[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.