5:22] And then none of them have been

[5:24] substantiated that we have come in. No.

[5:27] Not at this point.

[5:29] Thanks.

[5:32] So, and uh I actually neglected to

[5:34] mention one of the other major changes,

[5:36] which was

[5:37] that members of the committee, upon

[5:40] becoming members, will be asked to

[5:42] complete uh a training given by uh

[5:45] legislative office of legislative

[5:46] auditor general that covers the basic principles of government

[5:50] auditing and trying to make sure

[5:52] everyone's on the same page about what

[5:53] the purpose of the audit function is and

[5:56] the best practices of operating as the

[5:58] board of an audit function.

[6:01] Tanner, can you put the slide back? Go

[6:03] back one slide.

[6:05] When

[6:06] uh the council director, who is the

[6:08] current council director?

[6:10] Justin. Yeah, I'm referring to Justin in

[6:12] that in this case.

[6:15] So, it's clarifying that the Justin is the

[6:19] chief audit executive.

[6:21] That's correct. From my reading of the

[6:23] charter here, it's on the

[6:27] internal audit charter on the first

[6:28] page, it says the council executive

[6:30] director controls and supervises the

[6:32] internal audit activities. For when I

[6:34] read that, my interpretation is that

[6:37] essentially

[6:38] the director is functioning as the chief

[6:40] audit executive. This change just

[6:42] clarifies it to make it more explicit.

[6:47] Here's the Here's where it would be

[6:49] helpful. Brian, maybe you can help us

[6:51] out because I

[6:52] >> you talk more into your microphone? I'm

[6:54] actually trying to put my mouth right on

[6:56] top of it.

[6:57] Um

[6:58] sorry, I'm calling from a long way away.

[7:00] Um

[7:02] The ex- The it seems like the chief

[7:05] audit executive

[7:07] would be an auditor.

[7:10] Like a certified auditor, not

[7:13] um a designated person to be an an

[7:15] auditor.

[7:17] So, Tanner, I think it might be helpful

[7:19] to talk about how it typically is

[7:20] structured in the private sector and how

[7:22] we of course have limitations.

[7:25] Questions.

[7:27] Um I I actually agree with you, Craig,

[7:28] but um

[7:30] we'd have to allocate budget for that

[7:31] and hire somebody.

[7:33] Yeah.

[7:33] >> Um Sorry, Craig, I I didn't have my mic

[7:35] on, but in the in the private sector,

[7:39] typically you have a chief audit

[7:40] executive who's hired and reports

[7:43] directly to the board of directors.

[7:46] So, you know, HR and and payroll and

[7:50] salary, you know, might report dotted

[7:53] line to, you know, the CEO or president

[7:56] or whatever, but as far as

[7:58] accountability and hiring and firing and

[8:00] such, it's they report to

[8:03] the board of directors.

[8:05] Um so that they have the independence to

[8:06] be able to do their job, right? To be

[8:08] able to be objective and independent and

[8:10] not have be coerced or feel like they're, you know, if

[8:14] you're reporting to the CEO and you find

[8:17] that there's something shady going on,

[8:18] you might be hesitant because they have

[8:20] the power to fire you or dock your pay

[8:22] or whatever, right? But in this case,

[8:25] and so at the county level, it's a

[8:27] little different. So, if we're kind of

[8:29] transition to government now, you have

[8:30] county auditor who is an elected

[8:32] official who ultimately doesn't report

[8:36] to

[8:37] anybody but the taxpayers but the

[8:39] voters, right? And that's who they

[8:40] report to.

[8:42] So, it's just it's a little weird

[8:43] because we don't have the same structure

[8:45] that you would have in like a corporate

[8:47] environment. We could,

[8:50] as a council, we could hire a chief

[8:52] audit executive, somebody who's an

[8:54] auditor,

[8:55] um and they could serve as as that

[8:57] function and they could report to us, um

[9:00] but there's also some limitations that

[9:02] Brian probably should talk about in the

[9:05] separation of

[9:07] branches of government that we can't

[9:08] really compel We're not really uh

[9:11] given authority by the state to really

[9:13] do much in any case in any case. So,

[9:17] there's just some limitations on what we

[9:19] can do. But the the reason the thought

[9:22] was just that the council director be

[9:24] the chief audit executive is because

[9:27] basically to to to handle the

[9:28] administrative aspect of it, like making

[9:31] sure that we get the

[9:33] um

[9:34] we get the external auditors hired,

[9:36] external and internal auditors hired,

[9:38] and following up on on things. Um but

[9:42] yeah, I agree with you, they should be

[9:44] an auditor. But anyways, that's a lot of

[9:46] info just but I just wanted to give you

[9:48] context of kind of

[9:50] what this should look like and then the

[9:52] limitations we have.

[9:53] Well, actually that that's It's helpful,

[9:55] Travis. Thank you. I guess my follow-up

[9:57] question would be is there another

[9:59] function in the city

[10:02] that acts as an independent auditor

[10:04] other than this

[10:06] uh the position we're talking about now?

[10:09] No. I'd say

[10:10] I would say no. If that was directed to

[10:12] me, sorry.

[10:14] Yeah. What Well, let's legally go over.

[10:17] I can go over the the standards Okay.

[10:20] Brian can explain this stuff. Pop it

[10:22] Well, I think maybe it might help Brian

[10:24] I think broadly I think we should hear

[10:26] from Brian first and then get into the

[10:27] details. I think.

[10:29] Uh and I don't want to I was going to

[10:32] say I I haven't reviewed

[10:33] uh Tanner's presentation, so I don't

[10:35] want to step on his toes and go over

[10:37] anything that he's already going to go

[10:38] over, but I I mean this it's a little

[10:40] bit of a weird situation. Uh

[10:42] Travis and I were just talking about

[10:43] this a few minutes ago and we've had

[10:45] some previous conversations before.

[10:47] So,

[10:48] as Travis is pointing out, at the state

[10:50] and the county level code actually

[10:53] creates the auditor position

[10:56] and says what it's supposed to do. At

[10:58] the city level, there is no such thing.

[11:00] And not even at the state

[11:03] it's not even

[11:04] neces- it's not a requirement that we

[11:06] have an auditor. It's not even a a

[11:08] recommendation necessarily from the

[11:10] state auditor that we have one. It's

[11:12] more of a we've got this checklist that

[11:14] we get points if we have one.

[11:17] We have plenty of points if we don't

[11:18] have one.

[11:20] Most cities don't have one. Most cities

[11:23] have not even, as I understand it, even

[11:25] with the

[11:26] with this point chart, haven't taken the

[11:28] step of adopting them.

[11:31] And which is interesting because in most

[11:33] other cities with different forms of

[11:35] government, it would actually be easier

[11:37] for them to have one

[11:39] than it is for us.

[11:40] But so So, we my understanding is from

[11:44] the institutional history is that, you

[11:46] know, we we like points. So, when this scorecard came out, we decided we

[11:50] wanted more points. We said, "Let Let's

[11:52] do one."

[11:53] And there was a recommendation

[11:56] that I think was

[11:58] maybe not completely thought through

[12:00] from

[12:01] that I think came from the state

[12:03] auditor's office of, "Well, if you're

[12:05] going to have one, it probably shouldn't

[12:07] be in the administration because it's

[12:09] probably overseeing the administration."

[12:11] Well, on the on the surface, that makes

[12:14] sense.

[12:16] Except that then the practicalities of

[12:17] it become very difficult because

[12:20] while one of the council's statutory in

[12:23] code functions is administrative

[12:26] oversight,

[12:28] there is no specified

[12:31] definition of what that means, how that

[12:33] power is wielded, what the consequences

[12:35] of wielding that power are.

[12:38] I mean, at the end of the day, we've had

[12:39] this discussion before.

[12:41] The way that power is wielded is really

[12:42] through the budget, right? I mean,

[12:45] essentially what the council does in

[12:47] administrative oversight is ask

[12:49] questions

[12:50] and threaten how they will use the

[12:52] budget if they don't get the answers

[12:54] they want, right? They don't have

[12:56] subpoena power. They don't have They're essentially completely uh

[13:01] at the

[13:03] uh discretion of the administration

[13:05] whether the administration answers the

[13:06] questions or not. And And that same

[13:08] problem flows over into the audit

[13:11] function

[13:13] if the auditor

[13:15] is only answerable to the council. So,

[13:17] the council can

[13:19] hire an auditor. They can, you know, you

[13:21] can create a position inside your your

[13:23] staff office.

[13:25] And you can hire an auditor. You can pay

[13:27] them. You can do whatever you want.

[13:30] The minute that they turn to the

[13:31] administration and say, "Here's the

[13:33] things that I want to look at."

[13:36] The administration could, under our form

[13:38] of government, say, "We don't want to

[13:39] answer those questions." Now, you then

[13:41] have power, like I just mentioned about

[13:44] the budget, about how you respond to

[13:46] that non-response.

[13:48] But there's nothing in state or city

[13:51] code or even guidance from the state

[13:53] auditor's office that grants that

[13:55] defines any of these powers or says how

[13:57] any of this should work, right?

[13:59] And so, that's why in one of the

[14:00] previous conversations that we had in

[14:03] the audit committee about this,

[14:06] I said, "Well,

[14:07] if [clears throat] you really want this

[14:09] to function the best way possible, I

[14:11] think there needs to be an alignment

[14:12] between the administration and the

[14:14] council about what

[14:17] the audit what the auditor does, what

[14:19] the auditor is, right? And in some ways,

[14:22] they would actually have, and this is

[14:24] somewhat ironic, but in some ways they'd

[14:26] actually have more power

[14:28] if they were an administrative an

[14:29] executive branch employee than if

[14:31] they're a council branch employee, as

[14:33] long as

[14:34] their duties were defined somehow. You

[14:37] know, we could build that into title two

[14:39] of the code and and define what their powers and responsibilities

[14:45] are. Um

[14:47] But those are anyway, I've probably gone

[14:49] on too long. Those But those are some of

[14:50] the struggles in the sense that there's

[14:51] this real very real

[14:54] Yeah. limit on what happened Everything

[14:57] works fine as long as there's

[14:58] cooperation. And then there are real

[15:00] awkward logistical limits if there is if

[15:02] there is. Well, on the downside of

[15:04] having it somebody who reports to say

[15:06] the mayor is, what if

[15:08] No. Our mayor would ever do this or

[15:10] Scott would ever do this, but like what

[15:12] if they're like, "Eh, let's just keep

[15:13] that on the down low and not let anybody

[15:15] know about that. You're my employee. You

[15:16] do what I say, right?"

[15:17] >> Right. So, it goes in the flies directly

[15:19] in the face of like the independence of

[15:22] auditing, which is like the number one

[15:24] aspect of auditing, right? But I get the

[15:26] practical considerations. But the flip

[15:28] side of that, and this is why at the

[15:29] county and the state level, again,

[15:31] now we recognize at the state level,

[15:33] state auditor is not answerable to the

[15:35] legislature. And at the county level,

[15:36] the county auditor is not answerable to

[15:38] the commission for the exact same reason

[15:40] because having an auditor that is

[15:43] answerable to either branch of

[15:45] government, but only to that branch of

[15:47] government, creates the same problem

[15:49] because the council could Yeah. wield

[15:53] the auditor in a political way in the

[15:55] same way that the mayor could. Does that

[15:57] make sense?

[15:58] So.

[15:59] >> Glad you got seven of us. You don't have

[16:01] to convince us. You can keep your quiet.

[16:03] Which is going to be a lot harder. Yeah.

[16:05] Um

[16:06] What are the points for? Do we care? Is

[16:08] it like best in state? We don't have to

[16:10] do this.

[16:12] Well, I I think we should. I think it's

[16:14] good for transparency for our people.

[16:15] Right. But Um

[16:18] and I think it I think it helps people

[16:20] feel better about where their tax money

[16:21] is going. But what are what's the point

[16:23] system for? Is it like best in state?

[16:27] Do you Do you want to speak to that? No.

[16:28] You can. The point system just uh gives

[16:31] you a feel for the level of

[16:33] responsibility that your finance

[16:34] department is is undertaking. So, for

[16:37] example, 180 to 220 points would give

[16:40] you an A rating. And currently, we we're

[16:43] at 190 even. But then adding the auditor

[16:46] function puts us at 210.

[16:48] So, it's just a a way to show how

[16:51] effective our finance and audit

[16:53] functions are in the city. And so, does

[16:55] the state put this out on some website

[16:57] that Provo City is a great A

[16:59] financial institution?

[17:01] >> Well, it could be around if somebody

[17:02] really wanted to look it up. It's not

[17:03] like they're posting it, but it is

[17:05] something that is tracked by the state.

[17:08] >> So again, why do we care? So, each year,

[17:10] it is a requirement that cities go

[17:12] through what's called the fraud risk

[17:13] assessment, statutorily required. And

[17:16] it's after

[17:18] um

[17:19] we receive our audited financial

[17:20] statements from our

[17:23] external auditor. Um

[17:26] And to to Counselor Garrett's point, so

[17:28] there's a breadth of questions that are

[17:30] asked. The majority ask about controls.

[17:32] Um is there separation there? But

[17:36] it's it's this awkward question of

[17:39] do you have an audit committee? Is there

[17:42] um you know, do you perform independent

[17:43] audits?

[17:45] The questions are asked and points are

[17:47] given, but it's also not a requirement

[17:49] of municipalities. Um it is for school

[17:53] districts. So, it's this it's this place

[17:55] in code that doesn't quite match up.

[17:57] They're trying The fraud risk assessment

[17:59] list is this kind of one-size-fits-all

[18:02] uh checklist for taxing entities,

[18:06] but all the questions don't necessarily

[18:08] apply to everyone. That makes sense.

[18:09] >> Right. But it nobody's really answering

[18:11] my question. But I would say Why Why do

[18:13] we care if we're rated an A, B, C, D, or

[18:15] E?

[18:17] I I mean, I think Travis answered your

[18:19] question by saying we're overachievers.

[18:20] That's literally why we care.

[18:22] Okay. I think There's no platform

[18:24] finance as well. There's no I bet if you

[18:27] came in and you didn't probably start to

[18:29] get some pretty harsh oversight from the

[18:30] state auditors. I would guess. Right.

[18:32] They would look at Yeah.

[18:34] >> They would start to look at You do for

[18:35] us. But isn't some of that Sorry. Aren't

[18:38] a few of your comments a little

[18:40] orthogonal to what's before us? We

[18:42] already set up the structure in the

[18:43] independent auditor.

[18:45] Are you just giving you're just giving

[18:46] broad context? Yeah. Well, I'm giving

[18:49] broad context because of questions that

[18:51] have come up inside the audit committee

[18:54] since it got set up. I mean, Got it.

[18:57] may not be

[19:00] Tanner's giving you recommendations

[19:01] about how to improve the charter. There

[19:04] are some baseline questions about how

[19:06] effective it is at all. with or without

[19:09] the changes, right? Because And some of

[19:11] that has to do with who gets selected as

[19:13] the auditor and what their role is. Um

[19:16] and what the in my view, what the

[19:19] committee's role is in

[19:21] kind of

[19:22] uh overseeing that auditor and

[19:26] coordinating with the with the

[19:28] administration about,

[19:30] you know, having kind of some shared

[19:33] vision about what the auditor does. I'm

[19:35] going to give a few examples

[19:37] of just broadly why I think the audit

[19:40] committee is important. So,

[19:43] um

[19:44] in recent months,

[19:46] the hot the fraud hotline, we had one

[19:49] tip about an employee. And we're still

[19:52] looking into that if that's, you know,

[19:54] even relevant or valid, but somebody

[19:56] sent a sent a tip in that said, "Hey,

[19:58] this employee is using their position,

[20:00] you know, whatever." And then we had

[20:01] another one about a department that we

[20:04] need to look at.

[20:05] And so,

[20:07] those are coming to the audit committee.

[20:09] Well, they weren't. For some reason,

[20:10] they were

[20:12] they weren't being Typically, they would

[20:13] come to us, but I think there was a

[20:15] glitch in the system and we weren't

[20:16] getting them, but But those are coming

[20:17] to the audit committee and

[20:20] it gives us the opportunity as

[20:22] kind of an outsider to take a look and

[20:23] say, "Hey, is this something relevant,

[20:25] something we need to look at in more

[20:26] detail, in more depth, something we

[20:28] should be concerned about?" I I think if

[20:31] those go to the administration, then you

[20:33] have the the fox guarding the hen house,

[20:35] so to speak, right? You're These are concerns about the

[20:40] you know, administration. And then we

[20:42] don't know if they're valid or relevant

[20:44] or Just just know, guys. Like, we get

[20:46] all sorts of stuff. But it's the ability

[20:48] for us as kind of an

[20:50] a check a check and a balance on that,

[20:52] right? And if you do away with an audit

[20:54] committee, you don't have that.

[20:56] Um not to mention, we also

[21:00] like Jeff Miles, our auditor, external

[21:03] auditor, who audits the financials, um

[21:05] HBM&E, I think is the name of their

[21:07] firm. Um you know, we can be a check and

[21:10] a balance on that. Like, are we just

[21:11] hiring the same guy every time cuz he

[21:13] get, you know, tells us what we want to

[21:14] hear or are we are we, you know, going

[21:17] out to bid legitimately and and taking

[21:19] an entertaining other bids. So, it's

[21:20] just a it's just a check and a balance,

[21:22] another set of eyes.

[21:23] Um I think there's a lot of value in it.

[21:25] Um so, I don't

[21:27] want to overcomplicate it and say like,

[21:29] you know, well, how how effective is it

[21:32] even? And I would rather have it and

[21:33] have it maybe be only so effective than

[21:36] not have it at all, right? Is my two

[21:38] cents, but

[21:40] Um The council will like I mean, I think

[21:42] you make you raise a good point. I

[21:43] talked about a lot of stuff that's not

[21:45] necessarily what's in front of you. It's

[21:47] because there's been a lot of questions

[21:48] over the last six months. Travis was

[21:50] asking me a bunch of these questions

[21:51] half on the board, so I kind went off.

[21:53] Right. off board

[21:55] brain work. Just wanted clarity. Mostly,

[21:57] I wanted clarity on what does the state

[21:59] What authority power does the state give

[22:00] us in it? Basically, none. So.

[22:03] >> [laughter]

[22:03] >> But why is it not? I mean, he's saying

[22:05] that

[22:05] >> It should be clarified, but

[22:07] >> He's saying that we can do whatever

[22:08] audit we want.

[22:11] Um I think the difference being this can

[22:13] attempt to do Yeah. So, so the county and the

[22:17] state, they can do whatever they want

[22:20] within bounds and nobody can say no.

[22:22] Unfortunately for us, that's not the

[22:24] case. Right to the information

[22:26] effectively. To access unfettered access

[22:28] to certain things and we don't.

[22:31] >> So, Brian, could we codify some of this

[22:33] and say, "Okay,

[22:35] The state would There have to be a state

[22:37] It's got to be the state that does it.

[22:39] We can't codify it here. Yeah. I mean, I

[22:41] think we could I mean, we have a lot of

[22:44] positions that are defined in our code.

[22:46] If we wanted to create a position and

[22:48] define it in code, we certainly could.

[22:51] We can't

[22:53] I mean, it But on the other hand, the specific prohibition on the council

[22:58] that says, "You may not direct executive

[23:01] branch staff." That is in state code and

[23:03] would supersede it all. It supersede

[23:05] anything we did. So, we couldn't codify

[23:07] something that violates that principle.

[23:10] Right. But we could certainly

[23:13] clarify some things.

[23:16] I do want to say, we haven't really had

[23:18] any problems with the administration

[23:20] like working with us on the audit

[23:23] committee. So,

[23:25] you know, we're It's kind of like, let's

[23:27] make some improvements, keep doing

[23:29] things how we're doing them, and if they

[23:30] needed to change in the future, they

[23:31] could. I don't think anything's broken

[23:32] right now is what I'm saying. Like, I

[23:34] don't

[23:35] I think we were just more so doing some

[23:37] housekeeping and clean up on how we

[23:40] define things, right? And who does what.

[23:43] But uh Craig, did that answer your

[23:45] question?

[23:46] >> [laughter]

[23:47] >> Sure. Sure.

[23:48] Actually, yes. It's very It's very

[23:50] helpful and

[23:51] um I guess my response would be

[23:54] um

[23:56] as a citizen,

[23:58] I want an independent audit. I I want

[24:02] someone looking I don't care if the

[24:03] state requires it or not. Just because

[24:05] it's

[24:06] not required doesn't mean it wouldn't be

[24:07] prudent

[24:09] for a city like Provo or every city

[24:12] to take a a higher standard, especially

[24:15] when it comes

[24:16] to how we use tax dollars. So,

[24:18] um I applaud the good work that's gone

[24:21] on in terms of the audit committee.

[24:23] And I would encourage us to

[24:26] um instead of asking the question,

[24:29] "What's required?" Uh I think we ought

[24:31] to be asking the question, "What would

[24:34] be

[24:35] in the best interest of the citizens?"

[24:38] And an independent auditor who is

[24:41] looking anywhere and everywhere,

[24:44] um and as a check and balance, I think

[24:47] it's good for the administration. I

[24:49] think it's good for the council. I think

[24:50] it's good for the city just overall.

[24:53] Hey, Craig.

[24:54] I appreciate what we've what we've done

[24:56] and I would

[24:58] I think we could do even more.

[25:00] Yeah, and let me let me clarify and

[25:02] probably everybody was jumping up ready

[25:03] to say this that the state does does uh

[25:07] require that we do hire an external

[25:09] independent auditor for the financial

[25:12] side of to look at the finances, the

[25:14] city's finances. So, that is there.

[25:17] Um where there isn't clarity is

[25:18] regarding anything outside of that. So,

[25:22] um

[25:23] yeah, that's that's the issue. Yeah.

[25:30] I have um I have I have just a couple

[25:32] questions about sort of the changes

[25:33] before us. So,

[25:35] previously, we require it the

[25:37] composition of the body required at

[25:40] least two members of the public.

[25:42] Correct. Now, we could have two

[25:43] counselors and one member of the public.

[25:44] That's correct.

[25:45] >> Can you explain the thoughts on that?

[25:46] Were we having a hard time getting

[25:47] people? Like, generally, I think

[25:48] qualified. Yeah. I'm just curious about

[25:50] that.

[25:51] Yeah, I think the ability to have more

[25:53] or or fewer members of the public is

[25:55] just a matter of flexibility depending

[25:57] on what the pool of applicants would be

[25:59] for those members of the public for the

[26:00] public positions. Well, from a

[26:01] governance standpoint, though,

[26:03] you want to ensure that the council

[26:05] members are the majority vote Right. on

[26:09] the audit committee.

[26:10] Um cuz we're the ones that are elected

[26:11] and have invested interest, right? So,

[26:13] you would never want one council member

[26:15] and two members of the public and then

[26:16] all of a sudden,

[26:18] um you know, the the audit committee is

[26:20] kind of dictated by public only, not the

[26:23] people that ultimately should be

[26:26] part of ultimately in control I'll say

[26:29] this, in control of governing the audit

[26:31] committee, right? It should be council

[26:32] members. So,

[26:34] right now, we have two members on the

[26:36] audit committee from the council. And

[26:38] so, only one the member of the public to

[26:41] ensure that the the governance is still

[26:43] in the hands of the council. But we

[26:45] could go to three and then we could have

[26:46] two members of the public, which would

[26:48] be ideal, but then we just need somebody

[26:49] to volunteer from the council.

[26:51] Or three and one.

[26:55] Um just not saying we need to, but just

[26:57] throwing this out there is like having a

[26:59] concept of like a observer could be an

[27:01] interesting concept. Like, a lot of

[27:03] times in boards, you have you have board

[27:05] observers who are there and have are not

[27:06] can be part of the conversation, but

[27:08] don't have voting rights. That could be

[27:09] a way to have more public kind of

[27:12] input, but not have them have control.

[27:16] You would just want to be sure that the

[27:17] observer would observe the

[27:19] confidentiality and other things in the

[27:21] discussions that are mentioned in the

[27:23] charter as well if they have that

[27:25] position.

[27:26] Um and I also suppose that if we were

[27:30] like right now in an adversarial

[27:31] position against the administration,

[27:34] there is a lot that the audit committee

[27:35] could do with grammar request

[27:38] and gathering information that very

[27:40] adversarial way to help perform their

[27:43] audits.

[27:44] That would be more expensive and more

[27:46] fun for the lawyers, but that that would

[27:48] be the workaround if there really is no

[27:50] possibility of cooperation.

[27:53] I I agree. Um

[27:56] my suspicion is that in a

[28:01] Again, if we're looking out at the

[28:03] edges, if we're looking at the edge

[28:05] cases,

[28:06] probably a lot of the documents that you

[28:08] would want in the edge case would be

[28:10] protected.

[28:12] Yeah.

[28:13] Your position would be fun then. Yes,

[28:15] that would be fun. Well, fortunately, I

[28:16] don't review the grammar requests.

[28:19] >> [laughter]

[28:22] » All right. Terrific. So, um if Jeremy

[28:25] here, if it's okay, I could just if I

[28:26] can just directly address Craig's

[28:28] earlier question about the

[28:29] qualifications. So, uh Counselor

[28:32] Christensen, I'm just pointing to the

[28:34] internal audit standards. Uh this is uh

[28:37] just in it's called the red book.

[28:39] And it says, "While the global internal

[28:40] audit standards apply to all audit

[28:42] functions, auditors in the public sector

[28:45] work in an political environment under

[28:46] governance, organizational, and funding

[28:48] structures that may differ from the

[28:49] private sector, these differences may

[28:51] affect how audit functions

[28:53] uh apply the standards." And I also

[28:55] pulled up this paragraph here, which

[28:56] says, "While the list, which includes,

[28:59] to Craig's point, the ideal of them

[29:00] being a certified internal auditor,

[29:02] while that list includes ideal

[29:04] competencies and qualifications, the

[29:05] chief audit executive may be selected

[29:07] for other qualities or areas of

[29:09] expertise that are supplemented by the

[29:10] competencies of other members of the

[29:12] internal audit function." So, if

[29:15] the council executive director, for

[29:17] example, were to go out and to contract

[29:19] with a consultant who has auditing

[29:20] experience,

[29:22] the director would be connected to the

[29:25] areas of risk that the council has

[29:27] pointed out, the priority areas that the

[29:29] committee wants to study, and then they

[29:31] would also lean in work with people with

[29:33] actual auditing experience in order to

[29:35] lead that team. So, hopefully that also

[29:38] kind of addresses your concern there,

[29:40] Counselor Christensen. That's helpful.

[29:41] Thank you. Awesome. Uh ano- another

[29:44] question I had was

[29:46] So, with um the council director being

[29:49] also the

[29:50] director effectively of the audit

[29:52] committee, do we I didn't see like a

[29:54] refusal process or some other

[29:57] Do we need to spell that out if for

[29:58] example there's a conflict of interest

[30:00] as the audit committee is looking at

[30:02] things?

[30:05] That's an interesting question. Uh if

[30:06] there's a personal conflict conflict of

[30:08] interest, I think that would in most

[30:09] cases be covered under other areas of

[30:12] statute because the councilor or the

[30:15] council executive director's area of

[30:17] like super supervisory influence would

[30:20] be limited to our branch of government

[30:22] while the auditee organizations would be

[30:23] in the other branch of government. I

[30:25] don't see any problem with trying

[30:26] exploring language to to cover that. I

[30:28] imagine that would be covered by other

[30:30] areas of statute, but I can't say for

[30:31] sure.

[30:41] Everything he does has to be approved by

[30:42] the council chair.

[30:45] I can see a world too

[30:47] where as the you know, fringe scenario

[30:50] too where the administration isn't they

[30:52] wants to look at the finances of the

[30:54] council budget or something like that,

[30:57] you know.

[30:58] I don't know.

[30:59] Like

[31:01] It's it's just hard. It's hard because

[31:03] we don't have explicit no there's no

[31:05] explicit controls like that, you know.

[31:09] Save room.

[31:11] But still everything gets down to

[31:13] finance, right? She's under them.

[31:15] >> Yeah. And even our our budget, our

[31:17] expenses, everything goes through them.

[31:19] So I would say

[31:20] in a way they kind of audit us anyway.

[31:23] Yeah.

[31:24] I guess what I would say is we we can

[31:26] definitely look into that and see if

[31:27] there there would be something

[31:29] to add to the charter um

[31:32] under city employment city employees

[31:34] also do sign confidentiality

[31:37] um

[31:38] and um

[31:41] Gosh, what's the word I'm looking

[31:42] Conflict of interest. Conflict of

[31:43] interest disclosure. So

[31:45] um I think that would

[31:47] if that gives any kind of comfort um

[31:50] that is there, we can look at expanding

[31:52] that language um but also spelled out in

[31:54] the charter

[31:56] um

[31:56] council office employees

[32:00] and whatever you want to call this

[32:01] position refer to it um

[32:05] direction is taken from the audit

[32:07] committee and then

[32:09] kind of taking a step back in the

[32:10] council role from council leadership and

[32:13] the council body, so um

[32:17] There's never

[32:19] a perfect scenario, I will say. You

[32:22] never you never know who people are, but

[32:25] um

[32:25] I think there are adequate controls in

[32:28] place for that, but happy to look into

[32:30] that more.

[32:34] So

[32:35] What did you look into this year?

[32:39] Um so we started looking at 311. We were

[32:43] looking at 311, but we didn't make it

[32:44] through

[32:45] um

[32:47] due to a variety of things the audit

[32:49] team completed, so

[32:52] I have a few ideas for the upcoming year

[32:54] um

[32:55] probably to talk we would talk about

[32:57] them in that closed session I think. And

[32:59] business license

[33:01] fees

[33:04] to some extent. Did we talk didn't we

[33:05] talk about that?

[33:08] We did. We talked a little bit about how

[33:10] the council prioritized this licensing

[33:13] and um

[33:16] code enforcement process review as

[33:19] fitting under this, but the audit

[33:21] committee still wanted to look for

[33:23] another

[33:24] project or or audit project that would

[33:26] fit within that scope of whether it be

[33:29] an internal audit or

[33:31] performance audit or some other type. So

[33:34] um that's ongoing and the RFP's out

[33:36] currently, but

[33:38] still looking for additional ones.

[33:41] Yeah,

[33:43] you know, you kind of asked me that

[33:44] question brings up good point that

[33:47] it's probably a conversation we should

[33:49] be having more with the full body of the

[33:50] council

[33:52] of like what do we want to what do we

[33:54] want to look at this year for internal

[33:56] audit?

[33:57] Um

[33:59] you know, maybe the audit committee

[34:00] comes up with two, three, four ideas in

[34:03] conjunction with the administration and

[34:05] bring that to the council in a closed

[34:07] session maybe to discuss if if there's

[34:09] something sensitive, right? Cuz

[34:10] sometimes there is.

[34:12] Um

[34:13] But this year we we because of some of

[34:16] the issues around lack of clarity, we had some issues with the internal

[34:21] audit

[34:22] um

[34:23] and

[34:24] the contract and such, so it didn't get done unfortunately, but

[34:28] that's why we're hoping to clean some of

[34:29] this up so that we can move forward a

[34:31] little more smoothly in the future.

[34:35] But to your point earlier Craig and and

[34:37] sorry Tanner to hijack your

[34:38] presentation,

[34:39] but this council is the decision body to

[34:42] recommend

[34:43] to the audit [clears throat] committee

[34:44] how many members do you want? Should we

[34:46] go to five, add another councilor? How

[34:48] much budget should be allocated? Are

[34:50] there areas you want the audit committee

[34:52] to focus on?

[34:53] >> We could do audits all year if you

[34:54] wanted to. And if you wanted to allocate

[34:56] the budget, we could do five or six,

[34:58] right? I mean it's all a matter of

[35:00] we don't have to just do one thing and

[35:02] one thing only. It can be it could be an

[35:05] on more of an ongoing function. Knowing

[35:07] that the more

[35:08] we direct, the the more budget we would

[35:10] need to

[35:11] find or allocate.

[35:13] >> I do think that Travis the councilor who

[35:14] made his last point actually makes a lot

[35:16] of sense though um

[35:18] if the committee came up with ideas,

[35:22] brought them to the council, the council

[35:24] approved them, and then the committee

[35:25] executed them.

[35:26] >> Yeah.

[35:27] That actually I think would resolve a

[35:29] lot of the issues that I talked about

[35:31] before as far as establishing legitimacy

[35:35] of the of the

[35:38] of what's happening. Yeah.

[35:40] I if nothing else is making sure we're

[35:42] on the same page.

[35:43] >> I I really agree with that. I think it

[35:44] makes a lot of sense to like

[35:46] um because it effectively gets its

[35:48] legitimacy from the council having kind

[35:50] of official council input into its

[35:53] efforts seems like good governance.

[35:55] Absolutely.

[35:58] Okay.

[35:59] Well, the only other things that I

[36:00] prepared to talk about were the general

[36:01] principles of the auditing that I've

[36:04] heard concerns from councilors in the

[36:05] past, independence, the prioritization

[36:07] of audits, risk assessments including

[36:10] input from the council. So

[36:12] we're because we're coming up on time, I

[36:14] don't see any need to necessarily push

[36:15] on that, but you can talk to me anytime

[36:17] unless you'd like me to continue.

[36:20] But other than that, I feel if if the

[36:23] committee is uh satisfied to consider

[36:25] this in a night meeting

[36:26] uh that's the proposal.

[36:28] >> need to add to this? Do we need to add

[36:29] the process of talking about it and

[36:31] voting on? I like that idea.

[36:34] I think that'd be a good amendment or

[36:36] update to these proposed Kind of codify

[36:39] that.

[36:39] I mean

[36:41] not that it couldn't happen before, but

[36:42] if it's in there, it's more likely to or

[36:44] to be consistent with it. Are you

[36:46] talking about I just want to make sure

[36:47] I'm clear about like having council

[36:49] input on the risk assessment? Uh council

[36:51] input on

[36:53] um the scope of the audit

[36:57] uh we'll call it audit charter um audit

[37:01] um

[37:02] uh yeah, sorry.

[37:03] >> Sort of like it's audit priorities for a

[37:04] given

[37:05] time period. The audit plan, thank you.

[37:06] I was looking for the right word.

[37:08] >> The audit plan for the year. Okay.

[37:10] I can make those amendments and make

[37:11] sure they're in there for the night

[37:12] meeting. And Craig has a comment. Go

[37:15] ahead, Craig. I was just going to say I

[37:16] would also not like the idea of us

[37:19] having further discussion discussion

[37:21] about it. Uh anything we can do to

[37:24] create greater transparency,

[37:27] uh greater efficiency

[37:29] um I think is is uh time and money well

[37:33] spent. So I'm I'm very supportive of

[37:35] continuing this discussion.

[37:38] Terrific.

[37:39] And I just want to say thanks to the

[37:41] council and the administration for

[37:43] making the audit

[37:45] both internal audit function a priority.

[37:47] I mean we're one of the few cities who's

[37:49] doing it and I think that's great. I

[37:51] really think that's

[37:53] commendable. So

[37:56] I have a quick question.

[37:58] So in having the audit committee check

[38:00] in with the rest of the council and

[38:02] doing the plan, is that something that

[38:05] we would want to just do by email or

[38:08] that we would want to do in a work

[38:10] meeting?

[38:11] Um

[38:12] because I could imagine that the items

[38:15] that we may want to investigate could

[38:17] potentially be sensitive. Some of them

[38:19] would be. Yeah, I think it probably

[38:21] depends on the subject. So could be a closed

[38:25] session too then. Could be. I mean

[38:27] there's very limited number of things

[38:30] that we can talk about in a closed

[38:31] session. A lot of things that might be

[38:33] the subject of an audit probably

[38:34] wouldn't qualify. So I think it's

[38:36] ultimately going to depend on the topic.

[38:39] I think that's probably something for

[38:40] the audit committee

[38:42] as they come forward with

[38:43] recommendations as to the focus of this.

[38:45] We'll talk amongst themselves of like

[38:47] how are we going to present these

[38:49] recommendations to the rest of the

[38:51] council. Right. And maybe take that to

[38:53] council leadership for the decision as

[38:55] whether or not it needs to be a big

[38:57] meeting type of thing.

[38:58] Okay.

[39:01] We need a meeting motion on this for

[39:04] night meeting consideration. Or are we

[39:06] good to go?

[39:07] It's not code. Okay.

[39:09] I mean I don't know, but

[39:11] Well,

[39:12] previously

[39:13] the council had adopted the two charters

[39:16] by resolution, so we can bring those

[39:19] back by resolution for an update.

[39:23] All right, any questions for Tanner

[39:24] before he goes?

[39:26] All right, thank you, Tanner.

[39:28] You.

[39:32] And the application process is open for

[39:35] councilors to join the audit committee.

[39:37] Wait, it's not open.

[39:41] Bye.

[39:44] I I would say that I'm not committed to

[39:46] this sometimes.

[39:47] I think that must be Yeah, I think that

[39:48] comes Yeah. I think it's really for a

[39:50] break. Yeah, I think All right, next up

[39:52] is a presentation regarding conservation

[39:55] plan.

[39:57] All right, that's Wendy Fisher,

[39:59] Executive Director, Media Executive

[40:01] Director, and Utah Open Lands.

[40:12] Welcome back, Wendy.

[40:14] Thank you. Who said that? Mayor Wilson.

[40:16] Oh, it's like, "Wow.

[40:19] I'm so glad I'm here. Um do we have

[40:23] Okay.

[40:26] Had an episode.

[40:28] Oh, all right.

[40:30] >> Good. This your Is this your slide?

[40:32] These are the slides, yes.

[40:35] Look at that. The computer decided to

[40:38] Uh so, uh some of you counselors, um

[40:41] witnessed a very similar presentation uh

[40:44] almost a year ago. Um I'm Wendy Fisher.

[40:47] I am and the Executive Director of Utah

[40:51] Open Lands. I've actually been with the

[40:53] organization for 37 years

[40:56] >> [sighs]

[40:56] >> uh now.

[40:58] Um

[40:59] what Utah Open Lands does as an

[41:01] organization is we hold conservation

[41:03] easements

[41:05] primarily with the purpose of protecting

[41:07] agricultural, recreational,

[41:09] wildlife, scenic, and open space

[41:12] resources throughout the state. And um

[41:16] we work with a range of landowners, a

[41:19] lot of private landowners um that we

[41:22] work with, but then we also work with

[41:24] various different government entities.

[41:26] Um so, I've given a very short list here

[41:30] of some of the different governmental

[41:31] partners that we've worked with in the

[41:33] protection of open space, everything

[41:35] from Wasatch Mountain State Park, um

[41:38] where we protected about 1,000 acres, uh

[41:41] the Gene and We Dean Weeden Farm Park is

[41:44] actually now with Salt Lake County,

[41:47] um all the way to Bridal Veil Falls,

[41:50] which of course many of you may remember

[41:52] that we worked with Utah County and

[41:54] right here in Provo City, we worked on

[41:56] Bonnell's Fork.

[41:58] Now, can I do this? Yes.

[42:04] I'm assuming the Well, one of the

[42:05] buttons are going to work. Um so, again,

[42:08] here's just a list. I'll try to speed my

[42:10] presentation up so that you can get on

[42:13] track with where you're at in terms of

[42:14] the agenda. Um but we have worked with a

[42:17] number of different agencies that range

[42:19] from city to county to state uh

[42:22] government agencies including groups

[42:24] like the Division of Forestry, Fire, and

[42:25] State Lands. And one of the first

[42:27] conservation easements that was ever

[42:28] placed on

[42:30] uh a

[42:31] state-owned piece of property was the

[42:32] Snake Creek Conservation Easement. And

[42:34] here you can see

[42:36] uh the Governor of the State of Utah

[42:38] signing that back in 1995.

[42:41] Um just to give you a little bit of

[42:42] background in Utah Open Lands, um we

[42:44] were established in 1990. We were the

[42:46] first local land trust in the State of

[42:48] Utah. Um we are a 501c3 public charity

[42:52] with special designation under 170H,

[42:54] which usually is not a huge issue with

[42:57] respect to working with government

[42:59] entities, um but 170H really clarifies

[43:02] what a conservation purpose is for

[43:05] public benefit. And I think that's

[43:07] important to understand is that is part

[43:09] of what the public benefit is all about

[43:12] when you do a conservation easement.

[43:14] From

[43:15] my perspective, um I feel like I'm in my

[43:18] home territory because I grew up in Utah

[43:20] County. I used to ride my horse

[43:22] Actually, it was a different one. Um but

[43:24] I used to ride my horse through the

[43:25] orchards with permission um and all the

[43:28] way up into the foothills. And one of

[43:30] the reasons that I became dedicated to

[43:32] doing open space preservation in the

[43:33] state is because I do believe that our

[43:36] long-term term economic vitality is tied

[43:39] to our quality of life. And a huge part

[43:42] of that quality of life are our open

[43:44] spaces. If there was any better uh

[43:46] statistic for it, just look at 2020,

[43:50] um when we were dealing with pandemic,

[43:52] we saw a 300% increase in the amount of

[43:54] people utilizing our open spaces, but

[43:57] increasingly what we see is even when

[43:59] you look at things like the outdoor

[44:01] recreation grants that are available

[44:04] throughout the state, there is

[44:05] increasing funding put into the state uh

[44:09] trails and recreation and those sorts of

[44:12] open space funding uh by the legislature

[44:14] because they recognize that the people

[44:16] that come to our State of Utah are

[44:19] really attracted, whether they're

[44:20] business visitors,

[44:22] people who want to live here because of

[44:24] our great outdoors. And so, it does make

[44:26] sense from a long-term economic uh

[44:29] perspective to do that. And

[44:30] additionally, from a personal

[44:32] perspective, when I look at the places

[44:34] that I used to go when I was a young

[44:36] kid, um we're losing some of those. And

[44:38] I think that they're really vital but

[44:40] really as as our entire civilization

[44:43] grows here in the State of Utah. So,

[44:46] what is a conservation easement? This is

[44:48] definition that comes out of um

[44:50] different places through the Utah Code.

[44:52] I chose the best one, I thought. But it

[44:54] ba- basically is an encumbrance on the

[44:56] landscape. Um I think that there have

[44:58] been questions in the past, and I

[45:00] certainly want to continue to answer

[45:02] those questions, but I think one of the

[45:03] things that's important to understand is

[45:05] you are not giving Utah Open Lands the

[45:07] land.

[45:09] We are not going to become owners of the

[45:10] land that Provo City owns when we talk

[45:13] about Slate Canyon or we talk about

[45:14] something like Bonnell's Fork.

[45:16] You're essentially giving us an

[45:18] obligation.

[45:20] You are giving us an obligation to

[45:21] ensure the protection of these

[45:23] landscapes in perpetuity. And that for

[45:26] that, we have to defend these

[45:28] landscapes. Um

[45:30] It was interesting

[45:32] not to throw you back to your previous

[45:33] conversation, but to listen to that

[45:35] element of independence. And I think

[45:37] what Utah Open Lands provides in

[45:39] conservation easement from really a

[45:40] government perspective is a little bit

[45:42] of a check and balance. Really, you will

[45:44] remain continue to hold the ultimate

[45:46] power in what you want to see done with

[45:48] these landscapes, but in making this

[45:51] decision, bless you, what you're really

[45:53] looking at from a City Council

[45:54] perspective is saying, "This is

[45:56] something that you've seen that your

[45:57] constituents are interested in, that you

[45:59] see this is a long-term economic

[46:01] vitality, and maybe you want to have a

[46:02] little bit of a check to make sure that stays protected."

[46:06] If down the road there's a real

[46:07] legitimate reason as to why you wouldn't

[46:10] want to have it continue to be

[46:11] protected, there are provisions within a

[46:13] conservation easement that it can allow

[46:15] you to do that, especially you as a

[46:17] government entity. We can talk about

[46:18] that in a minute if you'd like. Um the

[46:21] other reasons that I think that it makes

[46:22] sense to do conservation easements with

[46:24] uh organization like Utah Open Lands is

[46:27] we can partner in management strategies.

[46:29] Um just this last Saturday, uh we were

[46:31] involved in some wildfire mitigation.

[46:33] We've done extensive research on forest

[46:36] health. Um we've done some extensives uh

[46:39] research on certain water quality

[46:41] issues. And right now, actually, we own

[46:44] a landscape where we are doing some

[46:46] regenerative agricultural practices uh

[46:48] working with various different farm

[46:50] farmers and ranchers that we think

[46:52] actually will apply to even broader land

[46:55] management um priorities, so you get

[46:57] that for free. Um I think some of the

[46:59] other things is as I've mentioned

[47:01] before, it guards against rash decision

[47:03] and it guards against private benefits

[47:05] by ensuring the public benefit that

[47:07] accrues from a conservation easement.

[47:11] And I think it really does codify what

[47:13] it is that the community is looking at.

[47:15] Um what you'll see in a conservation

[47:17] easement, um because hoping hoping that

[47:20] we get to that place, um what a

[47:23] conservation easement, you'll see

[47:24] basically, bless you, the intentions

[47:26] that are codified in these recitals.

[47:28] Then you'll also see the what the rights

[47:30] you are giving to Utah Open Lands. And

[47:32] all of these things that I've put up

[47:34] here, but I think probably one of the

[47:36] focus points is one, we have a baseline

[47:38] documentation that identifies what the

[47:40] existing condition of the property is.

[47:42] So, this isn't that we're requiring you

[47:44] to enhance it or restore it or any of

[47:46] those sorts of things. The next part of

[47:48] it in terms of the permitted and the

[47:50] prohibited uses, this is really

[47:51] something that you all as council, along

[47:54] with your staff, end up identifying and

[47:57] really visioning for the property. I

[48:00] like to tell people that a lot of times

[48:01] people think that a conservation

[48:02] easement locks in the fate of the land,

[48:04] and yet development locks in the fate of

[48:06] the land far greater than conservation

[48:08] easement would. And if you talk to any

[48:10] farmer who's ever tried to farm or

[48:12] reclaim a property that had been

[48:15] concreted, you'll know that that soil

[48:17] depth is no longer there, for example.

[48:19] And so, what when you look at when we go

[48:22] forward and we develop things, there's a

[48:24] lot of visioning that goes through that.

[48:26] Conservation Easement, these permitted

[48:28] and prohibited uses, the same sort of

[48:30] idea in terms of coming up with some

[48:32] visioning. We can also work on a

[48:34] management plan provision. I think when

[48:36] Bonnell we did Bonnell's Fork, we did

[48:38] not look at a management plan provision,

[48:39] in part because your um Parks and Recs

[48:42] and your uh Public Works folks already

[48:45] have some really great visioning and

[48:47] plans that are already in place, and the

[48:49] conservation easement really is intended

[48:51] to mimic that.

[48:53] Um this is just an example of what you

[48:57] might see in terms of some language with

[48:59] respect to, for example, the baseline

[49:00] documentation.

[49:02] Um and then this section here, it talks

[49:04] about a uh master plan. This actually

[49:07] came directly out of a conservation

[49:09] easement that we did for um Bonanza

[49:11] Flats. So, if any of you have been up to

[49:13] uh the Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon,

[49:16] you've gone up to the top there, and

[49:17] you've ever hiked to Bloods Lake, that's

[49:18] Bonanza Flat. We worked with Park City

[49:20] to ensure that 1,500 acres is under a

[49:23] conservation easement. There it is. Um

[49:28] In that particular instance, we did work

[49:30] on a management plan, and we divided the

[49:32] property into sort of a a a headwaters

[49:35] area, a backcountry area, and a front

[49:37] country area. I think one of the things

[49:39] that's interesting that shows sort of

[49:40] the value of having an organization like

[49:43] Utah Open Lands involved in the

[49:46] protection of a piece of property like

[49:48] this is we actually garnered about

[49:50] $500,000

[49:52] in funding to allow for trailhead

[49:54] development, trail development. Um there

[49:56] was an old yurt platform that has now

[49:59] been totally taken out and reclaimed as

[50:01] what we're calling the Aspen Gathering

[50:03] Place. Um we're also working on some

[50:05] interpretive sites that open up some

[50:07] accessibility to this area. Um and

[50:09] really that's one of the successes that

[50:12] we've seen in the partnership that we've

[50:14] had on that particular property.

[50:17] Our role really as an organization is to

[50:20] act as a steward. We provide you with

[50:23] annual, at least, sometimes more than

[50:25] annual reports on the status of the

[50:27] property. Um we are there as a continual

[50:30] partner in things you might want to

[50:32] accomplish on the property. As I

[50:34] mentioned with Park City, we've written

[50:35] numerous grants. We also wrote a grant

[50:37] for the county when we were working on

[50:39] Bridal Veil Falls. But fundamentally,

[50:42] our role is to ensure the terms of the

[50:44] conservation easement are adhered to and

[50:47] that the property itself is continues to

[50:51] um remain as the intentions that are set

[50:54] forth in the conservation easement.

[50:56] Pretty sure that's my last slide.

[50:59] So then that beautiful picture of

[51:01] Bonnell's Fork. Yes.

[51:12] Yeah, I know. I feel I feel a little bad

[51:14] for you, but

[51:26] So did you say I thought I caught

[51:29] if they needed to, they could get out of

[51:31] this? Is that what you said? There are

[51:33] provisions within the conservation

[51:35] easement. For example, you could condemn

[51:36] it.

[51:37] You're a city, you have condemnation

[51:39] powers. We could condemn our own

[51:41] property? You could condemn the

[51:42] conservation easement.

[51:48] That's a

[51:48] >> Well, I mean that's up to you and the

[51:49] Yeah. So

[51:51] the the easement itself is a property

[51:53] right. You could condemn that property

[51:55] right. It's

[51:56] it essentially results in what's called

[51:58] merger where the all the right cuz right

[52:00] now with with a conservation easement,

[52:02] the rights are being held by the

[52:04] underlying property owner and the

[52:05] easement owner.

[52:07] And through condemnation, you would

[52:08] merge those rights back into each other.

[52:12] Did we gather all of your open little

[52:14] sticks?

[52:15] Right.

[52:17] We just bend all the sticks. Okay, so

[52:21] then tell me

[52:23] if we hold the power to

[52:27] bond us in an easement and we also hold

[52:30] the power to get us out of an easement

[52:35] why go with the easement in the first

[52:36] place?

[52:38] Again, I I find it interesting that you

[52:39] had that conversation from an auditing

[52:41] perspective, right? I think that

[52:43] fundamentally, it's not going to be an

[52:44] easy process. It's not like you get a

[52:46] wave your hand and say, "Okay, we agreed

[52:48] to get into this. Now we're going to

[52:50] agree to get out of it." There is a

[52:51] process and that process gets outlined

[52:53] in the conservation easement. So it

[52:55] really becomes one of those check and

[52:57] balances. I think it becomes a part of

[52:59] the transparency um in terms of a piece

[53:01] of property. The reason we got involved

[53:03] with Bridal Veil Falls is it was headed

[53:05] for development and nobody actually knew

[53:07] that there was a developer that was

[53:09] bidding on the development of it. We've

[53:11] seen that similarly with the Galena Sun

[53:12] Coney property down along the Jordan

[53:14] River. Largest piece of open space in

[53:17] the Jordan River. I actually worked with

[53:18] the legislator who put the legislation

[53:20] in place to see that 250 acres

[53:22] protected.

[53:24] Several news news articles about 10

[53:28] years later

[53:30] and a developer had gotten onto a public

[53:33] authority that had some authority over

[53:36] that area and wanted to see that land

[53:38] exchanged and taken out, which had a

[53:40] 4,000

[53:41] 4,000-year-old archaeological site on it

[53:44] and developed.

[53:46] So it becomes basically a check and

[53:47] balance um on some of those similar

[53:50] things. I think in terms of the question

[53:51] conversation you were having even in

[53:53] terms of why have an independent

[53:55] auditor. It basically provides one, the

[53:58] vision for what you want to see move

[54:01] forward with this piece of property. Not

[54:03] all property is going to be the same.

[54:04] And I think actually last time I was

[54:06] here, we we had a you know, we had a

[54:08] good conversation. I think you had some

[54:10] really good points about not all of

[54:11] these properties are properties that

[54:13] would be appropriate for a conservation

[54:14] easement. And I think the one that's

[54:16] being brought forward, Slate Canyon, is

[54:17] one that has again watershed resources,

[54:20] recreational resources that really fit

[54:23] hand in glove with the concept of a

[54:25] conservation easement. And so

[54:27] essentially, what you're doing is you're

[54:29] just really codifying and identifying

[54:32] what the intention of the city is for

[54:34] its constituents and for this landscape

[54:36] with respect to honoring the protection

[54:39] of those recreational values. That's

[54:42] what I see from

[54:44] having

[54:45] been doing this for 37 years as as why I

[54:48] mean there's not

[54:50] cuz sometimes I ask my question, why do

[54:52] I go to work every day to do all of

[54:53] this? Um because it isn't like you're

[54:55] giving an asset to Utah Open Lands, but

[54:58] I have I've seen the other side of it

[55:00] and I think that we should have at least

[55:03] a little bow around certain sticks that

[55:06] you really have to intentionally untie

[55:09] if you're going to bring those sticks

[55:10] back in and you're going to potentially

[55:12] destroy the protection of a piece

[55:14] >> Have you ever I mean you guys have been

[55:15] in you said 37 years? Yes. Have you guys

[55:18] ever had one undone?

[55:20] Nope.

[55:21] Okay.

[55:22] Thanks. We have not.

[55:26] Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to

[55:29] everybody who had this vision and has

[55:31] worked so hard. I know that there's been

[55:33] a lot of time and effort put into it. I

[55:35] think it's really important to protect

[55:36] our spaces. You said it great, so I

[55:38] didn't want to take a ton of time, but I

[55:39] just want to say I'm really

[55:40] um

[55:41] happy and excited to be able to support

[55:43] this effort.

[55:46] Wendy, what's that a picture of?

[55:48] Bonnell's Fork. Bonnell's Fork. There's

[55:50] a

[55:52] Oh my gosh. It was throwing me. Like I

[55:55] thought it was Bonnell's Fork, but I saw

[55:57] the electrical lines and I saw the

[55:58] little trailers below it. I thought it

[55:59] had a gondola.

[56:01] >> I thought it had a gondola. I'm like

[56:02] >> [laughter]

[56:05] » You were scaring me. I was like, "Wait a

[56:07] minute." Yeah, I was like,

[56:09] "What where is this?"

[56:11] I swore it was Bonnell's Fork. Okay.

[56:13] Thank you.

[56:14] All right. Well, thanks for the

[56:15] >> yep.

[56:15] That's up in Bridal Veil.

[56:17] Yeah.

[56:19] Chairman okay? Yes. Just a couple

[56:22] other thoughts with Council Bogden's

[56:24] question before. Um I agree entirely

[56:27] with Wendy that um condemning something

[56:30] is harder than just putting it on the

[56:33] surplus property list and selling it. So

[56:34] it it would take longer. It would be a

[56:36] more public process.

[56:38] The other two reasons why it's harder is

[56:40] because you can only condemn for certain

[56:42] purposes. Oh. So under state law, you

[56:45] can't just condemn for any purpose that you can think of.

[56:49] And two, if you do condemn you have to

[56:51] pay the property right holder the fair

[56:54] market value of the property right that

[56:55] you're taking away from them. So there

[56:57] would be both a cost and limitations on

[57:00] what the state would allow you to do it

[57:01] for. Now wait.

[57:03] So yes. You would property Property

[57:06] rights have values even not just

[57:09] property has value. Property rights have

[57:10] value. So easements have monetary value.

[57:13] And so you can't So where you're going

[57:16] with this I think by the look on your

[57:17] face is you could end up giving away a

[57:20] property right for free and having to

[57:22] pay to get it back

[57:24] if you decided to condemn it. Just just

[57:26] give me a ballpark figure on what an

[57:30] easement 10%

[57:32] >> value.

[57:33] And I think gen-

[57:35] generally speaking, like if like if I

[57:37] had if if I had a big uh if I had a

[57:40] residential lot in Provo and my neighbor

[57:42] needed access to drive his car across it

[57:45] generally speaking, charging him 10% of

[57:48] the of the value of the property to give

[57:50] the easement across my property would be

[57:52] kind of a standard

[57:54] sit- situation.

[57:56] And in that case, Brian, that doesn't make

[57:59] any sense because we would be buying it

[58:01] back from ourselves. Well, but you're

[58:02] not because you don't hold the easement.

[58:04] You're giving the easement to Utah Open

[58:05] Lands. So if you condemn it from them,

[58:08] you have to pay them for the right that

[58:09] you're taking away from them. So that's the disincentive to take it out

[58:14] of an easement. Yes.

[58:17] And and I will just jump in having

[58:19] worked with your staff and and you know,

[58:21] um Tara and I have had this

[58:22] conversation.

[58:24] You you you can't The way that we have

[58:27] worked with Provo City to draft these,

[58:31] it is not a huge amount as they're

[58:34] saying it's that 10%. Obviously, when

[58:37] we've worked with private land owners

[58:40] depending on how that is set up there is

[58:43] potentially like if they're taking a tax

[58:45] deduction and therefore they're

[58:46] receiving a value for it, the percentage

[58:49] of what that property right holds to the

[58:51] overall value can be quite a bit

[58:54] greater. But I think that you know, um

[58:57] I know Tara was involved in that very

[59:00] much in terms of making sure that the way that it was written it's

[59:04] enough of a safeguard, but it's not that

[59:06] you are giving it's it's it's a pretty

[59:09] I'm not going to say a nominal amount,

[59:10] but it's it's a it's a pretty small

[59:12] amount quite frankly in comparison to

[59:14] even what we've done with Park City.

[59:16] Typically, the percentage of the

[59:18] property right that they end up

[59:19] giving to Utah Open Lands through the

[59:21] conservation easement is quite a bit

[59:23] larger and there are many different ways

[59:25] reasons for that everything from open

[59:26] space bonds and things like that, which

[59:28] is not the case here, so I don't really

[59:29] want to go into it, but I saw your face,

[59:31] too, and I don't want to have it seem

[59:33] like you are giving us this huge value

[59:35] that then you're going to have to buy

[59:36] back. It's just enough that it creates

[59:39] that disincentive.

[59:41] So, Brian, we only have to buy it back

[59:43] if we

[59:44] don't condemn it for one of the reasons

[59:46] that the state allows us to condemn it

[59:48] for? No. No, I'm saying

[59:50] the

[59:51] um part of the condemnation is So, let's

[59:54] move out of conservation easements for a

[59:56] little bit just to be uh more simple.

[59:59] So, if you want to build a road and you

[1:00:03] condemn somebody's property, the private

[1:00:05] citizen's property in order to build the

[1:00:06] road, you must pay them the fair market

[1:00:08] value of the property you condemn. That

[1:00:10] same principle applies here.

[1:00:13] If you give away a property right, in

[1:00:15] this case an easement, whether it's a

[1:00:16] conservation easement or not, let's say

[1:00:17] it was Let's say it's not a conservation

[1:00:19] easement just for simplicity and it's

[1:00:20] like the one I just said a minute ago,

[1:00:22] it's just an easement to cross

[1:00:24] somebody's property. If you later want

[1:00:27] to build a

[1:00:30] uh

[1:00:31] electric substation on that property and

[1:00:34] you want to take the the easement that

[1:00:37] lets the person drive across it back

[1:00:39] from them,

[1:00:40] you can condemn it, but you have to pay

[1:00:43] them the fair market value of the right

[1:00:46] of the easement right. Okay, so we have

[1:00:49] built in our

[1:00:52] conservation easement that we have the

[1:00:53] right to build substations, we have the

[1:00:55] right to build

[1:00:57] parks, we have the right to build I can

[1:01:00] Yeah, I mean this That's the next item.

[1:01:02] This one This one we haven't necessarily

[1:01:03] done yet, but yes, generally speaking,

[1:01:05] we're going to preserve most And And

[1:01:08] this is where in some ways it's again

[1:01:09] it's it's kind of a hypothetical

[1:01:11] non-starter, right? Because the intent

[1:01:14] would be to build almost all public

[1:01:16] purposes into the conservation easement

[1:01:19] so we could do them anyway and

[1:01:21] non-public purposes are the kinds of

[1:01:23] things that the state wouldn't allow us

[1:01:25] to condemn for anyway. So, the idea that

[1:01:28] we

[1:01:29] >> we could sell it to somebody to build a

[1:01:31] subdivision on. Correct. That's not

[1:01:33] something that you can condemn for under

[1:01:35] Utah law.

[1:01:38] Mhm.

[1:01:40] I think you

[1:01:47] All right. Thanks, Wendy. Okay, perfect.

[1:01:50] Glad there's not a gondola over there.

[1:01:53] Yeah.

[1:01:54] Next we'll hear from Malia on a

[1:01:56] presentation regarding specifically a

[1:01:57] Slate Canyon conservation easement.

[1:02:03] Perfect.

[1:02:05] Thank you, Wendy, for the intro to

[1:02:08] conservation easements.

[1:02:12] » [laughter]

[1:02:12] >> This is specifically

[1:02:14] for Slate Canyon conservation easement.

[1:02:17] And I'm just going to jump ahead really

[1:02:19] quick

[1:02:20] so we can orient to where we are talking

[1:02:22] about. So, green green shaded parcels

[1:02:25] are city owned parcels.

[1:02:27] And then you turn right.

[1:02:29] Oh.

[1:02:30] So,

[1:02:32] here's the state hospital

[1:02:35] and then Slate Canyon

[1:02:37] and then this is Slate Canyon Drive

[1:02:41] the state

[1:02:42] or State Street, or something like

[1:02:45] So,

[1:02:46] these are all city owned parcels up

[1:02:48] here. It totals

[1:02:50] 115

[1:02:52] Well, 115 acres have been recommended

[1:02:56] by the committee for the easement. The

[1:02:59] city also owns this parcel here, this is

[1:03:01] 47 acres

[1:03:03] and the working group that has been

[1:03:05] working on this is not recommending

[1:03:07] that. Which I'll talk to in a second.

[1:03:09] Anyway, these are This is where we're

[1:03:11] talking about. I also have this picture.

[1:03:13] This is currently designated as Slate

[1:03:16] Canyon Park, so

[1:03:19] all of those parcels

[1:03:20] minus south of State Canyon Drive here

[1:03:23] and then the one parcel that's

[1:03:26] So, there's nothing recommended south of

[1:03:28] Slate Canyon Drive.

[1:03:30] for the easement.

[1:03:32] Currently it is included and we can I'll

[1:03:35] talk about that in a second.

[1:03:36] This is included just because it's all

[1:03:38] one parcel.

[1:03:40] But we can change that if you would

[1:03:41] like. Okay.

[1:03:44] Going back, so this is going to be

[1:03:47] really I'll go quick and then if

[1:03:49] Councilors Christiansen and Whitlock

[1:03:51] would like to jump in, this originally

[1:03:53] came as an issue sponsor request from

[1:03:55] Councilors Whitlock and Christiansen to

[1:03:57] just discuss potential conservation

[1:03:59] easement on Slate Canyon.

[1:04:01] So, we met along with

[1:04:04] a lot of staff from the administration,

[1:04:06] from almost every city department

[1:04:08] um and the mayor's office to kind of

[1:04:10] discuss

[1:04:12] our initial concerns, what we're excited

[1:04:15] about, what we're not, if there's

[1:04:18] um things to take into consideration,

[1:04:20] what went well during the Bonnell Sport

[1:04:21] conservation easement, what we want to

[1:04:23] change, who do we want to partner with.

[1:04:26] So, after all of that, we came to

[1:04:29] the idea of a Slate Canyon conservation

[1:04:31] easement to place the city on parcels we

[1:04:34] just discussed

[1:04:36] into an easement with the city as the

[1:04:39] landowner and then Utah Open Lands as

[1:04:41] the easement holder.

[1:04:43] This is through the same section of code

[1:04:45] that we used for Bonnell's, which allows

[1:04:49] the city to provide non-monetary

[1:04:50] assistance to nonprofits

[1:04:53] without receiving

[1:04:55] fair market value compensation for that.

[1:04:58] We just have to do a public benefit

[1:05:00] study

[1:05:01] um which we did for Bonnell's.

[1:05:03] So, that would just allow us to then

[1:05:07] um put the prop those property rights

[1:05:09] into an easement. We have talked to

[1:05:11] Conserve Utah Valley, a local nonprofit

[1:05:13] who has offered to cover the initial

[1:05:15] stewardship costs of placing this into

[1:05:17] an easement, which is around $10,000.

[1:05:20] So, that would be another partnership in

[1:05:22] this. They've offered to fundraise and

[1:05:24] pay those initial costs.

[1:05:27] And then the why behind this, it

[1:05:29] supports a lot of goals in our master

[1:05:33] plans and then it's also support from

[1:05:37] Councilors Whitlock and Christiansen.

[1:05:39] This is a simple process. So, first,

[1:05:42] after if we there's a motion of the

[1:05:44] majority of the council here in this

[1:05:45] meeting to go forward with this process,

[1:05:48] then this is what that would look like.

[1:05:50] So, you'd have an MOU between Provo City

[1:05:52] and Utah Open Lands that would just say

[1:05:55] the city is not going to offer monetary

[1:05:57] funds for this now or ongoing,

[1:06:00] but that we want to enter into a

[1:06:02] conservation easement with you and we've

[1:06:04] already spoken with legal and they would

[1:06:06] work through that for us.

[1:06:09] And then we'd work on drafting the

[1:06:11] easement. So, this would involve

[1:06:13] administration, legal, public works,

[1:06:15] parks and rec, development services,

[1:06:17] fire, and Utah Open Lands just to make

[1:06:20] sure every consideration

[1:06:22] is taken when drafting that easement. I

[1:06:24] can speak to when we were drafting the

[1:06:26] Bonnell Sport easement, um we went

[1:06:29] through the parks and rec master plan,

[1:06:30] the public works master plan, public

[1:06:33] works really was great about visioning

[1:06:35] what they might need as far as watershed

[1:06:37] needs and different infrastructure.

[1:06:39] Parks talked about, well, what if we

[1:06:41] went fully, we wanted a huge park, we

[1:06:44] went all the way, like what that would

[1:06:46] look like, made sure that was in there.

[1:06:49] Made sure that the city had everything

[1:06:51] it needed to

[1:06:52] manage that land according to our master

[1:06:54] plans. So, the same thing here, when we

[1:06:57] were talking in our working group, um

[1:07:00] multiple representatives from

[1:07:01] development services, public works, and

[1:07:03] parks were all there

[1:07:05] making sure that water infrastructure,

[1:07:08] street infrastructure, easements with

[1:07:10] There are a lot of

[1:07:12] in this map, there are a lot of other

[1:07:14] public utilities from other

[1:07:18] some

[1:07:19] private companies, Rocky Mountain Power,

[1:07:22] Enbridge, the state, others who already

[1:07:24] have easements on the land. Already

[1:07:26] working on a coordination plan with them

[1:07:28] to make sure that that is all

[1:07:30] taken into account when drafting the

[1:07:31] easement.

[1:07:33] Making sure it's also in line with parks

[1:07:35] and rec master plan for Slate Canyon

[1:07:38] park and the visions that they have

[1:07:40] there.

[1:07:41] So, that is all being taken into

[1:07:43] account.

[1:07:45] Um along with drafting the easement,

[1:07:47] we'd also be drafting a public interest

[1:07:49] valuation study. The council staff would

[1:07:51] take that on and have that reviewed by

[1:07:53] administrative staff to make sure we're

[1:07:55] not

[1:07:56] missing anything there.

[1:07:58] And then finally, it would come to a

[1:08:00] resolution to the city council to

[1:08:02] authorizing the city to place the

[1:08:04] property into an easement including a

[1:08:06] notice public hearing, which is what we

[1:08:08] did with Bonnell's.

[1:08:11] Okay. We do have a suggestion request.

[1:08:14] Okay.

[1:08:16] I

[1:08:18] This This is slated to be a park one

[1:08:20] day. One day. Yes.

[1:08:22] >> Right. One day. And we did take out

[1:08:26] the provision that they could sell off

[1:08:27] pieces of this in order to pay for the

[1:08:29] park. Correct. So, I don't want people

[1:08:33] to come and say, "Okay, now that we put

[1:08:35] this in a conservation easement, we're

[1:08:36] getting a park tomorrow." I I don't want

[1:08:39] that to come across

[1:08:40] when we do this. I I want them to

[1:08:42] realize that funding

[1:08:44] for parks is few and far between and it

[1:08:47] could be decades before they would even

[1:08:51] get a park on this land. And by putting

[1:08:53] it in a conservation easement, that

[1:08:55] kills any idea in the future that any

[1:08:58] portion of it could be sold off

[1:09:01] to be placed as money back towards the

[1:09:04] park. Because I think that also needs to

[1:09:06] be in their cognitive space. That today

[1:09:12] or yesterday we fought against someone

[1:09:14] that came in, gave a proposal to the

[1:09:16] city council and then didn't even make

[1:09:18] it anywhere. I don't even think they

[1:09:19] filed anything with the city, right? It

[1:09:21] was just insane. But um

[1:09:25] And we did that because of the response,

[1:09:27] but I also wanted

[1:09:29] very clear given to them

[1:09:31] that that doesn't mean that you're going

[1:09:32] to get your park tomorrow

[1:09:34] and that this option will be taken out

[1:09:37] for future

[1:09:40] generations to even have that option to

[1:09:42] get money for a park.

[1:09:44] Because there are some parts of this

[1:09:46] that are buildable, correct? Some of

[1:09:47] this is not in the There are slim

[1:09:50] portions. Most of it is above 30% grade,

[1:09:53] so it's not buildable.

[1:09:55] Even west of Slate Canyon there on the

[1:09:56] north part?

[1:09:58] On this part?

[1:09:59] >> Yeah. I There's some parts up here that

[1:10:01] are

[1:10:01] >> West of the west of Slate Canyon? There.

[1:10:03] Yeah, there you go. That section there.

[1:10:05] This part, um, public works

[1:10:09] they had mentioned that this is like all

[1:10:11] infrastructure. That this would be a a

[1:10:13] basin, water

[1:10:15] it would all be for public works.

[1:10:17] >> Doesn't it kind of like gully? Right now

[1:10:19] there's a big hole with like satellites

[1:10:21] in it and Right. So, is their plan to

[1:10:24] just fill it up? I'm not exactly sure of

[1:10:26] their plan, but I can follow up and get

[1:10:28] back to you on that. But I know in our

[1:10:30] discussions they talked about

[1:10:33] the amount of public infrastructure

[1:10:36] work that needs to be done in this area

[1:10:38] is a lot in their master plan.

[1:10:42] Yeah, we had initially, um

[1:10:47] discussed and part of the initial

[1:10:48] proposal was having that small sliver of

[1:10:50] a property on the west uh west side of

[1:10:52] Slate Canyon Drive trying to like

[1:10:54] consider um splitting that parcel and

[1:10:56] not including it, but then public works

[1:10:58] came back with that feedback, so we

[1:11:00] didn't push forward with doing that. Um,

[1:11:02] there is you could argue like a little

[1:11:03] bit a little tiny bit in the

[1:11:06] kind of the the northwest corner of it

[1:11:08] that potentially if if I can see it on

[1:11:10] if like this area here Wait a minute.

[1:11:12] Like this area? Okay.

[1:11:14] Yeah, where you potentially could

[1:11:16] sell and build that land, but it's very small. Um It's kind of How would

[1:11:20] you get to it though?

[1:11:21] >> And if there's a nice bike course on it

[1:11:22] now.

[1:11:23] Oh, is there?

[1:11:24] Yeah, there is. I use that I love riding

[1:11:26] on with my kids, but

[1:11:27] so.

[1:11:29] When when you say that that sliver is

[1:11:33] infrastructure, like explain a little

[1:11:35] more what they want to do with that or

[1:11:36] what they will be doing with that in the

[1:11:38] future?

[1:11:38] >> all a lot of this is the large basin.

[1:11:40] Yeah, I mean I I I know there's

[1:11:42] satellite dishes in there and They're

[1:11:44] going to do a water They want to do a

[1:11:45] water retention basin. Yeah, okay. So,

[1:11:48] like with Buckley Draw, they're building

[1:11:50] a huge basin down by Centennial Park for

[1:11:52] their Slate Canyon, this is the same

[1:11:54] like path for water.

[1:11:57] So, we're looking at like a little

[1:11:59] reservoir or we looking at maybe storm

[1:12:01] water retention? I do not know. I can

[1:12:04] get details and get back to you though.

[1:12:08] My understanding is when when we had

[1:12:09] that flooding was it like 20 30 years

[1:12:13] ago? Um

[1:12:14] that that a lot of the infrastructure

[1:12:16] was put in so that cuz if we have a very heavy snow year

[1:12:19] that Slate Canyon runs quite

[1:12:20] aggressively and then they started

[1:12:22] flooding down 3rd South so.

[1:12:28] Um, I would add

[1:12:30] Go ahead, Craig.

[1:12:32] No, go ahead. I'll go after you.

[1:12:34] Um

[1:12:35] I've had multiple residents speak to me

[1:12:37] about how they wish um

[1:12:41] there was more recreational places to

[1:12:44] like eat and sit and enjoy food and

[1:12:46] stuff. Like they've talked about how you

[1:12:48] can go up Immigration Canyon and do

[1:12:49] things and go up different canyons and

[1:12:51] have these

[1:12:52] Like we just have Sundance, it's always

[1:12:53] busy, it's hard to get into.

[1:12:55] Um

[1:12:57] I'm so curious, Wendy, talking about a

[1:12:59] conservation easement. Like I remember

[1:13:01] eating it at um Bridal Veil Falls back

[1:13:04] in the day, you know, you can't do that

[1:13:05] anymore. Um, like does a conservation

[1:13:08] easement totally like we went to Mill

[1:13:10] Creek Commons. I love how they have food

[1:13:12] incorporated into that whole thing. Um,

[1:13:14] and their park and I wonder if does a conservation

[1:13:19] easement negate the city having a food

[1:13:21] thing or something popsicles or

[1:13:23] >> Though food truck I can

[1:13:26] speak to in the Bonnell's Fork

[1:13:28] conservation easement we said that the

[1:13:30] management plan of that will follow the

[1:13:32] Parks and Rec and Public Works master

[1:13:34] plans.

[1:13:35] That was kind of the management plan we

[1:13:37] built into that. Similarly, Parks and

[1:13:39] Rec and Public Works have requested that

[1:13:41] for this easement as well. So, if Parks

[1:13:42] and Rec master plan for Slate Canyon

[1:13:44] Park would include a concession stand

[1:13:47] or like

[1:13:48] >> Okay, so it doesn't have to be written

[1:13:48] in stone now. It could be a plan that

[1:13:50] you have.

[1:13:51] >> it would have to within the uses that

[1:13:53] are outlined in the

[1:13:55] conservation easement, but Parks was

[1:13:57] involved in these discussions and wants

[1:13:59] to make sure that this is a

[1:14:01] featured amenity of the city, so. Is it

[1:14:03] like today's master plan or does this

[1:14:06] conservation easement change with each

[1:14:08] master plan every five It changes. Okay,

[1:14:11] so that is built in.

[1:14:11] >> So, it's in it's in conversation and

[1:14:13] we're working with Utah Open Lands on

[1:14:15] our master plan in these parks to make

[1:14:18] sure

[1:14:18] >> So, in 50 years from now if they decide,

[1:14:21] "Hey, we want just this big old food

[1:14:22] truck pad up there." That's still going

[1:14:24] to be permissible. Well, I'll let Wendy

[1:14:26] speak to that.

[1:14:27] It's just speak to Wendy is on the mic.

[1:14:31] Okay, go ahead.

[1:14:32] Um, so so again, I think as Malia is

[1:14:35] pointing out we don't have the best

[1:14:38] answers cuz we're still going through

[1:14:40] kind of the discussing what the terms

[1:14:42] would be, but yes

[1:14:43] every management plan that we've done

[1:14:45] especially with government entities what

[1:14:47] we call an adaptive management plan. And

[1:14:51] so, it adheres to the general

[1:14:52] principles. Right? So, you wouldn't be

[1:14:54] able to do something in the master plan

[1:14:57] in the future that was a private benefit

[1:15:00] oriented idea. But you would be able to

[1:15:04] do certain adaptations that again follow

[1:15:07] through with the overall goal and I

[1:15:09] think as

[1:15:10] we experienced with Bonnell's Fork,

[1:15:13] there's already quite a bit of vision

[1:15:14] within the city as it stands or how they

[1:15:17] like to see some of these recreation

[1:15:19] areas move forward really to respond to

[1:15:23] what residents want. And that would be

[1:15:26] something that we could even build into

[1:15:28] the adaptive element of this adaptive

[1:15:31] management plan. So, that I think is

[1:15:33] part of the answer. I think also with

[1:15:35] Bridal Veil, I think there you're there

[1:15:37] what's built into that particular

[1:15:39] easement, you may see some of those

[1:15:41] concessions and you may see some of

[1:15:42] those things come back into the future.

[1:15:44] Part of it was funding in in some areas

[1:15:47] that were I don't want to say blight,

[1:15:48] but that had not functioned very well

[1:15:51] for a while. So, a lot of those things

[1:15:53] need to come into play as you just

[1:15:54] mentioned, right? There seems to be this

[1:15:56] area that has maybe less conservation

[1:15:59] value to it just because of some of the

[1:16:01] debris that's already there. Well, how

[1:16:03] that gets visioned into the future is

[1:16:04] something absolutely we can put into the

[1:16:07] conservation easement. It The way I like

[1:16:09] to think about it is really what we're

[1:16:10] trying to provide are these these major

[1:16:12] guardrails.

[1:16:14] And as long as we're okay with what

[1:16:15] those major guardrails are, we can kind

[1:16:18] of work within that. So, I think that's

[1:16:21] fundamentally what as I understand it is

[1:16:23] going to be brought back to council is

[1:16:25] what are the major guardrails of this

[1:16:27] conservation easement. And then it's up

[1:16:29] to you all to say, "Well, within those

[1:16:31] guardrails, do we have enough

[1:16:32] adaptability to accomplish the things

[1:16:34] that we think are going to be necessary

[1:16:36] for residents, you know, 100 years from

[1:16:38] now?"

[1:16:39] Yeah, like in Southern California

[1:16:40] there's a beach we love to go to.

[1:16:42] I can't think of the name, but it's a

[1:16:44] state park.

[1:16:46] But you go down, it has one restaurant.

[1:16:47] >> I know exactly It's packed 24/7. But

[1:16:50] like my my in-laws can't walk well and

[1:16:52] they can't but they can go there and sit

[1:16:54] and look at the sunset and watch the

[1:16:55] beach for it's like their happy place,

[1:16:57] right? And there's people who want to

[1:16:58] enjoy So, that restaurant makes money.

[1:17:00] It's a profit center, it has to be. But

[1:17:02] it's in a state park. So, those kind of

[1:17:04] things can be written into it.

[1:17:06] Yeah, and I think the the best example

[1:17:08] of that is as we've looked at

[1:17:10] some of the projects along for example

[1:17:12] the Jordan River. If there's some of

[1:17:13] those things

[1:17:15] You might because you want people to be

[1:17:16] drawn in and again, it's it's all within

[1:17:20] the flexibility of saying here are, you

[1:17:23] know, the major guardrails. I think

[1:17:24] there are probably going to be things as

[1:17:26] we look at Slate Canyon that the

[1:17:28] community wants to be able to say, "No,

[1:17:31] we would never want to see that." But,

[1:17:32] you know, are there going to be

[1:17:33] improvements to the bike park? Sure. You

[1:17:36] know, are there certain improvements

[1:17:37] that, you know, you don't want to see

[1:17:38] all of those things become conversations

[1:17:41] that you have and I think part of it is

[1:17:43] looking at

[1:17:45] I'm not really going to say it's going

[1:17:46] to be able to provide everything for

[1:17:48] every person, but if you look at where

[1:17:50] it is in terms of the place, who's going

[1:17:52] to be attracted to it, what it The goal

[1:17:55] is is I understand it from Provo City is

[1:17:57] to really ensure that this meets what you all see as future needs for the

[1:18:03] recreation values that are part of

[1:18:06] Provo's.

[1:18:07] Thanks, Council Whitlock. And what one

[1:18:09] bit of context in this vein that might

[1:18:11] be helpful is when we were meeting

[1:18:13] doing our working sessions on this uh

[1:18:15] Parks for example,

[1:18:17] wanted to They had in their plan this

[1:18:19] idea to host a

[1:18:21] uh I believe I got this right, a frisbee

[1:18:23] golf tournament that is quite large cuz

[1:18:24] you know the frisbee golf of course in

[1:18:26] this area and that was something that we

[1:18:27] were going to ensure that could be

[1:18:29] compatible with how this was drafted up.

[1:18:31] And that and they would bring vendors

[1:18:33] >> Good. for a short period of time.

[1:18:35] Obviously, they're just temporary, but

[1:18:36] that's an example.

[1:18:37] >> Yeah, you want festivals, you want to be

[1:18:38] able to do things and have

[1:18:40] Okay. movies in the park.

[1:18:43] Um That'd be a bumpy ride. That'd be a

[1:18:45] bumpy

[1:18:46] That bumpy ride is very steep.

[1:18:49] two trees

[1:18:50] Yes. Oh, sorry. Council Christensen.

[1:18:53] Um, yeah, I'd like to

[1:18:55] uh just jump in and say every once in a

[1:18:57] while we have a chance to make a a

[1:18:59] significant a significant difference in

[1:19:01] the city.

[1:19:02] And when we can take a beautiful piece

[1:19:04] of land like this that's already up in

[1:19:06] the hills, it's already the mouth of

[1:19:08] Slate Canyon.

[1:19:09] Uh very little of it is commercial

[1:19:12] grade, you know, that could be built on.

[1:19:14] What this signals is a commitment to our

[1:19:17] citizens that we're serious about

[1:19:19] maintaining what makes Provo so

[1:19:21] incredibly unique.

[1:19:24] And so, this is not a loss for the city.

[1:19:27] This is not uh

[1:19:29] you know, a a trade. It's not even an

[1:19:30] equal trade. This is such a gain for us

[1:19:33] because for generations we maintain this

[1:19:35] with all of the wonderful things we just

[1:19:37] talked about. Yes, it can it can include

[1:19:40] amenities. It can make sure that it

[1:19:42] addresses all of the needs of the city.

[1:19:44] But, what it will prevent

[1:19:46] is it from being overdeveloped.

[1:19:49] And it will keep it as a as a wonderful

[1:19:51] gateway to Slate Canyon. Um I I just so

[1:19:55] I'm so grateful for everyone who's

[1:19:57] worked hard to uh to make this happen.

[1:20:00] And I think we'll be a a tremendous gift

[1:20:02] to generations and generations to come.

[1:20:05] Thanks, Craig. Yeah, this is a

[1:20:06] no-brainer and it's something that the

[1:20:07] council's always

[1:20:09] been supportive of. Um Councilman

[1:20:11] Whitlock. Yeah, one one other comment to

[1:20:13] this effect that um I think it's helpful

[1:20:16] is I had a I've had a lot of

[1:20:17] conversations with constituents about

[1:20:19] this. And I think a lot of them

[1:20:20] recognize that given the infrastructure

[1:20:23] needs, the park is a long ways out.

[1:20:25] Maybe for really successful in our

[1:20:27] economic development it won't be as far

[1:20:28] out as they may think, but it's a long

[1:20:30] ways out and I think to them the city

[1:20:32] doing this as as setting the vision of

[1:20:34] like this is what this land is for and

[1:20:36] we're preserving it for future

[1:20:37] generations is a is a is a win that

[1:20:40] they'll be grateful for and and

[1:20:42] recognizing it may take a long time to

[1:20:44] actually build the park.

[1:20:49] Great. All right. Any other questions

[1:20:51] for Malia or Wendy or No, thank you,

[1:20:54] Malia. It was very helpful.

[1:20:57] >> So, Malia, I see you're the next step.

[1:20:59] >> Yes, I was going to say

[1:21:01] Yes, I was going to next steps. First,

[1:21:03] we need a council motion. And I was also

[1:21:06] going to talk about if there is a

[1:21:08] council motion of majority support, then

[1:21:10] we are

[1:21:11] tentatively planning a public open house

[1:21:14] at Slate Canyon Park to do education on

[1:21:16] conservation easement, Slate Canyon, and

[1:21:19] then a little group hike and snacks.

[1:21:22] We always want snacks.

[1:21:24] I would make a motion that we move

[1:21:26] forward.

[1:21:28] I'll second it.

[1:21:30] Beat me to it.

[1:21:32] All right, we'll take a any comment on

[1:21:34] the motion.

[1:21:36] All right, we will take a vote on the

[1:21:38] motion. Councilman Garrett. Yes.

[1:21:40] Councilman McKay, yes. Councilman

[1:21:41] Christensen. Yes. Councilman Whitlock.

[1:21:44] Yes. Councilman Ogden. Yes. Councilman

[1:21:47] Hoban. Yes. Councilman Whipple. Yes. All

[1:21:50] right, that passes 7-0. Okay, and the

[1:21:52] open house is June 13th.

[1:21:55] >> [laughter]

[1:21:56] >> Now that it is planned, as you

[1:21:58] mentioned.

[1:22:02] celebration

[1:22:04] Thanks, Wendy. And thanks uh all the

[1:22:06] good people from CUV.

[1:22:10] All right.

[1:22:12] Yeah, we are we are grateful to

[1:22:16] Conserve Utah for paying those fees and

[1:22:18] covering the administrative part of

[1:22:20] that.

[1:22:21] All right, next resolution appointing

[1:22:23] public members to the council standing

[1:22:25] committee.

[1:22:26] And this will be presented by Tanner

[1:22:28] Taguchi.

[1:22:30] Thank you, Council. So, back to the

[1:22:32] business of audit charters. Did we get

[1:22:35] like out of line there with that?

[1:22:37] You didn't break.

[1:22:38] Under the current uh audit committee

[1:22:41] charter as written, it requires that

[1:22:43] citizen members participate

[1:22:45] and that they be approved by the

[1:22:47] council. Uh one member of the current uh

[1:22:52] audit committee will not be returning.

[1:22:53] Dave Shipley

[1:22:55] uh is unable to adhere to his

[1:22:57] responsibilities.

[1:22:59] However, Rick Anderson, who is an

[1:23:00] incumbent member of the committee, uh

[1:23:03] has expressed willingness to uh continue

[1:23:06] to serve in that role as the as citizen

[1:23:08] member of the audit committee. And

[1:23:09] the council will just need to be able to

[1:23:11] approve that.

[1:23:13] So, I sent a little bit of biographical

[1:23:15] information uh in packet about Rick.

[1:23:19] Those who have more experience with Rick

[1:23:20] than me can also speak to his experience

[1:23:22] on the council and his professional

[1:23:24] life. But,

[1:23:25] that is what

[1:23:26] >> I'll just say he's been he's been a he's

[1:23:28] contributed. He's been active part of

[1:23:30] the committee. He's

[1:23:32] added value.

[1:23:34] So, if he wants to continue to serve, I

[1:23:35] think that's great.

[1:23:37] Um if we add another council member,

[1:23:39] we'd love to add another citizen member

[1:23:41] to the committee as well. So, at some

[1:23:44] point maybe we come back and do this

[1:23:46] again.

[1:23:47] Sad to see Dave Shipley go and grateful

[1:23:49] for his service that he provided the

[1:23:51] committee. He has a good financial mind

[1:23:53] and it was nice to have him on there.

[1:23:56] Terrific.

[1:23:58] So, uh

[1:23:59] there are no other uh questions about

[1:24:01] it. It's it's this other than the the

[1:24:03] resolution before us, there's really no

[1:24:05] other information that I have to

[1:24:06] present.

[1:24:10] All right, next

[1:24:12] application regarding the FY

[1:24:15] year '26 to '27 budgeted revenue

[1:24:17] comparison.

[1:24:19] That's what we're going to do or take a

[1:24:20] break now. That's a fair three financial

[1:24:23] statements.

[1:24:24] They're not here. All right, they're

[1:24:25] right here.

[1:24:26] Let's do it then.

[1:24:28] Do it right then. Sorry, no I got to get

[1:24:30] up the stairs as soon as I saw Tanner

[1:24:32] get on the I'm ready.

[1:24:34] I'm so speedy. I wasn't speedy enough.

[1:24:37] No, we're good.

[1:24:38] Um okay, well, let's get started.

[1:24:43] Oh, thanks, Kevin. Okay, so FY27

[1:24:46] budgeted revenue comparison. I just want

[1:24:49] to give you the caveat these slides were

[1:24:50] prepared a couple of months ago. So,

[1:24:52] rather than focusing on like exact

[1:24:54] numbers, I think it'd be more beneficial

[1:24:55] to just focus on some of the trends that

[1:24:57] we're seeing, which will set the stage

[1:24:59] for the tentative budget that you'll

[1:25:01] receive next Tuesday. So, as long as

[1:25:03] we're all on board with that, um

[1:25:06] we'll just keep going.

[1:25:09] So,

[1:25:10] I think let's start with general fund.

[1:25:12] allocations are you know,

[1:25:14] about the same um as we've seen in

[1:25:16] previous years. Sales taxes are biggest

[1:25:18] revenue source. Transfers from other

[1:25:20] funds is right up there and then the

[1:25:22] others are you know, the other half.

[1:25:26] Um oh, sorry, going back to this. So,

[1:25:29] the reason why these two revenue sources

[1:25:31] are kind of highlighted or grayed out is

[1:25:33] because the city like the council and

[1:25:36] the administration don't have a lot of

[1:25:37] control over a lot of the general fund

[1:25:39] revenues. We're really dependent on

[1:25:41] what's happening in the economy, what

[1:25:43] taxes are just flowing in from the

[1:25:45] state, and so on. Property tax though

[1:25:48] and transfers from the utilities funds,

[1:25:50] those are areas that the city has a

[1:25:52] little bit more direct control over in

[1:25:54] terms of balancing budgets. Um

[1:25:57] and so, just wanted to kind of highlight

[1:25:59] that. You might say, "What about fees?"

[1:26:01] And yes, we can look at fees certainly,

[1:26:04] but there's a ceiling on what we can

[1:26:07] charge for fees. They can only cover

[1:26:08] direct costs. And so, just something to

[1:26:10] keep in mind. They're not going to be

[1:26:12] generating revenue above what um the

[1:26:15] direct costs could be.

[1:26:20] Yeah, this is the B&C roads tax. Yes,

[1:26:23] exactly. It comes through the general

[1:26:24] fund and then covers the streets

[1:26:26] operating budget. And then it flows into

[1:26:28] the B&C roads for capital projects into

[1:26:31] that CIP fund.

[1:26:33] Okay.

[1:26:34] This is a property tax bill breakdown

[1:26:36] from last year basically. Um just good

[1:26:39] for residents to know in the FY27 budget

[1:26:42] there's no plan for a property tax

[1:26:43] increase um whether it's general

[1:26:45] operations or library. So, if any of the

[1:26:49] city's portions go up, it's probably

[1:26:52] because your property valuation has

[1:26:53] changed. And so, that's that's what the

[1:26:55] tentative budget would assume for the

[1:26:57] next year. And again, remember this is

[1:26:59] an area the city does have control over

[1:27:00] and influencing and we're not going to

[1:27:02] touch it in the tentative budget.

[1:27:05] Um in terms of the utility sales, the

[1:27:08] transfers to the general fund, if you

[1:27:10] remember this time last year there was a

[1:27:11] proposal

[1:27:13] that the transfer of utility funds go

[1:27:15] from 11% of utility revenues to 12 and

[1:27:17] 1/2% as a way to balance. And that was

[1:27:22] great last year. We're going to keep it

[1:27:24] at 12 and 1/2% this year. We're not

[1:27:25] recommending any changes. And so, um

[1:27:28] that's just something to keep in mind

[1:27:29] going into next week.

[1:27:32] Um the reason why we haven't really had

[1:27:34] to worry about transfers from other

[1:27:36] funds or the property tax is because

[1:27:38] sales tax is looking really strong. Um

[1:27:40] it's been looking great for almost 12

[1:27:42] months now. And it's amazing because

[1:27:45] last year

[1:27:46] when we were preparing the budget,

[1:27:47] trends were not looking as good. There

[1:27:49] are a couple of reasons why we're seeing

[1:27:51] this change. The first one

[1:27:54] and you may have heard some of this last

[1:27:56] year, but last year's numbers were kind

[1:27:58] of weird that we were getting from the

[1:27:59] state. There were some abnormalities

[1:28:01] that we hadn't seen in other years. The

[1:28:04] first one was there was another taxing

[1:28:06] entity in Utah that was getting some of

[1:28:08] our sales tax revenue.

[1:28:10] And luckily, John was amazing last year.

[1:28:12] He was able to identify that this was

[1:28:14] happening and we were able to recoup

[1:28:17] that money later, but it wasn't until

[1:28:19] about June that we got that money. And

[1:28:21] so, that's one reason sales tax revenues

[1:28:23] were down. The other abnormality was

[1:28:25] that there had been a entity, a business

[1:28:28] in Provo, that had been overpaying sales

[1:28:30] tax for several years. And the state

[1:28:33] identified this and understandably, you

[1:28:36] know, refunded this entity for the

[1:28:38] overpayment, but it hit Provo all at

[1:28:41] once in one fiscal year

[1:28:43] um that reimbursement of what we had

[1:28:45] received from this entity that was in

[1:28:46] overpayment. So, Okay, Councilman Hoban

[1:28:48] wants to ask

[1:28:48] >> Was that was a large entity then, I

[1:28:50] would assume? It was it wasn't

[1:28:52] >> such an impact? It was an entity that

[1:28:54] was large, but we can't really go into

[1:28:55] details on what it was.

[1:28:58] Um just for privacy of the entity.

[1:28:59] >> Do we know how that occurred? Was it

[1:29:01] their fault or the It I think it was the

[1:29:03] entity's fault. Like I think they

[1:29:05] overpaid or there had been something

[1:29:07] where some of the revenue needed to go

[1:29:09] out of state and Utah got more of it,

[1:29:11] something like that.

[1:29:12] Um anyway, that's probably all I can say

[1:29:15] on that, but it was an odd situation,

[1:29:18] and we haven't been seeing that again,

[1:29:19] and I don't think I don't think that

[1:29:21] >> of that?

[1:29:22] Oh, I can't remember. It was Like seven

[1:29:25] figures? No, we're talking like

[1:29:28] maybe 600,000 if I'm remembering from a

[1:29:30] year ago. I can get the exact number on

[1:29:32] the impact, but

[1:29:33] >> That's all right. Just curious.

[1:29:34] Interesting.

[1:29:35] >> all of these hits like in the fall, and

[1:29:37] you're trying to project out what the

[1:29:38] rest of the year is going to look like,

[1:29:40] it's influencing the projections, right?

[1:29:42] And so, I know that we had tried to

[1:29:44] account for that in some degree, but

[1:29:46] anyway,

[1:29:47] it ended up working out better this year

[1:29:49] for us, and we're very grateful for

[1:29:51] that. Um another reason besides the

[1:29:53] abnormalities of why sales tax is

[1:29:55] looking so good this year is in July,

[1:29:58] the state adopted a new data set for use

[1:30:02] for population numbers. Mhm. Um so,

[1:30:06] previously the state had been if you

[1:30:07] remember like for sales tax

[1:30:09] distributions,

[1:30:10] um part of it comes from population. 50%

[1:30:13] is 50 or like Sorry. Part of the sales

[1:30:16] tax distribution comes from your popu-

[1:30:18] population numbers, and the other part

[1:30:20] comes from your point of sale.

[1:30:22] And so,

[1:30:23] the population numbers had previously

[1:30:24] been derived from US Census Bureau data,

[1:30:27] and I think people at the state were a

[1:30:28] little bit unsure of how reliable that

[1:30:31] 2020 census had been since it happened

[1:30:33] during COVID. So, they switched to the

[1:30:35] Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute um over

[1:30:37] at the U, they switched to those

[1:30:39] numbers,

[1:30:40] and it helped Provo. Like, we got a

[1:30:42] couple extra thousand residents added to

[1:30:44] our um population for the sales tax

[1:30:47] allocation, and so, it bumped up our

[1:30:49] revenue from that perspective, which

[1:30:51] we're grateful for. When did we become

[1:30:53] aware of that?

[1:30:54] It happened in July

[1:30:57] of 2025.

[1:31:01] No, it was not. I wish. That would have

[1:31:03] been really nice, but no. So, it's been

[1:31:05] basically this fiscal year, fiscal year

[1:31:06] '26 that we've been seeing that benefit

[1:31:09] from the population numbers. Um

[1:31:11] and it's boosted our sales tax for sure,

[1:31:15] but I think it's important to note that

[1:31:18] if you look at our sales tax revenue,

[1:31:20] like

[1:31:21] 60% of our sales tax revenue in FY26 has

[1:31:24] come from our population numbers,

[1:31:26] and then you have 40% coming from point

[1:31:28] of sale. So, it's something to keep in

[1:31:29] mind as you're doing your economic

[1:31:31] development study just in terms of how

[1:31:35] to generate maybe more point of sale tax

[1:31:36] revenue. Do we know how point of sale is

[1:31:38] looking relative?

[1:31:40] Like if we were

[1:31:43] I mean,

[1:31:44] is point of sale looking good? I mean,

[1:31:46] it's

[1:31:47] I mean, I think ideally it would be a

[1:31:50] bigger portion of our sales tax revenue

[1:31:52] coming in, about like maybe 50%. It'd be

[1:31:54] 50/50.

[1:31:55] >> I guess what I was asking is like, are

[1:31:57] we seeing a trend?

[1:31:59] Uh is are people spending less? Are they

[1:32:01] spending more?

[1:32:03] So, I would say I'd point So, like the

[1:32:05] third reason,

[1:32:06] uh this will answer your question. The

[1:32:08] third reason why our sales tax revenue

[1:32:10] is so strong is just because the state

[1:32:12] of Utah's economy is looking really

[1:32:14] good. Um and so, I would say that

[1:32:19] people are spending, and

[1:32:22] whether it's like in Provo or just the

[1:32:24] state, we're seeing a benefit from

[1:32:25] spending overall,

[1:32:27] and I can just say that Provo's point of

[1:32:30] sale is only 40% of our sales tax

[1:32:32] revenue. So, I have a question about

[1:32:34] that. Yeah.

[1:32:35] No, I was just curious.

[1:32:37] Last was 35 or it was 40? We would have

[1:32:39] to go back and check. Oh, it's like a

[1:32:41] trend. Yeah, I'm not sure. Um I think

[1:32:43] Dan just looked at the numbers, and I

[1:32:46] think we had dropped to like

[1:32:47] 39.something percent for the last look

[1:32:50] at the projections for sales tax revenue

[1:32:53] this year. So, I wouldn't say that's the

[1:32:55] best trend, but maybe it's fluctuating.

[1:32:57] We'd have to do more of an analysis. I

[1:32:58] think we have some data that we could

[1:33:00] look at, but I don't have it right now.

[1:33:02] 40% of it should be 100% of our sales

[1:33:05] point of sale. Yes. In the city of

[1:33:07] Provo. Yeah, like out of our sales tax

[1:33:08] revenue numbers, like we're basically

[1:33:11] saying 60% of that money is coming from

[1:33:14] the population portion of the

[1:33:15] allocation, and then the 40% So, what is

[1:33:17] the how is this population allocation

[1:33:19] decided? Why do we get 60% of

[1:33:21] population? Well, it's not it's not

[1:33:23] really we get 60%. It's just saying out

[1:33:26] of the revenue that's coming in, like

[1:33:27] the state the state breaks down like out

[1:33:29] of all the revenue that we're bringing

[1:33:31] in for sales tax, it's saying out of

[1:33:33] this pot of money that you get each

[1:33:35] month, like here's how much is because

[1:33:38] of your population, and here's how much

[1:33:40] It's ba- it's basically like what

[1:33:42] happens is um of the total sales when

[1:33:44] someone spends a dollar of the

[1:33:46] 7.whatever percent, some percent of it

[1:33:48] is attributed to point of sale, which

[1:33:50] comes back to us. Some of it goes into a

[1:33:51] general state pot, which then gets

[1:33:53] reallocated to the cities based on the

[1:33:54] population. So, is that 40% comes back

[1:33:57] to us because it's point of sale, and

[1:33:59] then 60 cents goes into that It's not

[1:34:01] 40% coming back. It's saying of that 30

[1:34:03] million, 40% of that 30 million is

[1:34:05] attributable to point of sale, and 60%

[1:34:07] is attributable to our population.

[1:34:09] That's right.

[1:34:10] >> want to have a stronger point of sale.

[1:34:12] >> Yeah.

[1:34:13] >> Correct. still reliant on our

[1:34:14] population. Right. for our sales because

[1:34:17] What's the equation for it? Like Yeah,

[1:34:19] that's what I I can look it up. I'm

[1:34:21] pretty sure we have a PDF. I just don't

[1:34:23] have it The mayor knows.

[1:34:25] So, so the the whole sales tax that you

[1:34:28] pay, 1% of that is the local sales tax.

[1:34:31] And so, they take 1% of all the sales

[1:34:33] that happen in Utah, and they look and then they look at all the sales that

[1:34:39] happen in Provo. So, half of that

[1:34:41] percent goes to point of sale all

[1:34:44] throughout Utah, right? So, we get our

[1:34:46] half percent, Orum gets their half

[1:34:48] percent of all the Does that make sense

[1:34:50] of

[1:34:51] And it's the sales that happen here,

[1:34:53] that's the point of sale. Then like she

[1:34:55] said, they take that other half a

[1:34:56] percent, and that goes into a big

[1:34:58] bucket, and then they divide that up for

[1:35:01] population.

[1:35:03] So, that 1% is 50/50.

[1:35:05] >> What What this is saying What this is

[1:35:07] saying 50% of it

[1:35:08] >> So, if someone brought in a $100 in

[1:35:11] sales tax, we keep 50 of it, and 50 of

[1:35:14] it goes to the state, and that state

[1:35:15] then distributes 1% of that $50. So,

[1:35:18] It's divided, yeah.

[1:35:20] So,

[1:35:21] >> of the 100, right? 1% of it Yeah, 1% is

[1:35:23] a dollar. So, then of that, 50 cents

[1:35:26] would go to point of sale for us. So, we

[1:35:28] keep 99 and a half percent.

[1:35:30] No. Well, then the other 50 cents of

[1:35:33] that dollar goes into a big pot, okay,

[1:35:36] and it's divided up of population But

[1:35:39] the the reason why it's the But the

[1:35:40] reason why it's 60/40 for us is because

[1:35:42] our population is spending less relative

[1:35:44] to our pop- like we're not spending that

[1:35:46] much money here locally in Provo, and we

[1:35:49] have relative to our population.

[1:35:51] So, my guess is

[1:35:54] Correct. Exactly. So, it's like my guess

[1:35:56] is some, you know, like Park City or

[1:35:58] whatever is probably 60/40 the other

[1:35:59] way.

[1:36:00] Maybe even more.

[1:36:04] Oh, that's probably the total, right?

[1:36:06] Yeah.

[1:36:07] Those are the numbers, but it had our

[1:36:08] thing of all of the cities

[1:36:10] So, we were really close to Orum.

[1:36:12] Yeah, and we're like Park City was lower

[1:36:14] than us. I don't know. It was just a

[1:36:15] technicality.

[1:36:16] Back If you're looking at total numbers,

[1:36:18] it's because their population is so much

[1:36:20] lower, and they just get the exact same

[1:36:22] amount per person that we do.

[1:36:24] So, What city? What's how many people

[1:36:26] there?

[1:36:27] Not as many as in Provo.

[1:36:29] Yeah, not really. We can Probably like

[1:36:31] 20,000 full-time residents.

[1:36:33] We can certainly do like a deeper dive.

[1:36:35] I mean, it sounds like there's pretty

[1:36:38] Like I appreciate the comments on

[1:36:40] explaining how that works, but we are

[1:36:41] happy to provide some material or do a

[1:36:43] deep dive on sales tax.

[1:36:45] Yeah, thank you, Councilmember Herbert.

[1:36:46] 8,500 full-time residents.

[1:36:49] Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, my my guess is

[1:36:51] Yeah, yeah. So, my guess is that they're

[1:36:52] probably 70/30. They're probably getting

[1:36:54] 70% of their sales tax from point of

[1:36:56] sale, and 30 or it could even be 80/20

[1:36:58] like in the opposite direction.

[1:37:01] Yes.

[1:37:01] >> So, so when you say ideally it should be

[1:37:03] more, I'm I'm just saying Are you Do you

[1:37:06] have like benchmarks in your mind or I I

[1:37:08] don't. It was more of just a a point for

[1:37:11] the council to be aware of is that while sales tax is something we really

[1:37:17] kind of just get and just get from the

[1:37:18] state every month, and some of it's

[1:37:20] based on population, and some of it's

[1:37:22] point on sale point of sale, it's just

[1:37:24] good to know that if you want to

[1:37:25] increase sales tax number, then point of

[1:37:27] sale is an area that that economic

[1:37:30] development study might shed some light

[1:37:31] on. I guess probably the way that it

[1:37:33] mathematically works, 50/50 is the

[1:37:35] average, right? That would make sense.

[1:37:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, that makes sense.

[1:37:40] Um

[1:37:42] Overall though, I just want

[1:37:49] Oh, wow.

[1:38:09] Okay. Oh, is there a question about

[1:38:11] that? I just have a couple quick

[1:38:12] questions.

[1:38:13] >> Yeah. Um

[1:38:16] So, uh on the enterprise fund pie chart,

[1:38:20] it's uh there's a 166.4

[1:38:23] million, but then the changes table has

[1:38:25] 158.3, and I was just wondering what

[1:38:27] that discrepancy Um I can get to that.

[1:38:30] Again, I

[1:38:31] a lot of the numbers have changed, and

[1:38:34] so, I think like next week when you get

[1:38:36] the the '27 budget in your hands, like

[1:38:39] it'll have all the updated numbers and

[1:38:42] more accurate comparisons. Um anyway,

[1:38:45] not to dismiss that question. It's just

[1:38:47] I think you'll have

[1:38:49] more relevant information

[1:38:51] >> to go over all this again soon with the

[1:38:52] exact numbers? We can certainly do that

[1:38:55] if the council would like us to. Yeah.

[1:38:58] Sorry to say, one one question that I

[1:39:00] was also relate was interested in, which

[1:39:02] you kind of spoke to, but it'd be

[1:39:03] interesting to get more details on is of

[1:39:05] that uh $4 million sales increase, what

[1:39:08] would be attributable to the population

[1:39:10] reweighted versus underlying just retail

[1:39:13] sales growth.

[1:39:16] Yeah, we can look at that. I'm just

[1:39:18] making some notes here.

[1:39:20] The The ignorance [clears throat]

[1:39:21] um

[1:39:23] the increase on the road taxes, that's

[1:39:24] pretty significant. It's based on

[1:39:26] trends. Again, old numbers. I'm not sure

[1:39:28] if that's what's it's going to translate

[1:39:29] into in the tentative budget, but that's

[1:39:31] kind of what it was looking like 2

[1:39:33] months ago. But again, we looked at the

[1:39:35] numbers again

[1:39:36] shortly after the slides were prepared.

[1:39:38] So, I just I just want you guys to know

[1:39:40] like this is not final. No, but still I

[1:39:42] mean even if it levels out to a million

[1:39:44] dollars, it's still a big jump. And the

[1:39:45] road road tax has been coming in strong.

[1:39:48] I know that there there are some

[1:39:49] legislation that has happened up the

[1:39:51] state.

[1:39:51] >> so high, is that it? That This would

[1:39:53] have happened for the gas prices. And

[1:39:55] so, I think

[1:39:57] the legislation the legislature I also

[1:39:58] know just passed some in some bills

[1:40:01] about

[1:40:03] the gas tax. And I think public works

[1:40:05] has also been concerned about how that

[1:40:07] might play into some of our revenues

[1:40:08] there. So, we've been revisiting some of

[1:40:11] the numbers there for those reasons.

[1:40:13] Um

[1:40:14] Ultimately though, I think Yes.

[1:40:16] >> to that, I would just want to confirm

[1:40:18] that the transportation utility fees

[1:40:20] include other fees and not road taxes.

[1:40:24] Um it would be included I think in its

[1:40:26] own fund. So, this is general fund

[1:40:29] specifically, but yes, it would not be

[1:40:31] included in these road taxes. You're

[1:40:32] right. Yeah. Well, and the reason I'm

[1:40:34] asking, you know, cuz that's a

[1:40:36] million-dollar difference, is that

[1:40:37] something we can control? Do we

[1:40:39] anticipate that coming in the future?

[1:40:41] Did we do something differently? Did the

[1:40:42] state do So, it seems like

[1:40:45] >> Yeah. The

[1:40:45] To understand that would be useful. I'll

[1:40:48] take a look and see what our updated

[1:40:49] number is for that one. I do agree it

[1:40:51] was it was quite a bit higher coming in.

[1:40:53] But I know that our actuals were looking

[1:40:55] good as well. So,

[1:40:58] um

[1:40:59] yeah, we can see if we can identify like

[1:41:00] the exact reason why that would be

[1:41:02] higher.

[1:41:02] >> be good to understand. Um

[1:41:05] Good.

[1:41:06] I think the main takeaway for this is

[1:41:08] just knowing that when you receive the

[1:41:11] budget next week, know that sales tax

[1:41:13] has really been a strong

[1:41:16] factor in balancing the budget in terms

[1:41:19] of being able to fund things and um

[1:41:23] it's it's just a big player this year

[1:41:25] just like some of the other factors like

[1:41:27] the utility transfer was a big player

[1:41:29] last year. Sales tax is kind of leading

[1:41:31] out for FY27.

[1:41:33] Um

[1:41:35] It's good to know our sales tax is good.

[1:41:37] Yeah, it's good to know. For sure.

[1:41:38] >> outside of the what the state is has

[1:41:41] changed, I mean, I guess if you knew

[1:41:43] this, you would be a billionaire and you

[1:41:45] wouldn't be sitting here.

[1:41:46] Do we anticipate Do we know what how

[1:41:49] things are going to look for the future?

[1:41:51] I mean, what do the experts project for

[1:41:54] economics and macroeconomics and how

[1:41:57] that's going to impact sales tax revenue

[1:41:59] for FY27?

[1:41:59] >> and Tanner, you might need to back me up

[1:42:01] because we were at UGFOA together. Um

[1:42:04] but we there was um UGFOA is Utah

[1:42:06] Government Finance Officers Association

[1:42:08] and they had a conference um

[1:42:11] kind of beginning of April and they

[1:42:13] always end with an economic outlook from

[1:42:17] Zion's Bank. They have an economist who

[1:42:18] does a good job of just compiling tons

[1:42:20] of data and just kind of showing what

[1:42:22] trends are. And he prefaced everything

[1:42:24] by saying that

[1:42:27] it's hard for anyone to really know

[1:42:29] what's going on with the economy and no

[1:42:31] one really knows for sure like what will

[1:42:33] happen.

[1:42:34] Um he said there've been a lot of

[1:42:36] disruptions in the economy. So, you

[1:42:38] know, you think you might have a

[1:42:39] recovery happening and okay, Tanner's

[1:42:41] nodding, so I'm not making this up. Um

[1:42:44] there've been disruptions, so you think

[1:42:46] the economy's like stabilizing, but then

[1:42:47] something will happen that kind of

[1:42:49] throws things off and no one really

[1:42:50] knows if it's a fluke or if it's going

[1:42:52] to last.

[1:42:53] Anyway, his takeaway though, and that

[1:42:55] was like what I wrote in big letters, is

[1:42:58] the economy's still

[1:43:00] it's still chugging along.

[1:43:02] >> strong.

[1:43:02] >> It's still strong and in particular,

[1:43:04] Utah is leading out in the economy in

[1:43:07] the United States. And so, even if we

[1:43:09] were worried about national trends,

[1:43:10] Utah's still kind of riding above

[1:43:13] national trends and so

[1:43:16] from that perspective, it doesn't seem

[1:43:18] unreasonable to budget for stronger

[1:43:21] sales tax next year.

[1:43:23] Okay. If if our sales tax ended up going

[1:43:25] down, then there would be a lot of other

[1:43:27] people who would be hurting worse than

[1:43:29] us, I think, as a state.

[1:43:31] So,

[1:43:33] anyway, I think that's probably the main

[1:43:34] takeaway. The other slides again with

[1:43:36] the enterprise stuff, I think

[1:43:41] there's changes, but we'll go over those

[1:43:43] more in depth next week. And so, I think

[1:43:46] that we'll leave it at that for now and

[1:43:48] we're excited to give you the tentative

[1:43:50] budget next Tuesday. So, look forward to

[1:43:53] that. Councilor Wetzel. Yeah, just

[1:43:56] So, I know for the last few years we've

[1:43:58] been

[1:43:59] um

[1:44:01] very cautious in our sales tax

[1:44:03] projections because we've gotten caught

[1:44:06] a little bit by that.

[1:44:07] >> Yeah. Um since last year it came in

[1:44:10] better than we were expecting.

[1:44:12] >> Yeah.

[1:44:12] Do we have surplus from from that that

[1:44:15] we had not expected?

[1:44:18] >> current year?

[1:44:18] >> In the current year.

[1:44:19] >> a surplus, yes. And I know that there

[1:44:22] are a few appropriations that need to

[1:44:24] happen this year that will come probably

[1:44:26] through on base shortly.

[1:44:27] Um but yes, beyond that there is a

[1:44:29] surplus that will benefit general fund

[1:44:31] balance. Wonderful. Thank Yeah. Thanks

[1:44:33] for the question. Okay, that's all I

[1:44:35] have. Thank you for your time. Thanks,

[1:44:37] Kelsey.

[1:44:38] Now we get a break.

[1:44:41] Well, it's too late. Exciting times in

[1:44:42] the city.

[1:44:44] So, we'll meet up at 3:00. Thank you,

[1:44:47] Kelsey.

[1:44:48] Recording stopped.

[1:44:52] Recording in progress.

[1:44:56] All right, welcome back. Next we have a

[1:44:57] presentation regarding the victim

[1:44:59] services program. Presented by Kim Fein.

[1:45:02] And the victim services team.

[1:45:16] Good afternoon. Thanks for um giving us

[1:45:19] some time this afternoon. I am Kim Fein.

[1:45:21] I'm the victim services coordinator and

[1:45:24] twice a year we are required by the VOCA

[1:45:28] grant, which we are a recipient, um to

[1:45:31] come and report to our shareholders or

[1:45:34] our stakeholders, um kind of just a

[1:45:37] little bit about

[1:45:39] um what we've done in in during this

[1:45:41] past fiscal year. And so, this is our

[1:45:43] second um report of of this fiscal year.

[1:45:47] So, um

[1:45:48] I'll just give you a little quick

[1:45:51] See if I can figure this out.

[1:45:55] Nope.

[1:45:59] Oh, there it is.

[1:46:01] Um just a little bit about who we are.

[1:46:03] Our mission statement reads to provide

[1:46:06] crisis intervention, emotional support,

[1:46:09] and critical service referrals to aid

[1:46:11] victims and their children, as well as

[1:46:14] to promote community awareness on

[1:46:15] victimization issues.

[1:46:17] So, we are physically located within the

[1:46:20] with the police department and we are

[1:46:23] part of the criminal investigation

[1:46:25] division.

[1:46:28] Go please. My name's Becky. Um I'm one

[1:46:31] of the full-time advocates here.

[1:46:33] Okay, perfect. Thank you. So, this is

[1:46:35] our team. Um our team consists of five

[1:46:38] advocates. Four of us are full-time and

[1:46:39] one of us is a part-time court advocate.

[1:46:42] Um two of our full-time advocates are

[1:46:44] Spanish-speaking, so that's really

[1:46:45] awesome to have. Um and in addition to

[1:46:49] the um our work schedule like during the

[1:46:52] day, one of us is always on call 24/7.

[1:46:54] So, we rotate a week at a time and so,

[1:46:57] we'll just kind of go throughout the

[1:46:58] month so that officers can always get a

[1:47:00] hold of us in case there's a scene that

[1:47:01] we need to respond to um or victims that

[1:47:04] we need to call in the middle of the

[1:47:05] night or just whenever

[1:47:07] things are happening. So, that's kind of

[1:47:08] the structure of our team.

[1:47:10] And then this is who we serve. So, we

[1:47:12] serve any victims of interpersonal crime

[1:47:14] and so, most of that is domestic

[1:47:16] violence and sexual assault. Um but we

[1:47:18] also help victims who um had physical

[1:47:21] assault happen, stalking, harassment,

[1:47:23] crimes against children, hate crimes,

[1:47:26] elder abuse. We also help with

[1:47:28] homicides, suicides, and unexpected

[1:47:29] death and emergencies and traumatic

[1:47:31] events. So, anything where it's a

[1:47:33] person-on-person crime, we're happy to

[1:47:35] go help out and make sure that people

[1:47:37] are getting the resources that they need

[1:47:39] and helping in their healing. So,

[1:47:41] that's what that looks like.

[1:47:44] And my name is Estreya. I'm a full-time

[1:47:47] victim advocate here. Um

[1:47:49] VOCA funded and um this is just a little

[1:47:52] bit of what what we do. So, um we assist

[1:47:56] with writing protective orders and

[1:47:57] stalking injunctions. We can help um

[1:48:00] safety planning, um transporting victims

[1:48:03] to the shelter, um can also help with

[1:48:06] mental health support, um like therapy

[1:48:08] or crisis support, um

[1:48:11] and just community resources like

[1:48:13] housing or like food assistance. Uh we

[1:48:17] help educate victims about the court

[1:48:19] criminal justice process

[1:48:21] and we accompany them. We're a court

[1:48:23] advocate. Um also accompanies them to

[1:48:27] court um and we sit in in detective

[1:48:31] interviews. Um we like to obtain victim

[1:48:34] input for prosecutors, uh death

[1:48:37] notification, community outreach at

[1:48:39] schools, um tabling at just local

[1:48:43] organizations.

[1:48:44] Um

[1:48:45] and yeah.

[1:48:47] It's just a little bit about what we do.

[1:48:49] Um here are 2025 statistics for the

[1:48:52] calendar year. So, we served 1,558

[1:48:55] victims, majority of them being domestic

[1:48:58] violence. Um so, 546 DV or family

[1:49:01] violence, 206 for adult sexual assault,

[1:49:04] 184 for child sexual assault, uh 123 for

[1:49:07] child abuse, 374 for stalking and

[1:49:10] harassment, and 183 for adult physical

[1:49:12] assault. And out of those victims, we

[1:49:15] provided 9,015 services.

[1:49:24] Yeah.

[1:49:29] I found the statistics slide.

[1:49:32] Uh Australia or Kimberly, could you just

[1:49:33] give us a feel for

[1:49:36] the

[1:49:37] comparisons to 2024. What's up, what's

[1:49:40] down, where are your areas of focus or

[1:49:43] concern?

[1:49:44] Um overall, it's pretty consistent.

[1:49:47] Okay.

[1:49:47] >> Um the we haven't seen a a huge change

[1:49:51] in the calendar year.

[1:49:53] We always have quarters that for some

[1:49:55] reason, there are spikes of specific um

[1:49:59] victimizations. But overall for the 12

[1:50:03] months,

[1:50:04] they remain pretty much the same.

[1:50:08] Some years will be a little bit less or

[1:50:11] a little bit more, but it's not usually

[1:50:14] a huge jump.

[1:50:17] Trends that you're seeing necessarily.

[1:50:18] Not um not really Well, one of the one

[1:50:21] of the things that we are seeing a lot

[1:50:23] more of are

[1:50:25] uh child victims that are connected to

[1:50:28] um

[1:50:29] child sex crimes on like on the

[1:50:32] internet.

[1:50:33] And so, we don't always interact with

[1:50:36] them, but it when the need arises and

[1:50:39] um we need to support a family or an

[1:50:42] individual, um those those have

[1:50:44] definitely increased because the the

[1:50:47] tools for our detectives are a lot

[1:50:50] better. And so, we're able to identify a

[1:50:53] lot more of those victims than we used

[1:50:55] to be able to.

[1:50:56] So, that is one number that has probably

[1:50:59] gone up a lot.

[1:51:02] But you're not you're saying not

[1:51:03] necessarily how many it's happening to,

[1:51:05] how many we actually catch.

[1:51:07] Or do you think it's going up, both?

[1:51:09] Uh yeah, I think I think it's been an we know it's been an issue for a really

[1:51:14] long time. But being able to detect them

[1:51:18] and and then

[1:51:20] locate them, even in the past, even if

[1:51:23] we knew it was happening, being able to

[1:51:25] actually trace it back to a suspect and

[1:51:29] a victim

[1:51:31] was

[1:51:32] really complicated. And so, we've had a

[1:51:34] lot more success with seeing those

[1:51:37] through, and especially cases that

[1:51:40] happened here in Provo.

[1:51:42] It's unfortunately it happens quite a

[1:51:44] bit.

[1:51:45] And so, working with the suspects as well as

[1:51:50] because sometimes it's as the members

[1:51:53] the family members of the suspect, they

[1:51:55] are incredibly traumatized by those by

[1:51:58] learning of those situations, too.

[1:52:00] And so, sometimes we'll provide support

[1:52:03] for them, but it's mostly um the the

[1:52:06] families of the child victims when they

[1:52:08] are located in Utah and especially in

[1:52:11] Provo.

[1:52:12] It's horrible. But I'm so glad that

[1:52:14] we're able to

[1:52:16] It's just it's a it's horrible as it is

[1:52:18] to know, it's so important for people to

[1:52:19] recognize it and know it's happening.

[1:52:21] Yeah.

[1:52:22] I was talking to an war councilor, they

[1:52:25] talked about how there were some

[1:52:27] Yes.

[1:52:28] Massage therapy places that are sex

[1:52:31] trafficking sites or

[1:52:33] And it was I was telling this group at

[1:52:34] my gym, and guess what? There's a

[1:52:36] company that I know that does that. And

[1:52:37] I was like, how was that allowed? And

[1:52:38] then and then someone would like let's

[1:52:41] slide some conspiracy theory and I'm

[1:52:42] like, that's true.

[1:52:44] Oh, okay.

[1:52:45] I think I'm just saying that.

[1:52:46] It These things are hard to admit, but

[1:52:48] it's important that we know them and

[1:52:49] acknowledge them so we can help people

[1:52:51] or be aware and we can stop them. We

[1:52:53] have had a couple of trafficking victims

[1:52:56] specifically from businesses like that.

[1:52:58] They're they're not um our community is

[1:53:02] not affected as severely as traffic by

[1:53:05] trafficking as you see in a really large

[1:53:08] metropolitan area, but it definitely

[1:53:11] happens, unfortunately. And so, we we

[1:53:13] have had specific training um and

[1:53:17] learned about resources that are

[1:53:20] available specifically for traffic

[1:53:21] trafficking victims because they they

[1:53:24] are different. They're the resources and

[1:53:26] their rights.

[1:53:27] Interesting.

[1:53:28] >> So. All right. Council Whitlock.

[1:53:30] Thank you so much for serving our

[1:53:32] community. Um

[1:53:34] you know, it's as we've been talking,

[1:53:35] it's

[1:53:36] sad that we need this, but it's clearly

[1:53:37] is needed. I'm so grateful for your

[1:53:39] service.

[1:53:40] Um a couple questions I have is so we

[1:53:42] have you said we have two

[1:53:44] Spanish-speaking employees. Mhm.

[1:53:46] Do we ever uh have the need to serve uh

[1:53:49] people in other languages that we're not

[1:53:51] able to support?

[1:53:53] Oh, yeah. Yes. Yeah, often I think

[1:53:55] Portuguese is a big one here. Um but

[1:53:59] yeah, we do have victims that

[1:54:03] speak a lot of different languages and

[1:54:05] luckily our department does have like

[1:54:06] language link. Um

[1:54:09] and yeah, so we're able to support them

[1:54:11] that way, but seems like Portuguese,

[1:54:13] besides Spanish, Portuguese is the next

[1:54:15] language that's

[1:54:16] >> We have a lot of officers that speak a

[1:54:18] wide variety of languages. And so, um in

[1:54:22] case of an interview or something like

[1:54:24] that, we will make arrangements for a

[1:54:26] police department employee to assist

[1:54:29] with that. When that is absolutely not

[1:54:31] available, um

[1:54:33] a lot of resources are available to us

[1:54:35] from BYU.

[1:54:37] But it's just we prefer to stay within

[1:54:39] the police department if we can because

[1:54:40] they are educated in the subject matter

[1:54:43] that these individuals might be speaking

[1:54:45] about. We recently had um an ASL um

[1:54:50] victim, and we do have a a police

[1:54:53] officer that is trained in American Sign

[1:54:56] That's great.

[1:54:58] Any other questions?

[1:55:00] All right, thanks, guys. Thank you.

[1:55:04] Next is ordinance an ordinance

[1:55:05] prohibiting virtual currency kiosks

[1:55:07] within Provo City. This is presented by

[1:55:10] our own Melia Daily.

[1:55:18] Thank you, councilors.

[1:55:20] Although super quick, there is a memo in

[1:55:23] the packet and then the slides are just

[1:55:25] summarizing the memo. So,

[1:55:28] unless we have questions,

[1:55:30] I'm just going to jump ahead.

[1:55:33] Cryptocurrency ATMs are exactly what

[1:55:35] they sound like,

[1:55:36] an ATM for cryptocurrency, but you use

[1:55:39] cash instead of connecting to your bank

[1:55:41] account. So, it's cash only.

[1:55:44] And there

[1:55:46] is a notable amount of scam and fraud

[1:55:49] in Utah related to

[1:55:52] cryptocurrency ATMs. This was a council

[1:55:55] issue sponsor request from councilors

[1:55:57] McCane and Christensen.

[1:55:59] And they are requesting

[1:56:01] for a proposed ordinance to

[1:56:04] essentially ban

[1:56:06] Um I believe the exact language is to

[1:56:08] ban

[1:56:12] to it's unlawful for person or entity to

[1:56:14] host, allow, operate, permit, or locate

[1:56:16] or place a virtual currency kiosk within

[1:56:19] Provo City. So, these are the

[1:56:21] definitions that would be adopted as

[1:56:23] part of that code here, just defining

[1:56:25] virtual currency and the kiosk

[1:56:28] and an operator. And then here's the

[1:56:30] actual sections of what would become

[1:56:32] unlawful and the penalties for that. It

[1:56:35] would be part of the new section. We

[1:56:37] have a section of code in 9.14

[1:56:40] miscellaneous criminal provisions.

[1:56:43] And it would become another section

[1:56:45] within that chapter of code. Okay.

[1:56:48] Councilor Brogdon.

[1:56:50] Do we know how this relates to like

[1:56:51] Western Union scams?

[1:56:54] I don't know. No. Like do you mean like

[1:56:57] the

[1:56:58] in-person like money transfer?

[1:57:01] This isn't going to be that. This won't

[1:57:03] be related This doesn't have anything to

[1:57:05] do with that. This is just banning

[1:57:06] cryptocurrency. It it kind of does

[1:57:08] because I mean people are getting

[1:57:09] scammed with those Western Union things

[1:57:11] all the time. That's why you see the

[1:57:13] do not transfer money to people that you

[1:57:15] do not know.

[1:57:16] >> saying that this wouldn't affect that.

[1:57:18] Well, what I'm saying is I'm not for

[1:57:20] this and um

[1:57:24] to me, if I were into cryptocurrency, I

[1:57:27] would much rather cuz it said that the fraud is

[1:57:32] much higher

[1:57:33] when it's tied to a an account than it

[1:57:35] is with the cash transaction. If I

[1:57:37] wanted to buy Bitcoin, I would much

[1:57:39] rather go in some place and purchase it

[1:57:41] with cash than have it tied to my bank

[1:57:43] account online.

[1:57:45] And I don't feel like it's my job to

[1:57:47] police adults. I feel like they should

[1:57:51] have if they want to buy Bitcoin, they

[1:57:53] should be able to do that. But if we're

[1:57:55] looking at the scam, there's scams with

[1:57:58] Western Union as well. And instead of

[1:58:00] banning all Western Union transaction

[1:58:02] places within the city,

[1:58:04] um you see warning signs.

[1:58:07] It's more a percentage of what like this

[1:58:09] is mostly used for scams versus Western

[1:58:11] Union's not mostly used for scams.

[1:58:14] But there's still probably a very high

[1:58:16] percentage of people that are getting

[1:58:18] scammed at a Western Union. So, to me,

[1:58:20] this is

[1:58:21] this isn't something that I'm going to

[1:58:23] vote yes on. I'm going to vote no on

[1:58:25] this.

[1:58:26] For those reasons, I think people have

[1:58:28] choice and you're an adult and you have

[1:58:30] that choice and you have that right. And

[1:58:33] I know that I've had people come to my

[1:58:36] home that are into this Bitcoin stuff

[1:58:38] and

[1:58:38] all of them are power to them.

[1:58:40] But if it were me, I would much rather

[1:58:42] have the cash transaction where I know

[1:58:44] that

[1:58:45] it's this amount of money than my bank

[1:58:47] account tied to

[1:58:49] something and I think they should be

[1:58:50] able to have that opportunity.

[1:58:55] » [clears throat]

[1:58:56] >> Malia, you said the um

[1:58:59] in your notes, Layton recently banned uh

[1:59:02] Bitcoin ATMs. Are they the only ones you

[1:59:05] know of? I mean, is it likely that Provo

[1:59:07] residents looking to

[1:59:09] use a Bitcoin kiosk would just travel to

[1:59:11] Orem or Springville?

[1:59:13] Yeah, it's Layton City is the only city

[1:59:15] in Utah that has banned it. Um there is

[1:59:18] Indiana is a statewide ban on currency

[1:59:21] kiosks in the whole state. They're

[1:59:23] illegal. There's other states where the

[1:59:25] same legislation has been introduced.

[1:59:28] But as far as in Utah, Layton City is

[1:59:30] the only other city. This does not

[1:59:31] prohibit people to use their own laptop,

[1:59:35] their own cell phone. Like any of that

[1:59:38] they can do. This is just the actual

[1:59:39] kiosks

[1:59:41] operating within a business. The kiosk

[1:59:44] would not be allowed.

[1:59:45] >> And then your numbers, the one chart

[1:59:47] that you have Yes. 389 million in

[1:59:50] losses. That's cumulative in the state

[1:59:52] of Utah, right? That is nationwide in

[1:59:54] 2025. I'm sorry? That is nationwide in

[1:59:58] 2025. So that's from a 2025 FBI report that they

[2:00:04] said in 2025 389

[2:00:08] Can we move to that slide? The next

[2:00:09] chart shows

[2:00:11] right there.

[2:00:12] So 389 nationwide in 2025.

[2:00:16] The next chart shows 107 million in Utah

[2:00:19] in 2025.

[2:00:20] We don't have Elizabeth We're ranked 24.

[2:00:25] 26,000 Yeah, okay. That is in the

[2:00:28] internet crime report. So the Utah ones

[2:00:29] are ranked over I think 4 years where

[2:00:31] that report is just over one year. So

[2:00:34] that is a nuance I didn't place in the

[2:00:35] report, but yes.

[2:00:37] Thank you.

[2:00:40] Councilor Open

[2:00:41] Uh so just generally, I think because I

[2:00:43] work in banking technology,

[2:00:46] um

[2:00:47] you'd have similar charts for wire

[2:00:49] transfers, money transfers,

[2:00:52] um a lot of things. I mean, cash itself

[2:00:56] is the biggest

[2:00:57] medium for fraud. Yeah,

[2:00:59] just cards. I mean, just generally

[2:01:03] I I think crypto has a bad name cuz it's

[2:01:06] one of the newer forms of, you know,

[2:01:09] digital currency, newest way to

[2:01:11] transact. And so

[2:01:13] and there is a history of

[2:01:16] criminal use of it, but there is as well

[2:01:18] with the dollar and whatever. But

[2:01:20] generally, I I agree with Becky that

[2:01:25] I don't feel like what you're doing is

[2:01:27] taking away for people to transact. The

[2:01:29] vast majority of transactions that occur

[2:01:32] via cryptocurrency are not related to

[2:01:33] fraud. They are actual transactions. In

[2:01:36] these with these with these things?

[2:01:39] I've used them, and it wasn't for fraud,

[2:01:42] but I guess I'm probably not your

[2:01:44] average Joe. I get that. Um my parents

[2:01:47] lost have lost money through Zelle,

[2:01:49] right? Through their Wells Fargo. I

[2:01:50] mean, I'm just saying generally

[2:01:53] anywhere anytime there's money involved,

[2:01:56] there's potential for fraud, and I don't

[2:01:58] necessarily view

[2:01:59] cryptocurrency kiosks as the perpetuator as fraud. I would have to

[2:02:05] see the actual, you know, statistics on

[2:02:07] it, but generally

[2:02:09] I just I'm more I'm more um

[2:02:13] open to cryptocurrencies just generally

[2:02:16] because it's it's a, you know, something

[2:02:18] that I'm personally interested in. So

[2:02:21] I'm not supportive of banning them. I

[2:02:22] think it it takes away

[2:02:24] for the underserved under unbanked. It

[2:02:28] takes away an option for them to

[2:02:29] transact. So it is You are taking away

[2:02:34] uh a way for people to transact that

[2:02:36] currently they have a way to transact if

[2:02:37] they perhaps are unbanked or

[2:02:39] underbanked.

[2:02:40] So just generally, I'm not I don't have

[2:02:42] the same

[2:02:44] hesitations with them. I've used them,

[2:02:46] so I'm just probably more comfortable

[2:02:48] than most. And I also am exposed maybe

[2:02:50] to cryptocurrencies more broadly than probably the general population. So

[2:02:56] just I have a different perception of

[2:02:57] them. But um so yeah, I'm I'm a no on it

[2:03:01] as well.

[2:03:02] I mean, there's only six. It's not like

[2:03:03] it's going to be a make or break, and

[2:03:05] you you can go to the up by the Orem

[2:03:07] Mall or you know, every smoke shop in

[2:03:08] town has a cryptocurrencies

[2:03:11] uh Bitcoin ATM or whatever. So there's

[2:03:13] other ways they can take a 10 or

[2:03:14] 15-minute drive. I So I guess in that

[2:03:17] sense, I don't think we're changing

[2:03:18] anything really, but

[2:03:20] it's also not a make or break, but I I'm

[2:03:22] not supportive of it.

[2:03:24] Councilor Whitlock

[2:03:25] I have a um

[2:03:27] an odd question. If if they turn

[2:03:30] >> [laughter]

[2:03:31] >> So given the way that this

[2:03:33] ordinance language reads, would this

[2:03:35] also ban ban like

[2:03:38] um

[2:03:38] arcade digital currencies? Like when you

[2:03:41] kind of load a cash onto a little arcade

[2:03:43] card?

[2:03:45] Those are already largely banned because

[2:03:48] Well, they they We have them all over at

[2:03:50] Play Joy and

[2:03:51] Zaxby's Zaxby's A lot of those Oh, I see

[2:03:55] what you're saying. Because a lot of the

[2:03:56] I thought you were talking about the

[2:03:57] gambling ones. A lot of those

[2:03:59] >> about like arcade. Like I go put $20 on

[2:04:01] a card, and then I go spend it around

[2:04:02] the arcade.

[2:04:06] Well, I don't think so. I don't think I

[2:04:08] think those are used as a medium of

[2:04:10] exchange. You can't use them anywhere

[2:04:11] outside of that. Yeah, maybe not

[2:04:13] generally accessible to the public as

[2:04:15] well, but

[2:04:17] I don't think

[2:04:19] I I guess first of all

[2:04:22] I'm pretty confident that the inner

[2:04:23] discretion of both police department and

[2:04:26] legal department, we wouldn't interpret

[2:04:27] it that way even if it was subject to

[2:04:29] being interpreted that way.

[2:04:31] Okay. Okay. But I

[2:04:32] uh but I don't think so.

[2:04:35] It's certainly something that we could

[2:04:37] uh workshop language if that's a

[2:04:39] concern.

[2:04:41] Okay. Yeah, I just want to make sure we

[2:04:43] don't accidentally make those illegal.

[2:04:44] Um

[2:04:45] I've been a bit conflicted about

[2:04:47] [clears throat] this one because

[2:04:48] initially

[2:04:49] um I had very similar inclinations to

[2:04:52] Councilor Bogdan. I'm just like adults, not sure we want to

[2:04:56] um

[2:04:57] you know, want to stick our hands in

[2:04:58] this, but um

[2:05:01] it is real when it comes to the fraud.

[2:05:03] Like I just as I've done a lot of

[2:05:04] research, and it seems to be like the

[2:05:06] most frictionless way to steal someone's

[2:05:08] money. Like if I go like for example, if

[2:05:10] someone if I'm if I'm just coming to a

[2:05:13] fraud classic kind of my grandpa just

[2:05:15] come to one of these where you kind of

[2:05:16] someone grooms you through some email

[2:05:18] exchange, and they need some help, and

[2:05:19] they promise something. Like if they're

[2:05:21] like, "Wire me the money." You go to a

[2:05:22] bank, and the teller's like, "Are you

[2:05:23] sure you want to wire the money?" If you

[2:05:25] go to, you know, if even Western Union

[2:05:27] at the bank, someone's going to say

[2:05:29] like, "Are you sure you want to do

[2:05:30] this?" Um if you do it online, like I've

[2:05:32] sent I served my mission in West Africa,

[2:05:34] so I'll occasionally West uh

[2:05:36] I'll occasionally send money through

[2:05:37] Western Union or MoneyGram, and like

[2:05:39] even in their like digital checkouts,

[2:05:42] you have to like five times say, "I know

[2:05:44] the person personally and met this

[2:05:46] person before I'll send the money." Um

[2:05:49] whereas like this I just think it's

[2:05:50] probably the most frictionless way to

[2:05:52] send uh $1,000 or $2,000 to someone in

[2:05:55] Nigeria. Sorry for the Nigerians in my

[2:05:57] life.

[2:05:59] Maybe an unfair stereotype, but yeah, so I think there is, and I

[2:06:03] think that like

[2:06:04] you know, the elderly in our population

[2:06:06] are definitely a bit more susceptible to

[2:06:08] this. So I am conflicted, but I do think

[2:06:10] there's like a pretty strong public

[2:06:11] policy

[2:06:12] rationale potentially for this. So

[2:06:14] anyway, just some thoughts.

[2:06:17] Councilor Whipple

[2:06:19] So is there any kind of of data on

[2:06:24] increasing time or friction decreases

[2:06:27] the amount of fraud? Like giving people

[2:06:31] a chance to think it over for a second

[2:06:33] cuz a lot of these work on urgency.

[2:06:36] And this false sense of urgency, you

[2:06:37] have to do this right now.

[2:06:39] And if they had to leave the station in

[2:06:42] those days. Yeah, and so if you had to

[2:06:44] drive 15 minutes, would that actually

[2:06:47] change the likelihood that somebody

[2:06:50] would follow through and and get the

[2:06:52] money?

[2:06:55] I don't

[2:06:57] know. I mean, I can look it up though,

[2:06:59] and I'll get back to you.

[2:07:01] Because that I think that would be the real question, right? If this is

[2:07:05] actually effective at saving some of our residents.

[2:07:10] Because in the time that they're

[2:07:11] driving, maybe they call their daughter

[2:07:12] or something and say, "Hey, I'm going to

[2:07:14] go do this."

[2:07:16] >> [laughter]

[2:07:16] >> My my friend did it. Had to go buy gift

[2:07:18] cards at Target. And

[2:07:21] she been on the phone like an hour with

[2:07:22] this person, and finally went to buy the

[2:07:24] gift cards, and then her husband called

[2:07:25] through, and she had to say, "Hey,

[2:07:26] he was like, "Hang up now. Do not do

[2:07:28] this. What are you doing?"

[2:07:30] >> [laughter]

[2:07:30] >> And then someone else was doing it, and

[2:07:33] they they'd been on the phone an hour

[2:07:35] and

[2:07:36] an half with a sheriff from

[2:07:39] Summit County

[2:07:40] who was who's going to be put in jail

[2:07:42] because they had

[2:07:43] ignored a jury summons. And they need I

[2:07:45] mean, like it's crazy the stuff that

[2:07:46] goes on. The mayor keeps asking me for

[2:07:48] gift cards.

[2:07:49] I'll get them to you. Don't worry.

[2:07:51] Sorry. I know I know there's a lot of

[2:07:53] urgency around it.

[2:07:55] But it is it is wild.

[2:07:58] And these are people that I consider

[2:07:59] >> [laughter]

[2:08:00] >> to be people. And I'm like and they tell

[2:08:01] me stories. I'm like, "He fell for

[2:08:02] that?" And they're like, "I just tell

[2:08:04] you, I looked him up online, and he was

[2:08:05] the sheriff of Summit County."

[2:08:07] Yeah. But they're not calling you. And

[2:08:09] there is good data that as as people get

[2:08:11] older, even if they remain competent in

[2:08:13] many areas, they lose a certain

[2:08:16] skepticism or competency with regard to

[2:08:18] financial matters.

[2:08:19] And so our seniors are much more likely

[2:08:23] to fall prey to these scams. Like we run

[2:08:24] into this all the time with, you know,

[2:08:26] estates and conservatorships and things

[2:08:28] like that.

[2:08:29] So I would want to know that this

[2:08:32] actually like creating this little tiny

[2:08:34] bit of friction would be beneficial.

[2:08:38] I did get a number of responses from my

[2:08:40] newsletter that all wanted it. And they

[2:08:43] were They were all elderly. And and then

[2:08:46] a couple young people who said they'd

[2:08:47] helped their parents or elderly neighbor

[2:08:49] with their finances, and they'd lost One

[2:08:50] person lost $250,000.

[2:08:53] But that wasn't a Bitcoin ATM, I'm sure.

[2:08:55] It was just a scam. It was just about a

[2:08:56] scam. But like I was just like, "Wow,

[2:08:58] like I don't know. It's unfortunate This

[2:09:00] is not any means helping with all scams

[2:09:03] or it I'm sure it is an incremental

[2:09:05] amount. But, maybe it's worth it for

[2:09:07] those families.

[2:09:11] Anyway, we're looking for a motion

[2:09:13] today. If we have a majority motion,

[2:09:15] it'll come back to a night meeting.

[2:09:18] for adoption.

[2:09:20] Was that the main

[2:09:22] impetus Katrice

[2:09:24] residents coming to you inquiring about

[2:09:26] >> Well, we got that email about it and

[2:09:28] then I had those two friends that it

[2:09:29] happened to. So, it was just kind of

[2:09:30] like, "Well, if it can help anything."

[2:09:33] And in my research, Bitcoin was the most

[2:09:36] associated with

[2:09:38] that. Councilor Holben, can I ask what

[2:09:40] your um

[2:09:42] uh like what your if you're willing to

[2:09:44] share what your use case is for the ATMs

[2:09:46] cuz I as I was doing research on this,

[2:09:48] like I

[2:09:48] I've two people I'm close with who are

[2:09:51] at the Bitcoin conference actually

[2:09:52] happening right now in lots of ideas. Um

[2:09:55] who are really into cryptocurrencies. I

[2:09:56] also am relatively into

[2:09:57] cryptocurrencies.

[2:09:58] >> Primarily, it's the unbanked or

[2:10:00] underbanked Okay.

[2:10:01] >> who use them. People who don't have

[2:10:03] access to digital trading platforms.

[2:10:04] >> They don't have access to a traditional

[2:10:06] bank account. And so, they utilize the

[2:10:09] crypto ATMs like a traditional ATM,

[2:10:11] right? To put money into their account or take

[2:10:15] it out of their account. They're cash

[2:10:16] heavy. Maybe they they're migrant

[2:10:18] workers or something like that. And

[2:10:20] they're using the the crypto ATMs.

[2:10:22] >> As like a store of value, so they Well,

[2:10:24] so Yeah, so let's say they aren't

[2:10:28] perhaps they're migrant worker and so,

[2:10:30] they're not necessarily They're the

[2:10:33] underbanked or unbanked community.

[2:10:35] Generally, they look for alternative

[2:10:37] means. So, they use the money MoneyGram

[2:10:39] or or whatever a lot or they use the

[2:10:41] check cashing places a lot. Um and

[2:10:44] crypto ATMs are kind of their ATM as

[2:10:46] well. So, that's the primary use case

[2:10:50] outside of crime.

[2:10:52] Right.

[2:10:53] Um so, yeah.

[2:10:55] Unbanked or underbanked.

[2:10:57] Are those here in Provo?

[2:10:59] You see a lot of people paying cash at

[2:11:01] Sam's Club and

[2:11:03] Here's a community base that deals in

[2:11:06] cash.

[2:11:08] And like I said, I'm I'm not I don't

[2:11:11] like

[2:11:12] I don't I I won't even use my ATM card.

[2:11:14] I will use a credit card and pay it off

[2:11:15] because I don't want my I share my bank

[2:11:18] account.

[2:11:18] >> Yeah, totally. And if I were into this, is the route I would go.

[2:11:24] And I'm not underbanked or underserved.

[2:11:26] I am protecting my bank account.

[2:11:30] Okay. Well, I don't know if we'll pass

[2:11:31] it up, but we'll I'll make a motion

[2:11:34] to move it forward to a night meeting.

[2:11:36] We'll see if there's a second. I'll

[2:11:38] second it.

[2:11:40] Okay. Any discussion on the motion?

[2:11:43] All right, we'll take a vote. Councilor

[2:11:46] McKay, yes. Councilor Christensen is

[2:11:48] excused. Councilor Whitlock.

[2:11:51] Yes. Councilor Bogden. No. Councilor

[2:11:54] Holben. No. Councilor Whipple. Yes.

[2:11:57] Councilor Garrett. Yes.

[2:11:59] Okay, so that's four to So, we'll go to

[2:12:01] a night meeting. We can see. Can I just

[2:12:03] or The more information you want on that

[2:12:06] >> for a point of clarification. Some of

[2:12:07] these questions, will there be

[2:12:08] additional data part of this?

[2:12:11] I can send it out in an updated memo and

[2:12:13] then we can go over it in the night

[2:12:15] meeting as well if you want to.

[2:12:17] And do you do you feel like you have a

[2:12:18] good understanding like the kind of

[2:12:19] question that we Yeah, okay.

[2:12:21] Thanks, William.

[2:12:23] All right. Next, we have HomeServe.

[2:12:27] Is there any way you can get information

[2:12:30] from our police about the number of our

[2:12:32] Provo residents who have been scammed?

[2:12:34] >> definitely. Okay, thanks.

[2:12:36] One other

[2:12:39] That would be helpful to have

[2:12:41] Maybe I'll DIY this research, but I did

[2:12:43] notice one of these in a Sub Zero

[2:12:46] downtown. Um great place for ice cream,

[2:12:49] by the way. But, I'm just wondering like

[2:12:50] I'd be curious like what is the like

[2:12:53] what is How does this help small

[2:12:55] businesses? Like are they How much How

[2:12:57] are they benefiting?

[2:12:58] >> Go go have a conversation with Sub Zero.

[2:12:59] Ask them why Also, if you do that, ask

[2:13:01] them why they have it there.

[2:13:03] Because they intentionally put it there.

[2:13:05] Yeah, totally. So, why is it there?

[2:13:07] Well,

[2:13:08] >> is it to them?

[2:13:10] I just generally sometimes they'll get a

[2:13:11] cut of the transaction fees and by

[2:13:14] allowing them to be placed there.

[2:13:15] Typically though,

[2:13:17] like with any like retail ATM and such,

[2:13:19] it's the convenience or attracting a

[2:13:21] certain, you know, customers or clients.

[2:13:23] >> bringing in it's Yeah, I think. But,

[2:13:25] you'll have that with sort of like

[2:13:27] retail ATM. Like you go to convenience

[2:13:29] stores. Sometimes they do get a cut of

[2:13:30] the transaction fee, but a lot of times

[2:13:32] it's just we have it there so that

[2:13:34] you know.

[2:13:35] >> More foot traffic. Well, if somebody

[2:13:37] More foot traffic or if somebody needs

[2:13:39] to make a purchase, they have access to

[2:13:41] an ATM or whatever. But, Ask him. I

[2:13:43] will. I'm curious about it.

[2:13:45] Yeah, I couldn't speak to specifically

[2:13:47] why Sub Zero would

[2:13:50] I do always feel like I'm scammed if I

[2:13:51] go to buy something at a place and

[2:13:53] they're like, "Cash only." But, you can

[2:13:54] carry ATM Right. that charges you a $10

[2:13:57] transaction. That's the worst.

[2:13:59] All right. Next, an ordinance amending

[2:14:01] power generation evaporative evaporative

[2:14:03] cooling and environmental

[2:14:05] pre-requirements for data centers. It's

[2:14:07] presented by Hannah Salton.

[2:14:11] Hello. I don't know if you remember me

[2:14:13] standing up here last September and

[2:14:15] saying you're going to hear from me in

[2:14:16] the next year or so with cleanups once

[2:14:18] we've gotten this code tightened and

[2:14:19] field tested. This is exactly that.

[2:14:22] So, we processed an application already

[2:14:24] that came to the council. We've talked

[2:14:26] with other data centers. We've found

[2:14:27] what points we thought were working

[2:14:29] really well and what points we realized

[2:14:31] we were more upfront being

[2:14:34] uh clear about as a possible no.

[2:14:37] Or that we saw from the council

[2:14:38] discussions and planning commission

[2:14:39] discussions might be possible no's.

[2:14:42] Uh so, there are three things that this

[2:14:45] these amendments would accomplish. They

[2:14:47] remove power generation as a permitted

[2:14:49] use and per UMPA policies, data centers

[2:14:53] over 50 MW have to generate their own

[2:14:55] power. So, by removing that as a

[2:14:56] permitted use in the overlay zone, it

[2:14:57] effectively caps data centers in Provo

[2:14:59] to under 50 MW.

[2:15:02] Uh which also, you know, triggers some

[2:15:04] other minor cleanups that we're looking

[2:15:06] at smaller data centers.

[2:15:09] It would require non-evaporative cooling

[2:15:11] measures. There was that trade-off in

[2:15:13] efficiency where you use less water, but

[2:15:16] you take more energy to move the smaller

[2:15:18] round of water around more times. If we

[2:15:20] are already limiting

[2:15:22] energy use, we felt a little bit more

[2:15:25] okay making clear stance on a

[2:15:27] closed-loop cooling system for water to

[2:15:30] reduce water use, but also because we

[2:15:32] were no longer trying to work with data

[2:15:33] centers having to balance their energy

[2:15:35] load versus water use as much. If we're

[2:15:37] already capping the energy load, it's a

[2:15:38] smaller conversation.

[2:15:40] And then finally, it would remove the

[2:15:43] requirement for third-party

[2:15:44] environmental analysis,

[2:15:46] which used to be required for data

[2:15:47] centers over 5 MW, but as we've been

[2:15:50] looking at these amendments and reaching

[2:15:51] out to these environmental analysis

[2:15:54] companies, they don't feel like they

[2:15:55] would have anything really to analyze at

[2:15:58] this point. If there's no major power

[2:15:59] generation facility on site, if the

[2:16:01] water is not being discharged into the

[2:16:03] municipal system, it's often brought in

[2:16:04] by another system to make sure it's

[2:16:06] clean and has the biocides they need, uh

[2:16:08] then it has effectively the

[2:16:10] environmental footprint of a large

[2:16:13] office building.

[2:16:14] So, there's just simply not enough to

[2:16:16] require an analysis.

[2:16:18] Uh otherwise though, we did as staff

[2:16:22] like the high discretion that the code

[2:16:25] gives the council to make the call on

[2:16:28] whether or not a data center is the

[2:16:29] appropriate use for that parcel. We

[2:16:32] We've seen that in action and that held

[2:16:34] up well. That part's not being touched.

[2:16:36] Any questions?

[2:16:38] Councilor Bogden.

[2:16:42] If this is at this discretion of the

[2:16:45] council, why would we need any more code

[2:16:47] cleanup? I'm confused by that.

[2:16:50] It signals mostly to developers. If

[2:16:52] there's something that we are probably

[2:16:53] going to say no about, we'd rather have

[2:16:56] that in code as an upfront. If we are

[2:16:58] really hesitant about power generation

[2:17:00] on site as a city, for example, then

[2:17:02] let's be upfront that that might be a

[2:17:04] non-starter. But, I don't recall the

[2:17:06] council ever

[2:17:08] coming out and saying these are the

[2:17:10] problems with this. I think

[2:17:13] the way that we have the code right now

[2:17:14] is okay. And I think

[2:17:21] that we have that discretion and so, we

[2:17:23] don't need any of the other stuff. Hm?

[2:17:26] Because I mean, it it's already in our

[2:17:28] UMPA stuff that

[2:17:30] they can't have power generation on

[2:17:32] site. I know that the planning

[2:17:34] commission didn't agree with any of this

[2:17:36] either. Yes, I do need I should note

[2:17:38] that. The planning commission did

[2:17:40] recommend denial. They recommended

[2:17:41] instead of prohibiting power generation

[2:17:45] on site, instead making it a conditional

[2:17:46] use so that it could go through more

[2:17:47] scrutiny, but it doesn't close the door

[2:17:49] entirely. That is actually the route

[2:17:51] that staff was considering, but then as

[2:17:52] we talked with staff and other

[2:17:53] departments and other parts of the city,

[2:17:57] uh they thought that an outright ban

[2:17:58] would probably be cleaner.

[2:17:59] So, we're proposing that instead. And if

[2:18:01] the council disagrees, you are welcome,

[2:18:03] of course, as always to amend the code

[2:18:04] or vote no.

[2:18:05] Well, I I just don't see that these are

[2:18:07] necessary. I think

[2:18:09] that we have written this code so that

[2:18:13] we get ahead of it, right? So, that we don't have it written for us by the

[2:18:18] state of Utah or someone else.

[2:18:21] And I don't think that I mean, UMPA

[2:18:24] already has this a policy for

[2:18:28] power generation and for this, that, and

[2:18:30] the other. And I just don't see closing

[2:18:32] these loops as necessary. I think that

[2:18:35] these are something that

[2:18:37] And I don't I don't recall us ever

[2:18:39] having a conversation that these things

[2:18:40] are necessary. I just think I guess

[2:18:43] you're asking what This is what

[2:18:44] instigated this. What What instigated

[2:18:46] it?

[2:18:47] Uh this came in part from conversations

[2:18:49] with UMPA who does support these

[2:18:50] amendments, but this is the conversation

[2:18:52] we're having it now. Uh it was mostly

[2:18:55] instigated by staff

[2:18:57] uh talking with other council staff,

[2:19:00] UMPA energy staff uh talking with other

[2:19:03] data centers, seeing the pushiness of

[2:19:06] some data centers, but also those that

[2:19:08] were willing to be good partners were

[2:19:10] able to work with us on things that we

[2:19:12] really did like and educate me honestly

[2:19:15] about more of what was uh

[2:19:19] feasible within the community. For

[2:19:20] example, uh how much more doable these

[2:19:24] closed-loop water systems are so that

[2:19:27] maybe that requirement is not so much of

[2:19:30] a burden as we would have thought in the

[2:19:31] industry initially. So, having learned

[2:19:33] more, having field tested it, having had

[2:19:35] more conversations with other cities,

[2:19:37] other departments within our city,

[2:19:39] that was the in summary

[2:19:41] spark. Okay. Any questions for Hannah?

[2:19:45] Councilor Whipple.

[2:19:46] >> Whipple. Yeah, so

[2:19:48] I'm I'm curious about um

[2:19:52] backup generation at the facility

[2:19:54] because I would assume they need to have

[2:19:56] that in the event that the power supply

[2:19:59] is disrupted.

[2:20:00] And that could have, you know, really

[2:20:03] immediate, acute, local effects. Um so

[2:20:07] would we not I I would assume that if we

[2:20:10] did these full studies and everything,

[2:20:13] that would take into account any effects

[2:20:15] of using the backup generation. Are we

[2:20:17] losing that ability with this proposal?

[2:20:21] It is something that we could add back

[2:20:22] in. Uh we do require

[2:20:25] still the uh environmental and air

[2:20:27] quality reports, but we don't require

[2:20:30] them to be analyzed by a third party.

[2:20:32] I'll double-check the effects on that

[2:20:33] exactly.

[2:20:35] We still require an estimation of the

[2:20:37] amount of pollutants that would be

[2:20:38] produced including a whole list um and a

[2:20:41] comparison against best made emissions

[2:20:43] of a similarly sized office building.

[2:20:45] So, we are still making them be

[2:20:47] transparent and making them give us some

[2:20:48] context so that we can find check that.

[2:20:50] Okay. Another thing that I I've been

[2:20:53] wondering about data centers generally

[2:20:56] is there's a lot of

[2:20:58] concern I've heard about kind of the hum

[2:21:00] or vibration that comes from these and I

[2:21:02] don't know how much of that is an effect

[2:21:04] of the servers themselves running with

[2:21:07] their little fans and and everything or

[2:21:09] is related to the power generation on

[2:21:11] the site.

[2:21:12] But

[2:21:13] I suppose what I'm worrying is

[2:21:16] are there effects that would extend

[2:21:18] beyond the property that could be

[2:21:20] considered nuisance that are not only

[2:21:22] caused by power generation? Yes, noise

[2:21:25] is one of them. Um the code that was

[2:21:27] adopted last September holds them to our

[2:21:29] noise ordinance standard or the

[2:21:30] requirements of the zone. For example,

[2:21:32] anything in that planned industrial

[2:21:33] commercial zone has a much lower noise

[2:21:36] ordinance.

[2:21:36] >> Yeah. Limit. But with some of these noises, I think they don't reach

[2:21:40] the decibel level that's a problem, but

[2:21:42] because it's that constant, persistent

[2:21:45] hum and vibration, it causes real

[2:21:48] issues. So, it wouldn't be necessarily a

[2:21:50] violation of our noise ordinance,

[2:21:52] but it could still be a problem.

[2:21:54] My understanding that is a bigger

[2:21:55] problem with bigger data centers, which

[2:21:57] was part of the motivation for capping

[2:21:59] data center size, but if this is a

[2:22:02] general concern among the council, we

[2:22:03] could tighten noise ordinance

[2:22:04] restrictions as part of these

[2:22:06] amendments. And then, I know BYU has

[2:22:09] some data facilities on their property

[2:22:13] that they work with to, you know, crunch

[2:22:15] genetics information and stuff like

[2:22:17] that. Um

[2:22:18] and I don't know what kind of systems they

[2:22:22] have. Like

[2:22:24] maybe it's appropriate to have

[2:22:25] evaporative cooling systems in really

[2:22:27] small ones.

[2:22:29] And so, that was a a question that I had

[2:22:31] as well.

[2:22:33] The systems can be combined in any way.

[2:22:35] It does take a lot more energy for a

[2:22:38] closed-loop system in a bigger facility,

[2:22:40] of course. So, it is

[2:22:41] um

[2:22:42] cheaper to do on an energy side in a

[2:22:44] smaller facility. I can't speak for BYU.

[2:22:46] I believe it's closed-loop, but I

[2:22:48] haven't spoken with them in some months

[2:22:49] about it and I can double-check. Okay,

[2:22:51] thank you.

[2:22:52] Councilor Bogdan.

[2:22:55] Is your mic not on?

[2:22:58] Hey counselor, um what else?

[2:23:00] Um can you say just a little bit more

[2:23:03] about what you mean when you said that

[2:23:06] it felt cleaner to take this approach as

[2:23:09] to kind of a performance standards

[2:23:10] approach?

[2:23:11] Uh the conditional use permit approach?

[2:23:16] Well, in the planning commission

[2:23:17] discussion, they were effectively

[2:23:19] saying, okay, instead of instead of

[2:23:20] doing input-based regulation,

[2:23:22] effectively do output or

[2:23:23] performance-based regulation. Like let's

[2:23:25] decide how much do we actually care

[2:23:26] about water consumption, how much do we

[2:23:28] actually care about um

[2:23:30] noise, about these different ex-

[2:23:32] negative externalities, which is the

[2:23:34] public policy rationale for this, and

[2:23:37] then let's kind of write those outputs

[2:23:39] as part of the code as opposed to

[2:23:40] something like this because, you know,

[2:23:42] you got into the discussion about fuel

[2:23:43] cells. Like there's innovative

[2:23:44] technology that may address some of

[2:23:46] these negative externalities.

[2:23:48] Um anyway, so I was just curious like

[2:23:50] why did we decide to As I understood you

[2:23:52] said we decided to go this approach

[2:23:53] because it's cleaner or simpler and I

[2:23:55] was just curious what if you could

[2:23:56] expand on that. That was recommended by

[2:23:58] other city staff as one of those that

[2:24:01] they there was a perception that this is

[2:24:04] something the city was probably going to

[2:24:05] say no to, this being power generation

[2:24:06] on site. If the city was going to be

[2:24:08] saying no every time or if the city had

[2:24:10] a bigger appetite for or would rather

[2:24:13] see multiple smaller data centers rather

[2:24:15] than big mega facilities, then to just

[2:24:17] use the size as a as a cap limit for

[2:24:20] size with the energy as a cap for size

[2:24:23] and also prevent the uh

[2:24:27] conditional use process, which can be a

[2:24:30] little subjective, can be a little

[2:24:32] time-consuming. Staff was of course fine

[2:24:34] with this. Again, the that was initially

[2:24:36] the planning department's approach was

[2:24:38] to take a conditional use permit for

[2:24:39] energy generation. Well, like for

[2:24:40] example, this this um

[2:24:43] fuel cell approach, that would violate

[2:24:45] this, correct? Because it would be

[2:24:46] considered on-site generation.

[2:24:48] Yes, it would be. That specific pitch

[2:24:51] from that data center developer wouldn't

[2:24:54] meet even the current code because

[2:24:56] they're insisting it would be islanded,

[2:24:58] which current UMPA policies and our code

[2:25:00] do not permit.

[2:25:00] >> Not allowed, yes.

[2:25:01] >> So, even if these amendments didn't go

[2:25:03] through, that facility still would not

[2:25:05] have been legal.

[2:25:08] Interesting.

[2:25:11] Any other

[2:25:13] Councilor Houben.

[2:25:14] First off, I want to say I'm

[2:25:15] appreciating Becky's inner libertarian

[2:25:18] coming out today. Let's let adults be

[2:25:19] adults. Why make Why make amendments if

[2:25:22] we don't need to? This is kind of fun.

[2:25:24] Um

[2:25:26] uh so I appreciated Rachel's

[2:25:29] um

[2:25:30] question or some of her thoughts. I

[2:25:32] guess I I do like the idea of making

[2:25:35] sure that we're not forgetting that

[2:25:37] these backup generators can be pretty

[2:25:39] disruptive.

[2:25:40] Um sounds like they would have to be

[2:25:43] within our noise ordinance limits

[2:25:46] anyways, but

[2:25:48] I don't know. I That is maybe Facebook

[2:25:51] my algorithm is like all messed up right

[2:25:53] now because all I get is like anti-data

[2:25:55] center stuff and I don't know if that's

[2:25:57] just because I was researching it or

[2:25:58] what or maybe it's just happening more

[2:26:00] and more, but it's all over and a lot of

[2:26:03] the comments are around these backup

[2:26:04] generators or the hum or kind of these

[2:26:07] unforeseen

[2:26:09] um consequences of the data center. So,

[2:26:11] I guess I just wouldn't I I would some

[2:26:14] of the things that she thought

[2:26:16] we might want to kind of circle back and

[2:26:18] address. I'm supportive of that as well.

[2:26:20] I can't remember, there were two of

[2:26:21] them. Backup generator and the hum, I

[2:26:23] guess, yeah.

[2:26:24] Um so, I just wanted to support that

[2:26:29] and also just talk about Becky's

[2:26:30] libertarian fight.

[2:26:32] In defense of your feed, data centers in

[2:26:34] Utah have been in the news more lately

[2:26:36] as we're getting that 9 gigawatt

[2:26:37] facility up north, which for context

[2:26:39] would be 9,000 megawatts. That's what

[2:26:41] we're looking at limiting to 50. Yeah.

[2:26:42] That is islanded naturally.

[2:26:44] >> what you're saying, but just simply by

[2:26:46] limiting it to 50, we are going to

[2:26:48] probably alleviate a lot of the issues

[2:26:50] that you might see with other bigger

[2:26:52] data centers. Like the hum will be less

[2:26:54] because it's not as big and the won't be

[2:26:56] as many backup generators and just yeah.

[2:26:59] For the backup generators, that is

[2:27:00] something we looked at exploring in this

[2:27:02] code, but data centers are far from the

[2:27:04] only facilities in our city that use

[2:27:06] backup generators. So, consider that

[2:27:08] maybe if we're looking at regulating

[2:27:10] backup generators in any way, it should

[2:27:12] be in a more comprehensive way and not

[2:27:14] nested just within this target facility.

[2:27:15] Just go with our idle ordinance, 2

[2:27:17] minutes. You can run it for 2 minutes.

[2:27:19] I'm just kidding.

[2:27:22] They're our largest set of backup

[2:27:24] generators that I know of. Okay,

[2:27:26] interesting.

[2:27:26] >> BYU has several. Other facilities, Rocky

[2:27:28] Mountain Medical has several.

[2:27:31] I frequently heard that.

[2:27:32] >> All right, any other

[2:27:35] So, I guess you're looking for a motion

[2:27:36] to move this forward. It's on the

[2:27:38] agenda. It's on the agenda. Oh, it's All

[2:27:40] right, that's right.

[2:27:42] I will say good work. I mean, just

[2:27:44] generally. I think

[2:27:45] And I love the idea of having cleaner

[2:27:47] code whenever possible.

[2:27:52] All right. Thank you.

[2:27:55] Hey Brian, we have a closed session.

[2:27:57] Yes, that's correct. There's been

[2:27:59] there's an item for discussion that

[2:28:01] involves um

[2:28:03] potential sale of transfer of property

[2:28:06] uh which is one of the approved reasons

[2:28:08] that would be appropriate to close the

[2:28:09] meeting at this time.

[2:28:10] All right, I'll look for a motion to

[2:28:11] close the meeting. I move that we close

[2:28:13] the meeting. Second. Excellent. All

[2:28:16] right, we'll call for a vote on the

[2:28:18] motion. Councilor Whipple.

[2:28:21] Yes. Councilor Bogdan. Yes. Councilor

[2:28:24] Houben. Yes. Councilor Mendenhall, yes.

[2:28:26] Councilor Harris. Yes.

[2:28:29] Councilor Whipple. Yes. All right, that

[2:28:32] passes 6-0.

[2:28:34] And we will re-

[2:28:36] meet in the back room down the hall.

[2:28:39] Recording stopped.

Provo City Council Work Meeting | April 28, 2026

Transcript