[0:00] That would be great.

[0:11] » All right. We'd like to welcome everyone

[0:12] to the Pro Municipal Council Provo RDA

[0:14] governing board work meeting. It is May

[0:16] 26, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Um, we'll do a

[0:21] roll call of elected officials.

[0:25] Jeff Lock, Travis Oven,

[0:26] >> Becky Bogden, Patrice McKay,

[0:28] >> Craig Christensen, Gary Garrett,

[0:30] >> Rachel Whipple. Although this is a

[0:33] public meeting, only the presenters

[0:34] invited by the council may speak or ask

[0:36] questions, unless otherwise invited by

[0:37] the chair. Please wait to speak until

[0:39] called on by the council chair. When

[0:41] speaking, please be sure to use a

[0:42] microphone so that the record is clear

[0:45] and those attending virtually can hear

[0:46] you. Please also be sure to limit side

[0:49] conversations as they interfere with the

[0:51] audio recording. If you need to have a

[0:52] side conversation, please step out of

[0:54] the work meeting room. Is proposed that

[0:57] we approve the following minutes. April

[0:58] 22nd, 2025 council meeting. June 17th,

[1:02] 2025 council meeting. March 10th, 2026

[1:04] council meeting. May 5th, 2026 council

[1:07] meeting. May 12th, 2006 council meeting.

[1:09] And the May 12th, 2026 work meeting.

[1:14] Are there any objections or requested

[1:16] changes?

[1:19] See no objectual decodments approved by

[1:21] unanimous consent.

[1:23] All right.

[1:25] Go ahead.

[1:25] >> Have we been able to go through and make

[1:27] sure that we've got everything updated

[1:29] now on those minutes because it was kind

[1:31] of surprising to have a couple from last

[1:33] year.

[1:34] >> Yeah.

[1:35] >> Kevin.

[1:36] >> Uh so

[1:38] question I can ask Heidi, she's out of

[1:40] town now. Did hire a what's it called? a

[1:43] transcriptist

[1:46] to help to support her on getting a lot

[1:48] of these minutes, especially the large

[1:49] budget minutes from last year. I was

[1:52] seeing an influx of of nine meeting

[1:54] minutes.

[1:55] >> Okay. But we've got a transcriptionist.

[1:58] Uh but do we anticipate a few more

[2:00] coming along?

[2:01] >> Uh I suspect so. I think there's a

[2:04] couple she had maybe I think seven

[2:05] minutes from last year. She was a few

[2:07] and she through through four of them.

[2:09] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[2:12] Jesse, you just want to give us an

[2:13] update on that? An email.

[2:17] All right. Our first ever business is a

[2:19] presentation on the voluntary stretch

[2:21] energy codes by Utah Clean Energy. And

[2:23] this was presented by Kevin Emerson, the

[2:24] director of building efficiency and

[2:26] decarbonization.

[2:28] Allison Burggoni, our clean energy

[2:30] associate.

[2:36] Thank you, council chair and council

[2:39] members.

[2:40] Um, thank you for the opportunity to

[2:43] talk with you today about this. Let's

[2:45] see. Am I in control for Okay. Oh, I

[2:49] pressed the wrong button.

[2:52] Um, yeah. So, my name is Kevin Emerson

[2:55] and um, uh, Allison and I are here, as

[2:59] you already said, to give you an update.

[3:02] Um, real quick, just for context, Utah

[3:05] Energy is a 25-year-old nonprofit,

[3:07] nonpartisan organization, and we are

[3:10] here to follow up with you um on a

[3:12] presentation that I gave to council in

[3:14] 2023 when the council expressed interest

[3:17] in voluntary approaches to encourage

[3:21] construction of energy efficient and low

[3:24] emission buildings that help reduce

[3:25] utility costs and support housing

[3:27] affordability and also support local uh

[3:29] clean air bills.

[3:31] In 2025, uh, uh, we were awarded a

[3:34] three-year cooperative agreement, um,

[3:37] from the US Department of Energy, um, to

[3:40] work with Provo and three other

[3:41] jurisdictions in the Inter Mountain

[3:43] region. And so, since that time, we've

[3:45] been working with Provo city staff and,

[3:47] uh, local stakeholders to conceptualize

[3:49] this program. So, today, we want to give

[3:51] you kind of a refresher about this

[3:54] initiative. um a little bit of an update

[3:56] where we're at in terms of what we heard

[3:58] from local stakeholders and um staff

[4:01] about what incentives might be good and

[4:03] what construction standards might be

[4:05] appropriate. Um and then we have a

[4:06] request we want to make of you at the

[4:08] very end which we'll get to.

[4:11] So, as Kevin mentioned, this program is

[4:14] really geared towards empowering local

[4:16] governments to uh implement, excuse

[4:18] [clears throat] me, voluntary and

[4:20] incentive based programs that will make

[4:22] it possible for developers to construct

[4:24] emissions free homes that will keep

[4:26] Provo communities healthy and

[4:28] comfortable and safe for decades to

[4:30] come. As Megan also mentioned, for the

[4:32] last 16 months, Utah Clean Energy has

[4:34] been coordinating with Provo city staff

[4:36] on this effort. We've also been working

[4:38] with a number of other jurisdictions

[4:40] includ including Boise, Jackson, and

[4:43] Salt Lake City. We've had numerous

[4:45] conversations with Provo city staff

[4:47] including um planning, building

[4:49] services, economic development, and RDA

[4:52] to identify some priorities for a

[4:54] voluntary stretch code program as well

[4:56] as some possibilities that could be

[4:57] explored. Um we've also had numerous

[5:00] conversations with industry stakeholders

[5:02] to learn about what incentives would be

[5:04] most impactful for those folks. and

[5:07] we've spoken with community members who

[5:08] have emphasized affordability and the

[5:10] desire to seek pathways for existing and

[5:12] multifamily housing. We also have a

[5:15] robust technical team supporting this

[5:17] project. So in addition to Utah Clean

[5:19] Energy who is leading the project, we

[5:21] are also working with the Southwest

[5:22] Energy Efficiency Project, the New

[5:24] Buildings Institute and the

[5:26] International Code Council. And these

[5:27] folks are helping us uh provide

[5:29] technical support, trainings, and

[5:31] develop a program that will be

[5:33] responsive to feedback from industry and

[5:35] community stakeholders.

[5:38] >> Oh, you have the up. Thank you. Sorry.

[5:41] Um, so I wanted to talk a little bit

[5:43] about what this will mean for community

[5:46] members in Provo. And the short story is

[5:48] that it means housing that is not only

[5:51] more affordable but more affordable to

[5:53] stay in year after year and month after

[5:55] month through more affordable energy

[5:57] bills. So this chart over here, I'll

[5:59] just go over this briefly. This tells

[6:01] the story of a showcase home built in

[6:03] 2024 by Garbette Homes. This was

[6:05] constructed in partnership with Utah

[6:07] Energy. Um it is all electric and meets

[6:10] the latest Energy Star standards. And

[6:12] this shows um the time that it took for

[6:14] the homeowners to see a positive return

[6:17] on their investment, which as you can

[6:19] see happened in only 1.4 years. Um so

[6:22] this is really demonstrating that low

[6:24] and zero emission homes can contribute

[6:26] to long-term housing affordability by

[6:29] reducing utility costs and the cost of

[6:31] living over the course of the lifetime

[6:33] of a home. And I also wanted to note

[6:35] that this home was not constructed in

[6:38] coordination with a voluntary stretch

[6:39] code program. So with voluntary

[6:41] incentives, we might be able to reduce

[6:44] um this upfront cost even more.

[6:47] So it's just really important to

[6:49] consider that the homes that we are

[6:50] building today will be in existence for

[6:53] decades to come. And this is a really

[6:55] crucial opportunity to futureproof homes

[6:57] and make sure we're building homes that

[6:59] can continue to serve Provo communities

[7:01] for for decades. I'll hand it back to

[7:04] Kevin.

[7:06] >> Thanks, Alison. So when um when it comes

[7:09] to in incentivizing above code

[7:11] construction, one of the most important

[7:14] considerations is where do we set the

[7:16] bar for a a building that's meeting a

[7:18] new standard to be eligible for

[7:19] incentives? What should that standard be

[7:21] and what should the bar be? So we've um

[7:23] based on feedback from local

[7:25] stakeholders um and including folks in

[7:27] um like planning and building services

[7:29] and such um they've said that they want

[7:31] to see flexibility and options. So we've

[7:33] done this uh as we've conceptualized

[7:35] this we've taken this into account in a

[7:36] couple ways. The first is that we're

[7:38] thinking about two tiers, a zero

[7:41] emission building tier and a low

[7:43] emission building tier. These are fairly

[7:45] similar, but um but I'll just describe

[7:47] how they're different real quick. Um a

[7:49] building that is a zero emissions

[7:51] building is really a building that's

[7:53] energy efficient. It uses the latest uh

[7:56] energy efficient electric equipment, so

[7:58] it doesn't have any on-site combustion,

[7:59] much like the city hall here. Um and the

[8:02] building also would be powered with

[8:03] clean energy, and that could be from a

[8:05] variety of sources. It could be from a

[8:06] program through Probo Power. It could be

[8:08] from rooftop solar or a combination of those. Um, a low emission building is

[8:13] very similar except that there may be

[8:15] some on-site gas used for heating or

[8:17] space heating or cooking. It might have

[8:19] dual fuel heat pumps, for example, for

[8:20] those of you who have heard about those.

[8:22] Um, and it might be partly powered with

[8:24] clean energy or it might be solar ready,

[8:26] for example. So, solar could be

[8:27] installed in the future if that's what

[8:28] the building owner decided to do. Those

[8:31] are the two tiers we're conceptualizing.

[8:33] And within Oh, go ahead.

[8:35] um powered 100% by honor off-site clean

[8:37] energy. Now, I know with this building,

[8:39] it's considered zero emissions, isn't

[8:40] it, Scott?

[8:43] >> But [clears throat] technically, Pro

[8:44] Energy isn't 100% clean energy. I mean,

[8:47] we do an amazing job and our our mix is

[8:50] really good.

[8:51] >> But so, how do you justify that?

[8:54] >> So, it all depends on what programs the

[8:56] utility has has to offer to help u make

[8:59] those the like the remaining care hours.

[9:02] just pretending that all their energy

[9:05] comes from one specific place like our

[9:08] off-site solar panel, right?

[9:10] >> That would be a good example if if the

[9:13] building energy use was participating in

[9:15] a utility program and is called the SH

[9:18] solar program that the energy generated

[9:21] through that program is associated with

[9:23] the energy consumed by the building. And

[9:24] so that that's an industry accepted

[9:27] practice for achieving

[9:28] >> even though actually it is not and there

[9:31] is nothing that is 100% weight.

[9:34] >> Well we [clears throat] we did use our a

[9:37] lotment for solar and towards the

[9:41] powering of this building. So this

[9:43] building is part of the aotment for

[9:46] solar base. So we we're not part of the

[9:49] mix. We we chose that

[9:50] >> at night we still use energy and it's

[9:52] not coming from solar. You know what I

[9:54] mean? Like if we're being technical.

[9:56] >> Absolutely. Generally over the course of

[9:58] the year is is what is what we look at

[10:00] to define it. Does it meet this

[10:02] definition? And you're right. Sometimes

[10:03] it'll be more, especially at night,

[10:05] it'll be more reliant on the standard

[10:06] electric grid, which every year is

[10:08] getting cleaner, but Yeah. is not.

[10:10] >> Yeah. We do a great job, but I just want

[10:12] to be clear that it's not

[10:14] >> Okay.

[10:14] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[10:15] >> And we'd like to recognize that Mayor

[10:16] Marcia Jenkins has joined us.

[10:20] » Nice to see you, Mayor. Uh so so those

[10:24] are the two tiers we're talking about.

[10:25] But then within these two tiers based on

[10:27] feedback that we've received and

[10:29] research about these kind of programs uh

[10:30] from around the country, we're also um

[10:38] conceptualizing a couple of pathways

[10:40] that again give options for a developer

[10:42] or builder or a contractor. um one is

[10:46] using the the most current um building

[10:49] energy code that's on the books today

[10:51] plus utilizing a few what they call

[10:53] appendices that are part of the code and

[10:56] they're voluntary. It's just a a kind of

[10:58] a package of information kind of a

[10:59] recipe if you will about how to make the

[11:01] building from design through

[11:02] construction meet one of these two

[11:04] standards. So one is using the most

[11:05] recent energy code which is the 2024

[11:08] IECC or international energy

[11:10] conservation code. Um, the other option

[11:12] is similar, but it's a little bit more

[11:16] flexible of what the baseline energy

[11:19] code is. And instead of using four of

[11:21] the

[11:23] u the appendices that are part of the

[11:26] 2024 energy code, it's just using two

[11:28] from um from the building code. So, it's

[11:31] a little bit simpler. Um, and it we're keep in mind that we're putting

[11:36] these ideas together in cooperation with

[11:39] all of the four participating

[11:40] jurisdictions and trying to kind of find

[11:42] a model, a uniform model that could work

[11:45] for all jurisdictions as a model and

[11:47] then be customized. For example, here in

[11:49] Provo City. Uh, but this would be one of

[11:52] the other options. Um the last pathway

[11:56] uh within the

[11:58] either the lower emission tier or the

[12:00] zero mission tier is simply referencing

[12:03] existing industry recognized

[12:06] certification programs. Um the pro like

[12:08] the benefit of this would be is there's

[12:10] a lot of options for developers and

[12:12] builders and architects to use that

[12:13] could meet a low emission standard or a

[12:15] zero emission standard and there's

[12:17] another entity doing the oversight to

[12:19] determine if the building meets that

[12:21] standard or not. So it could streamline

[12:22] how the city implements this kind of a

[12:24] program in the future. We also are

[12:26] strongly recommending that of the

[12:28] certifications that are considered, we

[12:30] include those that have either zero or a

[12:33] very low certification fee. Some

[12:34] certification fees that you probably are

[12:36] aware of for for green buildings can be

[12:38] expensive, but there are some programs

[12:40] that have very low or zero certification

[12:41] fees, which we think are really

[12:42] important to include. The last thing

[12:44] I'll mention here, uh, just building off

[12:46] of, uh, the governor's recent, uh,

[12:48] drought declaration that we think it

[12:50] would be wise to incorporate water

[12:52] conservation at the same time as this is

[12:54] being, uh, explored. That could be just

[12:57] simply by noting water fixtures should

[13:01] be water sense certified or local scapes

[13:04] should be used for landscaping. Um, or

[13:07] we utilize coordinate with the Utah

[13:08] water savers program that offers

[13:10] rebates. So that's the kind of high

[13:13] level overview that I wanted to share

[13:14] about um about the kind of codes and

[13:17] standards and um Allison's going to take

[13:19] it from there.

[13:20] >> You guys have heard us speak a lot about

[13:22] incentives and we wanted to tell you a

[13:24] little bit about we what we've heard

[13:25] from Provo stakeholders. So as you can

[13:28] see here we have a list of five

[13:30] different incentive types. This is a

[13:32] list that was um established in

[13:34] partnership between us and our our

[13:37] colleagues at New Buildings Institute.

[13:39] Um, so I'll just kind of go down the

[13:41] list and talk you guys through what

[13:43] we've heard from stakeholders in Provo.

[13:45] So the the first thing we have listed is

[13:48] rebates and green financing. Um, there

[13:50] has been some interest in exploring

[13:52] possibly some new incentives through

[13:54] Provo Power. Um, and we have an upcoming

[13:56] conversation scheduled with Patricio,

[13:58] the new director of Provo Power coming

[14:00] up next month. Um, we also, as Kevin

[14:03] mentioned, would like to um, keep keep

[14:06] water wise practices in mind here. Um,

[14:08] so one thing that we're taking into

[14:10] consideration is leveraging rebates for

[14:12] lawn conversion and water efficient

[14:14] irrigation programs through local scapes

[14:16] and um, the central Utah Valley Water

[14:19] Conservancy District. The next thing we

[14:22] have on our list here is technical

[14:24] assistance. Our project does have some

[14:26] funding in our next budget period to

[14:28] support things like trainings for local

[14:30] government staff and contractors as well

[14:32] as a consultant for third party plan

[14:34] review. Um and we have heard from

[14:36] building services that um training and

[14:39] materials such as checklists and

[14:41] reference documents that they can

[14:43] continue to reference um would be

[14:45] valuable. Another thing that our team

[14:47] identified are streamlined permits. Um

[14:50] building services has indicated interest

[14:52] in this approach due to some upcoming

[14:55] updates to their workflow process that

[14:57] might simplify a permit review. And

[15:00] we've also talked to a number of

[15:01] industry stakeholders that have

[15:03] expressed interest in this option. The

[15:06] next thing on our list is zoning

[15:08] variances. And it sounds like this is

[15:10] something that's relatively uncommon in

[15:12] Provo. Um but we did hear interest in

[15:15] offering some things like density

[15:16] bonuses to zero emission multifamily

[15:19] housing as kind of a big ticket

[15:21] incentive for um projects that meet the

[15:24] highest tier. And then the last thing on

[15:26] our list is promotion and awards. Um, it

[15:29] sounds like there's some interest in

[15:30] promoting builders who would participate

[15:33] in this incentive program through things

[15:35] like newsletters and social media. Um,

[15:38] that might not be the main factor in

[15:40] convincing builders to participate in

[15:42] the program, but we have heard that it

[15:44] would be a nice added bonus. Um, and

[15:46] could be done with probably little to no

[15:48] budget. So, we are still in the process

[15:51] of collecting feedback about these

[15:52] incentives. None of this is finalized.

[15:54] Um, but we're also talking with city

[15:56] departments about how top priority

[15:58] incentives should be finalized. Um,

[16:00] Hannah Sals has been kind enough to have

[16:02] many conversations with me and our

[16:04] project team, and I think she might be

[16:05] online.

[16:08] Um,

[16:11] oh, where did our last slide go?

[16:16] Sorry. Apparently, I don't know how to

[16:18] use technology.

[16:21] Or perhaps our Oh, there's our last

[16:23] slide. It was hiding. Sorry. Um, so in

[16:27] conclusion, we'd like to express our

[16:28] thanks to council and all of the Provo

[16:31] City staff who have participated in our

[16:32] project so far, including building

[16:35] services, planning, economic

[16:36] development, the RDA, um, the mayor's

[16:39] office, and the mayor's sustainability

[16:41] committee, as well as the citizen

[16:43] sustainability committee. Lots of folks,

[16:45] lots of committees. Um so what we are

[16:49] asking for today is um written support

[16:52] for the continuation of our project. We

[16:54] want to be very clear that we are not

[16:56] asking um council to vote on a voluntary

[16:59] incentive program. But what we are

[17:01] looking for is uh a demonstration of

[17:04] continued interest and support from all

[17:06] of our participating jurisdictions to

[17:08] allow us to continue our partnership.

[17:10] Um, this request is being made of all

[17:13] local governments that we're working

[17:15] with. And at this point, I think we're happy to take questions um and

[17:20] discuss any next steps.

[17:23] And just to add that on the last point

[17:24] about the request, that is something

[17:26] that we built into our our whole project

[17:29] workflow is that in the middle of the

[17:31] period before we advance to the next

[17:32] phase that we would check in with all

[17:34] the local governments, all of our

[17:35] partners and um and request that that

[17:38] documentation to show let's move forward

[17:41] so that in the future there could be

[17:42] actual formal consideration of a program

[17:44] like this.

[17:47] >> Are there any questions?

[17:51] Um so this letter is for the department

[17:54] of energy. It would be it would be

[17:56] shared with the US department of energy

[17:58] the project team at the US department of

[17:59] energy.

[18:00] >> And [clears throat] which of the other

[18:02] sort of design what do you call them

[18:04] like pilot cities or design partners? Is

[18:06] that

[18:08] who else is support this or

[18:11] >> they're all planning to submit

[18:13] statements saying we want to continue

[18:17] >> in your uh in your cost projections and

[18:21] payback period projections. Was that

[18:23] using provo specific rates or more just

[18:25] regional assumptions?

[18:28] >> That model was actually using um Rocky

[18:31] Mountain power rates because it was it

[18:33] was constructed in rockcom power service

[18:34] area. So yeah, but we'd be happy to put

[18:38] that together and update that if you're

[18:41] interested.

[18:42] >> No, I just uh the that context is

[18:44] helpful. So it's probably um makes

[18:47] sense. And then so for these for these

[18:50] uh incentives you're exploring, I'm

[18:53] curious, this might be a dumb question,

[18:55] but is there is it

[18:58] is there so I know for example there's

[19:01] like lead certified housing and there's

[19:02] these other types of certification. Is

[19:04] there value in this program without

[19:06] incentives or are this incentives the

[19:08] crux of the program?

[19:11] >> I think based on the feedback that we're

[19:13] hearing is that it's helpful to have

[19:16] incentives of a variety of types to

[19:19] really encourage builders who haven't

[19:20] done this before to try building

[19:22] slightly new. Some builders have done

[19:24] lead or energy star or or passive house

[19:27] homes, but those who haven't, we want to

[19:29] make sure that they, you know, we remove

[19:31] barriers for them. So incentives are

[19:33] from our perspective an important part

[19:35] of the the package. Now there's a lot of

[19:37] different types of incentives. They

[19:38] don't have to be financial just like the

[19:40] technical support for example has been

[19:42] brought up a number of times as being a

[19:44] really valuable incentive for

[19:45] contractors who haven't um you know

[19:48] taken this step into designing and

[19:50] constructing buildings like this.

[19:52] >> That that's that uh my next question

[19:54] dubtales off that nice. Next is

[19:58] what would you say is the value of um

[20:01] local governments coordinating to do

[20:03] something like this versus just kind of

[20:05] waiting for the market to figure it out?

[20:07] >> Well um this whole idea came about

[20:11] because there are some um local

[20:13] governments who have uh community goals

[20:16] to support energy efficiency for example

[20:19] but the state um and this is fairly

[20:22] common. It's a little bit different

[20:23] among the different jurisdictions, but here in Utah, as you are probably

[20:26] aware, the state of Utah sets the

[20:28] required building codes, right? Local

[20:31] governments can't require um builders to

[20:34] meet a standard that's different than

[20:35] what the state sets. So the idea behind

[20:37] this is that if there are community

[20:39] goals that would be served by more

[20:41] efficient homes and buildings um you

[20:44] know reduce emissions. This is a tool

[20:46] for local governments to help meet local

[20:48] community goals that complements just

[20:51] the normal statewide building uh

[20:53] building building code requirements. But

[20:55] this would just be incentive based

[20:57] voluntary to really encourage the market

[20:59] to to try something new. Um

[21:03] just to finish on that a little bit. Do

[21:05] you want to add something? Yeah, I would

[21:06] also add that um as we are all aware,

[21:09] Utah is going through a significant

[21:11] housing boom. Um lots of new

[21:13] construction is going up and we know

[21:15] that it is a goal for Provo to increase

[21:18] housing affordability as well as improve

[21:19] air quality and a program like this

[21:21] would accelerate the adoption of low and

[21:23] zero emission building practices and

[21:25] help reach both of those goals sooner

[21:27] than just allowing the market to take

[21:29] its course.

[21:30] >> Makes sense. Um

[21:33] one more one more question. So when you

[21:35] think about air quality, um obviously

[21:38] there's different metrics you look at. I

[21:40] think particulate matter is probably the

[21:42] main one that people are concerned with.

[21:44] If you were to say of a um and I know

[21:48] Utah's odd because we have different

[21:49] sort of

[21:51] geographic issues with our inversion,

[21:54] but what would you say? What percent of

[21:56] particulate matter in on a typical day

[21:59] or in inversion or outside inversion are

[22:02] contributed by homes and building

[22:03] structures versus automobiles? Well,

[22:07] automobiles h are much a much larger

[22:11] source of local criteria pollutes. Um, I

[22:15] think this is not to say that those

[22:18] shouldn't be done as well. Um, this is

[22:20] just a program focused on what will

[22:22] buildings stay in place. So, we're

[22:23] probably looking at 10 to 15%

[22:26] >> from homes and buildings and it's really

[22:28] knock emissions from from gas combustion

[22:31] is the biggest way building energy use

[22:34] contributes to those red air quality

[22:35] days uh because that leads to PM2.5.

[22:38] Okay. Um so it's you know we we we

[22:41] support and are involved in other

[22:42] initiatives that support transportation

[22:45] emission reductions as well but this is

[22:47] just focused on building

[22:48] >> and also through providing greater

[22:50] incentives for zero emissions buildings

[22:53] which would have no on-site gas

[22:54] combustion. This program would not

[22:56] request those NOx emissions.

[22:58] >> Thank you.

[23:02] » All right, Council Whipple. I think

[23:05] what's most interesting to me about this

[23:07] idea is sometimes we're hesitant to do

[23:09] incentives for developers because we're

[23:11] worried that that won't necessarily be

[23:12] passed on to the people who are buying

[23:14] the house. But with the return on

[23:16] investment, like the the chart that

[23:18] showed, you would have additional cost

[23:21] with your mortgage every year from

[23:23] paying for those additional upgrades,

[23:24] but in a year and a half, the person

[23:27] who's bought the home is in the net

[23:29] positive. And so by incentivizing

[23:32] something like this, we're sure that it

[23:34] actually is going to benefit the people

[23:36] who are living in the homes, which is

[23:38] something that we've been worried about

[23:40] with a lot of our things. Um, I also

[23:43] really like that we have this group

[23:45] that's been doing this project with the

[23:47] grant. Um because having just gone

[23:50] through the whole RFP thing for our own

[23:53] studies, it's really nice to be able to

[23:56] have this expertise that we didn't have

[23:59] to to find the grant money ourselves or do the funding. I really appreciate

[24:04] this work.

[24:06] >> Thank you.

[24:09] >> Um counselor appreciation. So, uh, what

[24:12] are the [clears throat] what are the

[24:15] costs associated with moving forward?

[24:18] Um,

[24:20] because I it's hard to say yes, go. I

[24:23] love the idea. It's kind of like

[24:24] patriotism like yes. Uh, but like what

[24:28] does that mean? What does what what kind

[24:31] of cost is involved for the city to take

[24:34] next steps? Because you're talking to

[24:36] meeting all these departments. I see

[24:37] meetings. I see cash registers. I so I

[24:40] think in terms of like just fiscal

[24:42] responsibility

[24:43] >> um help can you unpack that a little

[24:45] bit?

[24:45] >> That's a good question. I don't think we

[24:47] fully know the answer to that yet

[24:48] because we haven't gotten direct

[24:51] feedback on say the top three incentives

[24:54] that incentive strategies that that all

[24:57] the different stakeholders think are the

[24:59] right fit for Provo. Um so there may be

[25:03] some costs associated with um well there

[25:06] definitely will be moving into the next

[25:08] phase just staff time

[25:11] >> to help us you know develop something in

[25:13] cooperation with all the stakeholders

[25:15] providing feedback. Um I will say we uh

[25:18] in the second phase of this project we

[25:20] also have seed funding from the

[25:22] department of energy cooperative

[25:24] agreement that we can make available to

[25:27] pilot um a streamline peritting process

[25:30] if that would be would be needed or the

[25:32] technical assistance um and what that

[25:35] looks like longterm in terms of

[25:37] potential costs for the city. We don't

[25:39] know yet. But we wouldn't,

[25:41] >> you know, come asking, we wouldn't come

[25:43] back to you to have that conversation

[25:45] until that was all very well fleshed

[25:46] out. And providing um a statement of

[25:49] support at this point or or you know, a

[25:51] statement that shows continued

[25:52] participation um interest doesn't bind

[25:56] you to anything um that we wouldn't come

[25:59] and talk to you about first and get

[26:00] feedback on and really make sure looked

[26:01] for for the city.

[26:03] >> Yeah.

[26:04] >> Maybe that's helpful. I know it's kind

[26:05] of funny. So um so after you did

[26:07] whatever work um you would then come

[26:10] back and make a recommendation the

[26:12] council in terms of

[26:14] um terms of next steps.

[26:16] >> Mhm. Okay.

[26:17] >> Yeah. And I think that would probably

[26:18] look like maybe there's something

[26:20] different that the building service is

[26:21] doing or maybe there's a new inclusion

[26:23] in uh a zoning variance that planning is

[26:26] considering or there may be something in

[26:28] coordination with RDA as well. Yeah.

[26:30] >> Um and so I I would imagine that it it

[26:33] may be uh in in tand with those uh

[26:36] departments uh and and something that's

[26:40] you know very well detailed.

[26:42] >> Yeah.

[26:43] >> Thank you.

[26:44] >> I have a couple questions. Um

[26:48] I look at this chart and I I look at

[26:51] something that doesn't really need to be

[26:52] incentivized. It should be incentivized

[26:54] on its own as far as the savings if

[26:55] that's a priority for the homeowner. So,

[26:57] I think a year and a half is a fine

[26:59] repayment and

[27:00] >> I don't see that that needs been

[27:01] incentivized terribly. Um, now we just

[27:05] we built a um a building for the Pro

[27:08] Housing Authority and we did a a lead

[27:10] house, a lead apartment building and got

[27:12] all those incentives. There's federal

[27:14] incentives. So, why would we piggyback

[27:19] city incentives when there's already

[27:21] federal incentives that can deal with

[27:23] that and then it's not coming out of our

[27:24] budget or our staff's time and that kind

[27:27] of thing?

[27:28] >> Well, that's a great question. I think

[27:31] part of my perspective there and um if

[27:34] that's at least you as well um

[27:37] most of the incentives that I'm familiar

[27:39] with are limited to affordable housing

[27:41] which obviously is an important part of

[27:43] this conversation. Um but affordable

[27:45] housing from say this the low in housing

[27:47] tax credits and things they those are

[27:50] there and those are really valuable. Um

[27:53] just as an aside what we're proposing

[27:55] here would would align with uh the

[27:58] energy efficiency incentives that are

[27:59] actually part of the low-inccome housing

[28:01] tax credits. Um and while this we would

[28:04] want uh you know we want this to this

[28:07] program to apply to affordable housing.

[28:10] Uh it wouldn't be limited to that. And

[28:12] when it comes to market rate h uh

[28:15] housing and incentives to incorporate uh

[28:18] you know more energy efficient

[28:19] construction practices and things like

[28:20] that we're talking about there are

[28:22] really no federal uh federal or state

[28:25] incentives

[28:27] except probably the biggest area are

[28:29] where utilities are offering incentives

[28:31] to use efficient equipment and make

[28:33] buildings more energy efficient. So

[28:34] there is a a gap and and a need um in

[28:38] like kind of market level construction.

[28:41] >> Okay.

[28:42] >> The other thing I'll add is you

[28:44] referenced that this is an incentive in

[28:46] and of itself. It is, but there's not

[28:49] always a ton of market awareness among

[28:52] home buyers about this kind of

[28:53] construction. And the reason why there's

[28:55] not a lot of awareness is because a lot

[28:57] of builders are a bit set in their ways

[29:00] and this type of construction is not

[29:02] something that they're always eager to

[29:04] take on. So by offering incentives, we

[29:07] can make it more possible for home

[29:09] builders to construct this kind of home

[29:12] and that increases market awareness. So

[29:14] it's kind of a positive feedback loop.

[29:16] >> Okay. Um you mentioned the R RDA. Um you

[29:21] said you've been talking to them and

[29:22] working on some stuff. We're actually

[29:24] the RDA board and I haven't heard about

[29:25] this at all. So I'm just curious about

[29:27] that.

[29:27] >> Yeah, we just had a couple of

[29:29] conversations with um with the director.

[29:34] Okay. Um, so it's just very early stage

[29:37] like what's happening at the RDA like in

[29:40] the RDA space and what does the RDA do

[29:41] and could there be something

[29:42] complimentary about this idea to support

[29:45] um more efficient construction and

[29:47] reduce emissions from RDA practices as

[29:49] well over and above what might be

[29:50] already being done or maybe there's

[29:52] already things being completed this

[29:54] should align with. So yeah, we just had

[29:56] very early stage conversations.

[29:58] >> Okay.

[29:58] >> But would you plan to continue that

[30:00] collaboration? Sorry, I didn't mean to.

[30:02] >> I don't know how the rest of the board

[30:03] feels. I know that that's something that

[30:04] I would not support. I want to keep that

[30:06] money for bigger projects and towards

[30:09] the city as a whole, not incentives for

[30:12] certain people to build certain things

[30:15] for this type [laughter] of thing. But

[30:18] >> we're just if I could uh respond to

[30:22] that, we're not suggesting using any RDA

[30:24] funds for these kinds of incentives.

[30:26] >> Okay.

[30:27] >> So, what were you suggesting? We're

[30:28] suggesting alignment when there is an

[30:30] RDA project that offers certain tax, you

[30:33] know, tax benefits to a development that

[30:36] uh a more efficient building uh be built

[30:39] to be eligible for those um taxation.

[30:43] >> Okay.

[30:44] >> Yes. It's like

[30:47] >> another lever point when they're asking

[30:49] us for money.

[30:50] >> Gotcha. Okay. Um any other questions?

[30:55] Just a question of clarification. The

[30:57] proposed um letter indicates uh

[31:00] willingness to commit to continued

[31:03] participation in the three-year

[31:05] agreement. So are is this starting a new

[31:09] three-year? Are we at the end of a

[31:11] three-year period or are we in the

[31:12] middle of the three-year?

[31:13] >> We're in the middle of a three-year

[31:15] period. This June, the end of this June

[31:17] is the the end of the first 18 months.

[31:19] Okay. And then July through December

[31:22] 2027 is is the second project.

[31:26] >> So they're looking for our support for

[31:27] the remaining 18 months basically of

[31:29] >> Yeah. And within that time the the goal

[31:31] will be that we continue collaboration

[31:33] and really uh finesse a very uh you know

[31:37] very specific set of ideas that can be

[31:40] implemented and then

[31:43] >> ask you know the council to consider

[31:45] formally you know adopting it and

[31:46] launching a program.

[31:47] >> Thank you.

[31:50] Cool.

[31:52] >> Councelor Whipple.

[31:53] >> So you're working with the the four

[31:55] different cities. So and you've laid out

[31:58] a range of possible

[32:01] solutions. Do you anticipate that during

[32:04] the second half as you work with the

[32:06] cities that maybe you would zone in on

[32:09] different solutions for each city out of

[32:11] that range that's already suggested?

[32:13] >> Absolutely. And so that would be a more

[32:15] collaborative thing like okay they may

[32:17] want to do this over here but this is

[32:18] what's useful in provo.

[32:20] >> Exactly.

[32:21] >> Yeah. And a good example of that is

[32:22] Alison mentioned the streamlining

[32:24] permitting some of the restrictions that

[32:26] hasn't come up as a priority but in

[32:28] talking with the building services

[32:29] department here and hearing about some

[32:30] interesting things that they're doing it

[32:31] that raised to the elevated to the top

[32:34] priority. Yeah, that's a because we do

[32:36] have some particular things in Provo

[32:38] like looking at this maybe for the

[32:41] multif family housing if we're able to

[32:42] reduce student housing close to campus.

[32:44] We've had so many problems with student

[32:47] energy use and things like that because

[32:49] of the current structure. So, this might

[32:51] be something that would be helpful in

[32:52] that. Okay. I I think I have a better

[32:55] sense of what we would be doing with you

[32:57] in the next 18 months. And

[33:01] >> what's funny about this is it's not

[33:03] you're not asking us for money right

[33:04] now, but you're asking for money from

[33:06] the federal government, which still

[33:07] comes from our citizens. Like I still

[33:10] feel like I'm like have to like think

[33:11] about is this the best way to spend

[33:13] taxpayer dollars.

[33:15] >> Well, this yeah, this cooperative

[33:17] agreement has already been finalized and

[33:20] it's already a done kind of a done deal

[33:21] with all the granties across the

[33:23] country. Um, but yeah, I it was a an initiative that's been, you

[33:30] know, funded by the US Department of

[33:32] Energy and we really want to make sure

[33:33] that some of the benefits come to to

[33:35] federal residents and to Utah.

[33:38] [clears throat]

[33:39] >> So, is it fair to think about the ask

[33:41] today is this is happening with or

[33:44] without us. If we sign on, we continue

[33:47] to be part of the process. The benefits

[33:50] of being part of the process are that we

[33:52] can help influence the direction

[33:53] outcome, but the cost of being part of

[33:55] the process is staff time. Is that a

[33:57] good framing of the decision?

[33:59] >> Uh, yeah, I think that's I think that's

[34:01] active.

[34:05] » All right. So, take a vote on like going

[34:08] ahead, I guess.

[34:09] >> Someone makes a motion.

[34:10] >> Okay. Yeah.

[34:13] Is there a motion?

[34:17] Well, I I would make a motion that we

[34:20] continue forward. I' I'd like to hear

[34:22] the uh what they come up with and I

[34:26] think there's very little investment on

[34:28] our part to find out more. So, and the

[34:31] outcomes could be very good for the

[34:33] city. So, I would make a motion that we

[34:35] continue for and support the letter.

[34:38] Yeah.

[34:41] >> I'll second the motion.

[34:44] >> All right. Any discussion of the motion?

[34:48] >> Question.

[34:49] >> Yeah. Councelor Bton, how does staff

[34:51] feel about giving their time, Madame

[34:53] Mayor?

[34:55] >> Um, they

[34:59] How much time do you think this would

[35:00] take?

[35:02] >> Oh gosh. We have not estimated that. Um,

[35:05] >> in the past it's been between I would

[35:08] say 3 to eight hours a month. That's

[35:10] usually what Hannah reports for her cost

[35:12] share.

[35:12] >> Yeah.

[35:14] Um,

[35:16] I can't speak for staff without asking

[35:18] them first, but um, I think that that is

[35:20] a reasonable request. If the council is

[35:24] wants us to do that, we'd be happy to

[35:26] accommodate that.

[35:28] >> Thank you.

[35:33] » All right, we'll take a vote on the

[35:35] talk.

[35:39] I'm good. We can support it. All

[35:42] right, we'll take a vote on the implied

[35:44] motion. Councelor Garrett,

[35:46] >> yes.

[35:46] >> Councelor McKay, yes. Councelor

[35:48] Christensen,

[35:48] >> yes.

[35:49] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[35:49] >> yes.

[35:50] >> Councelor Bogden,

[35:51] >> yes.

[35:51] >> Councelor Hoben,

[35:53] >> yes.

[35:54] >> Councelor Whipple,

[35:55] >> yes. All right, so we'll move ahead with

[35:57] that. Thank you.

[35:59] >> Thank you very much.

[35:59] >> Thank you. Next, a presentation on

[36:02] Provo's water system and proposed water

[36:04] rate increases. And this is presented by

[36:06] Tanner Taguchi, our council policy

[36:10] analyst. All

[36:27] right. Morning council. Thank you for

[36:30] having me today. So my goal is to give a

[36:33] little overview of the state of Provo's

[36:36] water distribution system. uh

[36:38] particularly focusing on the conveyance

[36:40] infrastructure that is to say the pipes

[36:42] and also the proposal of a 6% uh water

[36:44] rate increase for the coming fiscal year

[36:47] uh with the goal of um the recommend

[36:51] supporting the recommendation that I

[36:53] continue to work with uh other cities

[36:55] our neighboring cities and our water

[36:57] division to get more accurate

[36:58] information before we decide on water

[37:00] rate.

[37:02] So just uh the first bit will be about

[37:05] what's been happening with grow provo

[37:07] water rates and other cities water rates

[37:08] historically. Then I'll move to talking

[37:10] about the system and then options for

[37:12] financing as well. So you'll see in this

[37:15] graph here provo this is the Provo's

[37:17] water rate increases over time starting

[37:18] in 2016. You'll notice that uh co 19 did

[37:22] not affect the acceleration of water

[37:25] rate increases. it remained at a

[37:27] constant increase throughout that period

[37:30] whereas that is not the case in uh many

[37:32] of the other cities that we've seen uh

[37:35] as we've talked to them and as I've

[37:36] looked at their data

[37:39] and that is no different this year. So

[37:41] you'll notice this is the Provo City

[37:43] Council is is like the other primary

[37:46] ones. These cities were selected because

[37:48] they have lower water rates currently

[37:51] and they pay less for their water than

[37:52] we do. So, I decided to focus on what

[37:54] they are doing better or what is

[37:56] different about them that makes that the

[37:57] case. Uh, but they also are considering

[38:00] water rates for this uh coming fiscal

[38:02] year as well, just so you're aware.

[38:05] And just to reiterate, so ours will be a

[38:07] 6% increase. And this is what that will

[38:09] look like in terms of dollar costs.

[38:13] So, just taking quick a quick look at

[38:16] that and I'll draw particular attention.

[38:18] So, the maximum you would pay for tier

[38:21] one water would increase by up to

[38:24] $21.75.

[38:26] >> What's the max for tier 2?

[38:28] >> So, I didn't put that on there. So, the

[38:29] max volume for tier 2 is 100,000

[38:32] gallons. So, you would take

[38:34] >> the rate, you know, that you're paying

[38:35] and then you would stretch it out to

[38:37] 100,000 gallons.

[38:39] So, the cost between

[38:44] » depends on your meter size because the

[38:45] rest of it's 50,000, right? Correct. So

[38:48] I did a few assumptions. Mo the standard

[38:52] meter connection is is an inch. There

[38:54] are residences that have a 3/4 in or

[38:56] less than an inch. But um 1 in is

[38:59] typically the standard for a residence

[39:01] in Provo. So if you take these

[39:04] assumptions into account then you'll see

[39:06] at the bottom the lower number is the

[39:08] annual increase that you'd be paying uh

[39:12] for your water per year.

[39:15] So, under the current, you would be

[39:17] paying $41 more uh in this next fiscal

[39:21] year or whenever the rate change goes

[39:22] into effect than you would be now,

[39:24] assuming you would pay that much. And I

[39:26] just also in this second example

[39:28] increased that by 7,000 gallons.

[39:31] So, if you dipped into the tier 2 range

[39:34] a little bit more, for example, in this

[39:36] example two compared to example one,

[39:38] you'd be paying $52 more a year.

[39:44] So that is just to kind of frame what

[39:47] the impact of the 6% rate increase would

[39:50] do to a pro resident using about that

[39:52] much water. But you you can calculate

[39:54] this out and it's pretty simple to be

[39:56] able to calculate it using those

[39:57] assumptions.

[40:00] Before I talk about the water

[40:01] infrastructure itself, I just wanted to clarify these two principles. Like

[40:05] the pipes that we put into the ground

[40:07] are in a environment that is not, you

[40:10] know, pipes do not are not naturally

[40:12] occurring in the ground. They will

[40:14] corrode. They will break. Earthquakes,

[40:16] temperature changes will affect them and

[40:18] they will require maintenance and

[40:19] eventually need to be replaced. The

[40:22] second kind of base assumption in the

[40:24] calculus that the water division is

[40:26] using when they uh propose this rate

[40:28] increase is the steady and consistent

[40:32] march of inflation on the cost of being

[40:35] able to maintain and provide water to

[40:38] the residents of Provo. So those are the

[40:40] two kind of base level assumptions that

[40:42] are fueling uh their calculations. in

[40:46] this

[40:48] I wanted to draw particular attention to

[40:50] the differences between some of those um

[40:53] comparison cities and to Provo itself.

[40:56] So this is a map of Spanish Fork using

[40:59] uh federal data I believe from the US

[41:01] Department of Agriculture that looks at

[41:03] the corrosivity of soil. So in Spanish,

[41:07] most of the residential portions of the

[41:09] city are actually in a moderate

[41:11] corrosion zone. Only the parts near the

[41:14] river and some other other low-lying

[41:16] areas uh have that severe red color in

[41:20] it. Uh when compared to Provo and Orum,

[41:24] our area is highly corrosive. This does

[41:26] have data here.

[41:28] >> Okay, that's what that means.

[41:29] >> That's registered. So should we move?

[41:31] >> What's the green? You know, I didn't

[41:33] really pay a lot of attention to soil

[41:34] corrosivity when I decided where to

[41:36] live. I don't I doubt any of us did, but

[41:38] maybe in terms of the the water system,

[41:41] they they pay attention to it a lot more

[41:42] than I did. So, you you'll see that just a comparison here that the soil is

[41:49] eating away at the iron pipes perhaps at

[41:52] a faster rate, at least compared to a

[41:54] Spanish fort. Springville is also in a

[41:56] similar situation where they're not as

[41:58] corrosive as they are as a provore. So

[42:01] that's maybe what's affecting it and a

[42:03] difference to consider as we look at the

[42:05] rates.

[42:06] >> So what's the green tanner? Is that

[42:08] supposed to be

[42:08] >> green would be not as corrosive. Yeah.

[42:11] >> Not as corrosive. Still corrosive but

[42:12] not as corrosive.

[42:13] >> All soil is going to have some effect as

[42:15] I understand from reading reports on it.

[42:18] But it's not nearly at the the level or

[42:20] the rate that the moderate or the severe

[42:22] would have. There are actually very few

[42:24] areas in the United States that have

[42:26] that green soil.

[42:27] in North America is going to have

[42:29] pretty moderate or

[42:30] >> So where was that over? That's where we

[42:31] need to move. Okay,

[42:32] >> you can move to eastern Kentucky or

[42:35] southern West Virginia.

[42:36] >> Was on that last inish.

[42:39] >> In or

[42:43] [laughter]

[42:45] this block seems nice.

[42:46] >> Exactly.

[42:47] >> Sorry,

[42:49] >> Tanner. Just to clarify, so that map is

[42:51] like it's not looking at pipes and

[42:54] saying this is actual outcome data. It's

[42:56] looking at the soil and saying

[42:58] of the soil. That's correct.

[43:00] >> And I'll also note when I talked to the

[43:02] Springville water superintendent,

[43:04] sometimes the even the moderate ones up

[43:06] on the bench can be deceptive because

[43:08] the reading is based on a point in time.

[43:11] So in the in the soil that's kind of

[43:12] constantly getting washed and by by the

[43:16] waterhed, it can still take a toll on

[43:18] the pipes even if your sample is not um

[43:22] >> showing up. Tanner, was there a reason

[43:23] that the downtown area wasn't

[43:25] colorcoded?

[43:26] >> I do not know why. There's no data

[43:28] available on that.

[43:30] >> It's under concrete.

[43:31] >> The US Department of Agriculture web or

[43:34] soil survey, I believe, is what it's

[43:37] called. And I've worked with our water

[43:39] division to to kind of gag. Well, it's

[43:40] probably available. You all have access

[43:42] to it, but um they they're the ones who

[43:44] turned me on to this um this data

[43:47] source.

[43:50] So kind of intersecting with the

[43:53] difficulty perhaps of the soil

[43:54] environment that our system lives in is

[43:57] the composition of our infrastructure

[43:59] historically. So Provo as well as ORM

[44:02] when I talked to there as well the pipes

[44:05] that supply water to houses the water

[44:07] main pipes themselves are made of

[44:09] primarily ductal iron. ductal iron. The

[44:12] difference between those cast iron that

[44:14] you would see like in the kitchen, you

[44:15] know, but made over a pipe and a ductal

[44:18] line is that the ductal iron has a

[44:19] little bit more flexibility, but they're

[44:21] essentially iron pipes. So, our systems

[44:24] are primarily made of that. And you can

[44:26] imagine the intersection of corrosive

[44:28] soil and iron pipes might lead to um

[44:32] more issues in terms of corrosive pin

[44:34] holes that create leaks that need to be

[44:36] repaired and will eventually need

[44:37] replacement at faster rate. The one

[44:40] difference between this group here and

[44:42] Springville and Spanish Fork is that

[44:44] their systems have been transitioning to

[44:47] thick PVC pipe over the past 30 years.

[44:51] So in areas of new development, it's

[44:53] primarily PVC and they've been gradually

[44:55] replacing their iron pipes with PVC as

[44:59] replacements

[45:01] are required. Yes.

[45:02] >> I was wondering is PVC release

[45:05] microplastics? Is that thing with PVC? I

[45:07] don't know. They they haven't

[45:14] by any water resources there. There's no

[45:17] data on on that because that we have

[45:21] because it hasn't been used as water

[45:24] pipe for a long time. They don't have

[45:27] long data. Microplastics is very recent

[45:31] uh concern. Um, but from what we've

[45:34] seen, we don't have any data showing if the PVC pipe used in water systems

[45:42] supports microplastics and drinking

[45:44] water.

[45:46] >> Thank you.

[45:48] >> Yeah. So,

[45:50] >> yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Well, I just

[45:52] wanted to note, so we're still doing

[45:55] ductile ductile iron, but

[45:57] >> my understanding is that we've changed

[46:00] the way we install those pipes in order

[46:02] to protect them from the corrosive soil.

[46:05] >> Correct.

[46:06] >> Um,

[46:07] which is is that with putting concrete

[46:10] or gravel around them or something like

[46:11] that?

[46:12] >> I can take a stab at it first and if

[46:13] this is sufficient, Ryan can can add his

[46:16] expertise. So, there's a kind of like a

[46:18] plastic wrapping that can go around.

[46:20] That's probably the most common way to

[46:22] protect a duct iron pipe from corrosion.

[46:24] Uh the big issues with that is there's

[46:28] some general debate as to the

[46:30] effectiveness of the practice. Also, the

[46:33] effectiveness is pretty much whittleled

[46:35] down to zero if it's not installed

[46:37] properly. And as I've talked with our

[46:39] water division, there have been some

[46:40] cases where pipes previously, you know,

[46:43] when they were installed, the wrapping

[46:45] was not done properly. And so there's

[46:48] really no effect to it.

[46:50] >> There's also a coding process as well,

[46:52] but it there's similar debate as to the

[46:54] effectiveness of it.

[46:56] >> Okay.

[46:58] >> Um, so there's kind of a dual there's a

[47:01] dual consideration with the PVC as well.

[47:03] So I called Mountainland uh supply

[47:05] company. It's about 50% cheaper as a

[47:08] material than the ductal overall in

[47:10] addition to the the benefits related to

[47:12] corrosion. But as you said, we have a

[47:14] limited track record on PVC. things

[47:16] might come out in the future that might

[47:18] show as a risk, but that's yet to be

[47:21] seen in any way.

[47:26] Uh, and so this is a manifestation of

[47:27] that just in here. As I talked, I got

[47:29] data from Spanish Fork more quickly than

[47:31] I did for the others, but this is their

[47:34] leaks, water main leaks over time

[47:37] compared to ours. And you'll see, you

[47:39] know, while fairly consistent, ours have

[47:41] been elevated compared to theirs. And

[47:43] more recently, we've seen this a spike

[47:45] where they have remained relatively

[47:47] consistent. So this is all to say

[47:51] generally speaking that you know our

[47:54] system and the environment that we

[47:55] operate in may be different than those

[47:58] people those cities uh that have lower

[48:00] rates than us generally speaking.

[48:04] So when uh the consultant report that a

[48:08] lot of this rate increase schedule was

[48:10] based off of was produced, it's kind of

[48:12] operating under the assumption that we

[48:15] would like to replace pipes that are at

[48:18] risk of failure or approaching the risk

[48:20] of failure in an 80year time frame. So

[48:22] we would if we replaced a pipe yesterday

[48:26] and we went about replacing pipes on our

[48:28] schedule, you know, ideally we'd like to

[48:31] see our entire system be able to be

[48:33] replaced within 80 years. So that pipe

[48:36] that we just installed would be 80 years

[48:38] old by the time we come back and circle

[48:40] around to perhaps look at it again. And

[48:43] that's I I think is based a little bit

[48:46] on the health and lifetime of the pipes

[48:48] themselves. duct iron in a corrosive

[48:51] environment. Uh you can maybe expect

[48:54] that level of consistency that that

[48:56] length of consistency of performance.

[49:00] So we're moving essentially what we're

[49:02] doing with trying to to generate our

[49:04] financial capacity to replace pipes and

[49:06] such and things like that is to move

[49:08] this pace up and then decrease the

[49:11] amount of times it would take us to

[49:13] address our system overall.

[49:18] Uh this is just an illustration of

[49:20] inflation that I got uh that's provided

[49:22] from receipts from our water department.

[49:25] So just to kind of illustrate in

[49:28] financial terms, in quantifiable terms

[49:30] that this is something that our

[49:33] department has to deal with uh as they

[49:36] consider how they're going to provide

[49:37] pipes or water reliably through our

[49:39] pipes and storage facilities and tanks

[49:42] and stuff like that and treat it.

[49:47] So moving to um comparison cities and

[49:50] how rate increases are seen by other

[49:53] cities. Generally speaking, there's a

[49:55] sample of 16 other cities that we looked

[49:57] at with in collaboration with the water

[49:59] division.

[50:01] Most cities have a somewhat honest

[50:04] increase in their water rates rate or

[50:07] water rate increases year-over-year.

[50:10] So ours is on the higher end. So from

[50:12] the time that the the sample starts in

[50:15] 2015 to 2025, you know, on average, we

[50:18] increased our rates about 9% per year

[50:21] >> and and 10 or

[50:22] >> correct. Yeah,

[50:23] >> that's a lot to do with we're an older

[50:24] city, right? That our pipes are older

[50:27] than other cities.

[50:28] >> Our pipes are older than some other

[50:29] cities, too. I don't know if you would

[50:31] say

[50:32] >> I think it has to do with that we didn't

[50:33] do increases for so long. We delayed,

[50:37] >> right?

[50:38] >> Well, this is just 10 year. We have done

[50:40] increases the last 10 years.

[50:41] >> I know, but I'm saying before that we

[50:43] didn't got playing catchup.

[50:45] >> Yeah.

[50:46] So, I don't know. I mean, I'm

[50:48] working a little bit with Springville

[50:49] and ORM to get their pipes age as well.

[50:52] They I mean, they also have old pipes. I

[50:55] don't know. I can't give you an exact,

[50:56] you know, this percent and this that,

[50:58] you know, is this year versus that. And

[51:00] the farther you go back, the less

[51:02] accurate the records will be, honestly.

[51:05] you know, we don't, you know, a lot with

[51:07] a lot of the individual pipe segments,

[51:08] we can't point to it and say, well, that

[51:10] was 1958 versus 1957 or something like

[51:13] that. So, um, yes, we do have an old

[51:17] system. Other cities also are struggling

[51:19] with old systems as well, though.

[51:23] Yes. So, rate, this is all to say rate

[51:25] increases are typical of other cities. I

[51:27] have a spreadsheet that shows kind of

[51:29] more detailed data. most cities, you

[51:32] know, within a 10-year period raised,

[51:34] you know, every other year or every

[51:36] year. Some, you know, a quarter of them

[51:38] raised it almost every year.

[51:40] Um, so I interviewed uh three water

[51:43] directors from those other cities,

[51:44] Fringo, Orum, and Spanish Fork. Their

[51:48] take on it has been that gradual rate

[51:51] increases are better than the

[51:52] alternative which is waiting until this

[51:56] financial situation is on untenable and

[51:59] then having to do a massive one. Uh the

[52:02] consistency is appreciated over you know

[52:05] that is is prioritized in their mind I

[52:08] should say. Um, I will note also that

[52:10] Spanish Fort actually kind of switched

[52:14] their mindset on that more recently

[52:17] where they decided to do more consistent

[52:20] rate increases as opposed to to waiting.

[52:22] In that sample, I saw consistently

[52:26] that if cities went a longer time

[52:30] without expecting more of their rate

[52:32] payers,

[52:33] um, eventually it would catch up. you

[52:35] would see a you know 40% increase in a

[52:38] year you know 20% increase in a year uh

[52:42] it it it's just what I observed from

[52:45] looking at the data

[52:47] one other consideration to make that

[52:49] makes our water division different from

[52:51] other water divisions as we look at you

[52:54] know the decision to raise rates and to

[52:58] what extent we raise rates is that we're

[53:00] actually kind of expecting more in terms

[53:04] of the general fund fund subsidy from

[53:06] all enterprise funds overall. Uh this is

[53:10] water in particular but yeah so the blue

[53:13] line is Provo uh we're taking I think

[53:17] this year around a little over 12%

[53:20] from water whereas the other cities are

[53:22] significantly lower. So as we increase

[53:24] rates on the top of the bucket, if we

[53:27] continue to make the hole at the bottom

[53:29] of the bucket bigger, that the the

[53:31] benefit of the increase to the water

[53:33] division to pay for increased costs is

[53:36] going to be mitigated a little bit by

[53:38] that.

[53:41] So lastly, talking a little bit about

[53:44] how we go about getting the money to pay

[53:47] for the increases. There's basically two

[53:50] schools of thought as to how we pay for

[53:54] water infrastructure costs like the

[53:57] using a revenue bond or doing a pay as

[54:00] you go which is essentially putting

[54:02] money aside every year to fund bigger

[54:06] projects as we move in the future.

[54:10] The options that I just said are do not

[54:14] really affect who pays though and it

[54:17] doesn't really affect to a large extent

[54:19] how that money is collected because

[54:22] water utility revenues are going to

[54:25] support both.

[54:27] >> However, in one case it's just what

[54:28] we're doing with the money,

[54:30] >> right?

[54:30] >> Yeah. So, paying off the loan, it

[54:32] affects a rate where a rate doesn't

[54:34] we're not keeping this rate growing. And

[54:36] I thought it was interesting. I thought

[54:37] about I just thought about this. It it

[54:40] makes a difference on the um the money

[54:43] that we do in a bond could be something

[54:44] that doesn't get the hole in the bottom

[54:47] from

[54:49] the

[54:51] >> payment back to the transfer to the

[54:53] >> transfers

[54:53] >> general fund.

[54:55] >> Okay. Um yes. So

[54:58] I'll say oh this is just a

[55:01] representation of what those are.

[55:06] Yeah. So, when it comes to the bonding

[55:09] versus the

[55:12] um pay as you go, bonding is typically

[55:16] seen as something that's a financial

[55:18] benefit when the project is a has a very

[55:22] large price tag. It's going to cost a

[55:25] lot of money and the project is meant to

[55:27] last for a very short amount of time. So

[55:29] think about building a new plant,

[55:31] building a new building, something that

[55:33] you know is going to get finished in a

[55:35] specific amount of time and it's going

[55:38] to be a lot. So that would be something

[55:40] like you need to replace the engine in

[55:42] your car or you know something very

[55:45] significant. And the the benefit of that

[55:47] is like you say, you lock in a rate that

[55:49] you're paying because if you were to pay

[55:52] as you go on the big project,

[55:55] then inflation will drive the cost up.

[55:57] By the time you start to save the money,

[55:59] the price has gone up and you're always

[56:00] chasing the price tag. So that's when

[56:03] you might want to borrow money to do

[56:04] something like that.

[56:06] >> So 10.

[56:06] >> Yes, correct. Yeah. Sorry. Keep going.

[56:08] >> Is that even reasonable

[56:12] to replace all the pipes that need

[56:14] replaced? he's getting at is that's

[56:17] >> I mean

[56:19] >> like you couldn't get all the pipe and

[56:21] tear up the entire city,

[56:23] >> but can you do like a major you get the

[56:25] major ones and say we need to do 25% is

[56:29] been urgent and it helps at least get us

[56:31] back on schedule like I get like doesn't

[56:34] imply that we're like off schedule and

[56:36] there's all this back stuff that needs

[56:37] to be done. Oh, is that true or not? And

[56:40] so can you bond up front for the

[56:42] critical stuff and get us back on

[56:44] schedule? so to speak.

[56:46] >> Hybrid.

[56:47] >> Yeah. That regular maintenance does keep

[56:49] it up.

[56:52] >> Part of the concern is a lot of our

[56:54] brakes we're seeing are not on our

[56:56] oldest pipes. And so we could go through

[56:58] and replace all of our 100 to 80 year

[57:01] old pipes with with a large bond, but

[57:05] we're still going to have the ongoing

[57:06] breaks and replacement needed for some

[57:09] of the newer pipes that are failing.

[57:11] >> What do you attribute the newer pipes

[57:12] failing to? Um both both as as Tanner

[57:16] mentioned, a lot of the corrosion we're

[57:18] seeing is because of poor insulation. Um

[57:21] we we are using a plastic wrapping on

[57:23] our our piping, but a lot of the old

[57:26] pipes were not wrapped correctly. Uh a

[57:29] lot of the joints we're seeing are not

[57:31] wrapped correctly. And even on new uh

[57:34] plastic lines, all of the fittings are

[57:37] still ductal iron. uh they don't have uh

[57:41] plastic fittings for bends and joints.

[57:45] Uh so they they are also ductal and have

[57:48] to be properly installed or else you

[57:50] risk corroding.

[57:51] >> So has the improper installation issue

[57:54] been fixed?

[57:55] >> It has been fixed. Yes. Both by our

[57:58] crews and contractors.

[58:00] >> So then what is the answer to how much

[58:03] could you do in three years? Let's say

[58:05] we we could raise as much money as we

[58:06] needed to. How much could you actually

[58:08] get done?

[58:11] >> That's that's a really good question. I

[58:13] don't know. I know uh with our crews um

[58:16] we can do several culde-sacs. We're

[58:18] talking a couple miles pipe. With

[58:21] contractors coming in in one year, we

[58:23] can probably do 10 to 20 miles of pipe.

[58:26] Um, but

[58:29] to to take a large bond to to try and

[58:32] replace enough pipe uh to get all of the

[58:35] old pipe replaced, it would take

[58:38] multiple years. We're we're talking over

[58:40] 400 miles of of pipe nurses.

[58:42] >> Yeah.

[58:47] >> So, is is the I'm sorry. So, currently,

[58:49] are we just fixing things as they happen

[58:51] then? Is that what we're doing? As we

[58:53] have money, we also have projects um

[58:55] like this in this current budget. We

[58:57] have 930 east uh from the temple all the

[59:01] way up to Indian Hills Drive. That's a

[59:03] project that we have budgeted for and

[59:05] designed and and we'll be doing that

[59:07] project on top of regular maintenance

[59:10] and and fixes that.

[59:11] >> So, what made you pick that project?

[59:13] >> Uh it's it's old cast iron pipe. uh

[59:16] we've had multiple breaks and and leaks

[59:19] on that line and that's basically how

[59:21] we've chosen what sections to replace.

[59:24] Um areas we've had lots of breaks um

[59:28] areas that have old pipe uh cast iron

[59:31] especially or steel.

[59:36] » Yeah. So yeah, I'm not necessarily I'm

[59:39] just trying to illustrate the difference

[59:40] between the two. And so if there was a

[59:42] series of pipes that was deemed as

[59:45] collectively a big project perhaps that

[59:47] is something to consider. Uh if it is

[59:49] for ongoing and both would be cons would

[59:51] be supported by revenue increases over

[59:53] time. But if the if the need is

[59:56] generally seen as a more dispersed

[59:58] ongoing project pay as you go has

[1:00:00] certain benefits as well because you're

[1:00:02] not adding the interest cost in addition

[1:00:04] to the principal.

[1:00:07] So the last thing I want to touch on is

[1:00:09] just how this affects or could affect

[1:00:11] residents and just alert the council to

[1:00:14] general trends. So water pipes do have

[1:00:16] the capacity or when they break to

[1:00:18] negatively impact resident life. So this

[1:00:21] is claims that have been filed or sorry

[1:00:24] claims that have been paid out already

[1:00:26] uh to citizens who have filed a claim

[1:00:29] against the city for damages related to

[1:00:31] water. So you'll see an increase.

[1:00:34] Obviously 2025 had kind of that you

[1:00:38] might consider catastrophic failure on

[1:00:40] center street. Castrophic being like the

[1:00:42] techn it's like an overwhelming

[1:00:44] instantaneous failure of of a large part

[1:00:47] of the system. So um

[1:00:51] that also affects that as well but we've

[1:00:54] seen that increase over time.

[1:00:59] Uh also when in when looking at you know

[1:01:03] this going in and replacing versus

[1:01:06] waiting for kind of a more serious

[1:01:08] failure to present itself. Um there's

[1:01:11] there are some pretty reliable sources

[1:01:12] that indicate that some level of

[1:01:15] proactivity

[1:01:17] predictive replacement will result in a

[1:01:19] net uh cost savings over time.

[1:01:22] Satan.

[1:01:23] >> Yes.

[1:01:26] >> What did cause the center street

[1:01:27] failure?

[1:01:30] >> Uh that was a corrosion break. Um that's

[1:01:34] that that pipe was 1990 installation. Um

[1:01:38] so really not that old. Um, and it's

[1:01:42] still when it when it corroded through

[1:01:44] and started spraying, just everything

[1:01:47] set up right to where that came directly

[1:01:49] up through the soil and and you saw the

[1:01:52] geyser that was throwing rocks

[1:01:54] everywhere.

[1:01:54] >> So, we that's not one we could have

[1:01:57] anticipated. That's probably not one

[1:01:58] that we would have fixed,

[1:02:00] >> right? That and and that kind of goes

[1:02:01] back to the point. We we can, you know,

[1:02:04] we can get a lot of money and replace a

[1:02:05] lot of old pipes, but that may not solve

[1:02:08] the the issues

[1:02:09] >> because we can't run a camera through

[1:02:10] the pipes like we can through the sewer

[1:02:12] pipes, right? Because it contaminates

[1:02:13] the water. So, it's just kind of a guess

[1:02:16] of what pipes we would be replacing, but

[1:02:18] that doesn't necessarily mean that our

[1:02:20] problem will be solved, right?

[1:02:21] >> Correct. And and when we're out on a

[1:02:24] break or a leak, we are inspecting more

[1:02:27] of the pipeline than just where the

[1:02:29] immediate break is to try and get a a

[1:02:32] classification on the pipe so that we

[1:02:34] know if it is in good shape, if it was

[1:02:36] just one spot. Um if if something was

[1:02:39] damaged uh before it was installed

[1:02:42] during installation that caused that to

[1:02:44] corrode prematurely. Um there there's a

[1:02:46] number of things that we look at and try

[1:02:48] and determine if that pipe goes on the

[1:02:50] list as an immediate replacement or not.

[1:02:52] >> Are we replacing those like when it

[1:02:56] ruptures? Are we replacing a big section

[1:02:58] of the pipe or we just patching it and

[1:03:00] moving on?

[1:03:00] >> It it really depends on that assessment

[1:03:02] of how bad the shape the pipe is in. Uh

[1:03:05] if there's more corrosion along that

[1:03:07] pipeline that's exposed, then we'll

[1:03:09] replace the larger section of it. And

[1:03:11] then we're being proactive is as our

[1:03:13] streets are being tore up, we're

[1:03:14] replacing sewer line, storm line, storm

[1:03:18] water drainage, we're replacing the

[1:03:19] water line, all of it. Right.

[1:03:20] >> Absolutely.

[1:03:21] >> We did that on Third South University,

[1:03:23] Fifth West,

[1:03:24] >> all of those. And and right now, our

[1:03:27] engineering group is working on road

[1:03:29] rehab throughout the city. We're getting

[1:03:31] in ahead of their road work and

[1:03:33] replacing known issues as we have money

[1:03:36] to get in ahead of the road being

[1:03:38] repaired so that the those underground

[1:03:41] uh utilities are already replaced and we

[1:03:44] hope that we don't have to go in after

[1:03:46] the road's been uh replaced.

[1:03:48] [clears throat]

[1:03:48] >> That's if we have money. So, this would

[1:03:51] be a good thing for us to get ahead of

[1:03:53] some of that if we wanted for some of

[1:03:54] that.

[1:03:56] >> Do the road rehab. It it could be

[1:04:00] >> councelor Christensen.

[1:04:03] >> So my question is around just cap just

[1:04:05] cash flow analysis between the two

[1:04:06] options. I assume you or have you done

[1:04:09] cash flow analysis bonding versus rates

[1:04:12] taking into account net present value

[1:04:14] and this you know proactive some sort of

[1:04:17] factor for proactive changes versus

[1:04:20] reactive. I remember last year was like

[1:04:22] 2 to one was twice as expensive if it's

[1:04:25] reactive or

[1:04:25] >> 1.5.

[1:04:27] >> Yes. Yeah. I think the numbers that I

[1:04:28] got from the division were 160% from

[1:04:31] Bowden Collins. That was their estimate.

[1:04:32] And then generally speaking,

[1:04:33] >> so have you done any analysis that way

[1:04:35] to see if there's a big difference

[1:04:37] between the two approaches?

[1:04:39] >> The answer is no. The reason is because

[1:04:41] I'm waiting to kind of compare between

[1:04:43] the cities but and to see if there's a

[1:04:46] difference there when in terms of that.

[1:04:48] But now I'm working with the division to

[1:04:50] get kind of the more detailed project

[1:04:51] list and what the exact cost would be.

[1:04:54] So if there's appetite with the council,

[1:04:56] I can do analysis that looks at all of

[1:04:58] the cost of the projects, their

[1:05:00] priorities, and then what that would be

[1:05:01] in either scenario. So the answer is no,

[1:05:03] I don't. But I can

[1:05:05] >> that makes sense and I certainly would

[1:05:07] be interested um because that would be a

[1:05:10] big factor of kind of decision.

[1:05:12] >> Are you done with your presentation,

[1:05:14] Canada?

[1:05:14] >> Yeah, this is my only approach is to

[1:05:16] have them come back. We have a lot to

[1:05:17] talk about still.

[1:05:18] >> Yep.

[1:05:19] >> Food is here. So, let's grab it. Pizza

[1:05:21] delivered hot. Let's just do this. This

[1:05:23] might be cold now, but grab it now and

[1:05:25] then but just bring it back to your

[1:05:26] seats and let's keep this discussion

[1:05:28] going. So, we have a lot of time for

[1:05:29] this discussion and there's still a lot

[1:05:30] and I I know Jeff Whitlock is next once

[1:05:32] we get seated.

[1:05:33] >> Good. Thank you.

[1:05:38] » Recording stopped. wrote

[1:05:44] the same.

[1:05:58] » I don't even like it. That's why I

[1:05:59] brought it.

[1:06:03] » [clears throat]

[1:06:11] » Hey, come get food, guys.

[1:06:29] They pass session

[1:06:50] already

[1:06:54] that deals.

[1:06:58] beef.

[1:07:01] Secret.

[1:07:26] » Yeah. Sorry.

[1:07:36] » Yes.

[1:07:46] » Okay.

[1:07:57] Maybe I share button

[1:08:10] very often.

[1:08:13] Looking

[1:08:23] So

[1:08:35] welcome

[1:08:50] you guys.

[1:08:58] When you're ready to start, let me know

[1:08:59] so I can start the recording again.

[1:09:00] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:09:12] Sure.

[1:09:33] I just

[1:09:52] probably restaurant.

[1:09:55] Don't know for sure.

[1:10:12] Plenty of pizza back there, guys.

[1:10:46] All right, we'll start again, Kevin.

[1:10:48] Recording in progress.

[1:10:53] » All right. So, Tanner, we will just take

[1:10:57] questions now. We're starting with

[1:10:59] councelor Whitlock.

[1:11:02] >> Amazing.

[1:11:04] So, I think my questions are probably a

[1:11:06] little bit more for public works if

[1:11:08] that's okay. And then you can chime in

[1:11:10] if

[1:11:13] thought experiment. If we just assumed

[1:11:15] that we could wave wave a magic wand and

[1:11:18] all the pipes in the city right now are

[1:11:20] brand new,

[1:11:22] do our rates currently cover the

[1:11:25] maintenance of our systems.

[1:11:32] » Yes.

[1:11:33] >> Okay.

[1:11:35] >> So, the rate increase really is to cover

[1:11:36] a backlog. Is it 100% for the backlog or

[1:11:40] is it 30% for the backlog? Like what

[1:11:42] percent is going to the backlog? Do you

[1:11:43] get what I'm saying?

[1:11:44] >> So, it's it's to cover replacements. And

[1:11:47] I think one of the things I wanted to

[1:11:48] mention about the the bonding discussion

[1:11:50] is right now the approach that we're

[1:11:51] taking is a we had a 10-year plan to get

[1:11:56] into to get to the 80 80 liter

[1:11:59] replacement site. So, we're assume we

[1:12:01] have been assuming that we're going to

[1:12:03] be behind for those 10 years. And so um

[1:12:06] if we were to bond instead or bond in

[1:12:09] addition to catch up and get into the

[1:12:11] 80% or the 80year immediately

[1:12:15] I think we're talking larger rate

[1:12:16] increases because I don't think it's any

[1:12:19] or discussion at this point it's

[1:12:22] we bond well if if you're wanting to get

[1:12:24] to the 80 years instead of I don't think

[1:12:27] we're at a level we can stay at the 80%

[1:12:30] or the 80%. So if we [clears throat]

[1:12:33] So when you say get to the 80, you mean

[1:12:35] basically there's no pipes in our city

[1:12:36] that are over 80 years old. Is that what

[1:12:38] you mean when you say get to the 80

[1:12:39] years?

[1:12:39] >> I'm talking about getting to a level

[1:12:41] where we can do 5 was it 5.5 miles per

[1:12:44] year.

[1:12:45] >> Got it. But we still have at that point

[1:12:47] we're still going to have pipes that are

[1:12:48] older than 80 years. Correct.

[1:12:51] >> Yes. That's what I'm saying. Right now

[1:12:52] we have enough to maintain the system

[1:12:54] but to to operate the system

[1:12:57] I guess depends on your definition of

[1:12:59] maintain

[1:13:02] okay let's let me rephrase my question

[1:13:03] now okay so let's imagine we wave a

[1:13:05] magic wand and all all pipes in the city

[1:13:07] are 80 years or less

[1:13:10] so are we able to then maintain we're

[1:13:12] not still replacing at an 80year rate

[1:13:16] that right

[1:13:17] >> under current rates

[1:13:22] Sorry, I didn't miss this the second

[1:13:23] part.

[1:13:25] >> But what I'm what I'm saying is right

[1:13:26] now, okay, let me back up. What how many

[1:13:28] miles per year are we replacing right

[1:13:31] now?

[1:13:34] >> Very few.

[1:13:34] >> Yeah.

[1:13:35] >> So, we're not as basis, right?

[1:13:40] >> So, so basically, we're just doing a

[1:13:41] pure firefighting. When something

[1:13:43] breaks, we fix it. We're doing almost no

[1:13:44] proactive. No, we we are doing a little

[1:13:47] like you mentioned n

[1:13:50] and we did u imperial this year as well

[1:13:53] tropical.

[1:13:54] >> So the rate in the proposed rate

[1:13:57] increase schedule is to get us to the

[1:14:00] how many five miles per year.

[1:14:02] >> Yeah.

[1:14:02] >> To the five miles per year proactive

[1:14:04] replacement rate. And that's just the

[1:14:07] goal is not touching any of our backlog

[1:14:11] or any of our backlog beyond what we

[1:14:13] would prioritize at that 5 miles per

[1:14:15] year rate. Do you get what I'm saying?

[1:14:16] Yeah. So as as we get to the 80 level,

[1:14:19] we're we're able to do some of the

[1:14:21] replacement and some of it is older than

[1:14:23] 80 years. Some of it's not. So the the

[1:14:26] 80 year is just kind of a philosophical,

[1:14:29] you know, this is the this is the level

[1:14:31] we should be at to be healthy and

[1:14:33] sustain. It's not necessarily

[1:14:35] identifying all the pipes that are over

[1:14:37] the 80 and and saying we're going to hit

[1:14:39] all these between now and then or once

[1:14:42] we you know 10 years from now we'll be

[1:14:43] able to get all those. It's just a

[1:14:46] philosophical approach.

[1:14:48] >> I understand I understand that. What I'm

[1:14:50] still just trying to get to the the

[1:14:52] bottom on is we there's a proposed

[1:14:54] rating increase schedule. Does that get

[1:14:57] us to that rate? Is that the is that the

[1:14:59] goal effectively? It gets to where we're

[1:15:01] raising enough money to replace miles

[1:15:03] per year. That is the goal of the Okay,

[1:15:06] that's what I wanted to understand.

[1:15:09] But does that then like do do we then

[1:15:11] have enough clarity to understand our

[1:15:14] and this we talked about this on the

[1:15:15] phone a little bit like of our risk

[1:15:16] profile of the backlog of our pipes to

[1:15:19] understand even at that rate are we

[1:15:22] going to be um having a a uh high-risisk

[1:15:27] backlog that is not acceptable.

[1:15:30] >> Yeah. So that's I as was mentioned

[1:15:32] that's the difficult part about water

[1:15:33] pipe is

[1:15:34] >> we can't inspect it unless we

[1:15:37] >> um uncover it.

[1:15:39] >> Um and a lot of times we we don't want

[1:15:41] to uncover it because that then yeah

[1:15:45] increase the risk. Um a lot of like in

[1:15:49] tree we wouldn't have put on our list of

[1:15:51] needing to uncover or needing to inspect

[1:15:53] because they have a low risk profile

[1:15:55] based on age alone. Um and so I think

[1:16:00] I [clears throat] think the 10-year plan

[1:16:02] would allow us to

[1:16:06] feel more comfortable where we are, but

[1:16:07] it's not going to eliminate

[1:16:10] um us to 80 years. It's it's getting us

[1:16:13] to the point where we can we're at the

[1:16:14] 80 replacement value.

[1:16:17] >> So um

[1:16:26] so yeah, it's just it's difficult to

[1:16:28] know the risk. Yeah,

[1:16:30] >> we do our best and I think, you know,

[1:16:31] we'll have we'll feel a lot more

[1:16:33] comfortable with the the funding

[1:16:36] um in order to

[1:16:38] um address issues as they as they come

[1:16:40] up. You know, I think right now we're

[1:16:42] kind of we're doing some planning for

[1:16:44] replacements, but then also having to

[1:16:45] divert money toward the emergency ones

[1:16:48] that are coming up um and rising that we

[1:16:52] didn't think about or didn't plan our

[1:16:54] prior events. When we spoke last time,

[1:16:56] you mentioned how on on our Zoom call,

[1:16:59] uh the consultant mentioned that there

[1:17:01] are new technologies or new approaches

[1:17:03] to get a better understanding of the

[1:17:04] risk profile of our backlog.

[1:17:06] >> We did. Yeah.

[1:17:08] >> Is that something that we've looked at

[1:17:09] seriously or done any kind of formal

[1:17:12] analysis on?

[1:17:13] >> Not yet, but we're we will we're

[1:17:16] definitely think that will be we

[1:17:17] hopefully understand the system. We, you

[1:17:20] know, as as we've done to date, we

[1:17:24] um a lot of it's just had been reactive.

[1:17:28] But if there are ways to to be more

[1:17:29] proactive, we're interested in that.

[1:17:31] >> Sure.

[1:17:32] >> Does that 1.6

[1:17:34] x cost assumption include claims or is

[1:17:37] it does it exclude claims?

[1:17:41] >> I don't think it includes claims, but

[1:17:43] I'm not sure.

[1:17:44] >> Yeah.

[1:17:46] >> What do you mean by claims? Well, we saw

[1:17:48] on the chart that liability claims have

[1:17:50] been going up pretty dramatically.

[1:17:51] >> I think it's just digging up the pipe,

[1:17:53] fixing it.

[1:17:54] >> That's 1.6 is just

[1:17:57] >> not the claims. So, so claims is costs

[1:17:59] on top of that. [clears throat]

[1:18:02] » 2.6.

[1:18:04] It's 160% more.

[1:18:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Got it.

[1:18:09] >> 2.6. 160% month for that.

[1:18:14] >> Yeah.

[1:18:15] >> So, do most cities not have like a plan

[1:18:19] over 10 years of what they're going to

[1:18:20] replace and what they're doing for their

[1:18:22] pipe maintenance? It's just

[1:18:25] kind of as things happen,

[1:18:29] >> you know, speed. Yeah. So, [laughter] so

[1:18:33] >> that seems to be our plan. So, so we

[1:18:35] have a plan that lays out the top 20% of

[1:18:39] pipe that we ought to be replacing and

[1:18:41] then every 3 to 5 years we look at

[1:18:44] overlays we're doing, sewer projects,

[1:18:46] other projects and then we

[1:18:49] >> put that in. So we are generally out

[1:18:51] about 5 to 6 years of pipes we would

[1:18:54] replace and that then we really lock it

[1:18:57] in next 3 years as the other

[1:19:00] improvements [clears throat] as we know

[1:19:01] developers are coming things get really

[1:19:04] solid. If you go out too far and you

[1:19:06] have a developer come in replace the

[1:19:08] pipes and you you end up losing some

[1:19:11] opportunity values if you lock out well

[1:19:14] beyond that. So there's a threeyear kind

[1:19:16] of hard window. Then there's a six-year

[1:19:20] softer and then we have 20 years of any

[1:19:23] of these pipes we would put to the top

[1:19:26] of the list if they were possible to get

[1:19:27] there. Um and and maybe just to look at

[1:19:31] this year's budget. So this 6% increase

[1:19:34] represents I think 1 um $1.1 million.

[1:19:39] And so we have a capital project. Last

[1:19:41] year we took the full 3% 3.3%

[1:19:45] put that in capital replacement. this year's

[1:19:49] 6% would go with that 3% last year plus

[1:19:52] some additional funds and so we have a

[1:19:55] that would only go to new pipe

[1:19:58] replacement. So all the operation

[1:20:00] everything else that's going on any

[1:20:03] increase you give us over this next 10

[1:20:05] years would only be going for this

[1:20:09] capital replacement. So the system's

[1:20:12] running. We're going to keep doing the

[1:20:14] repairs. We're going to keep doing the

[1:20:15] claims. We're going to keep doing

[1:20:16] everything we're doing, but any increase

[1:20:19] you give us is going to go to the the

[1:20:21] pipes that are being replaced. I don't

[1:20:24] know if that helped.

[1:20:25] >> That does help. Thank you,

[1:20:26] >> Jordan. Can I ask a follow up on that?

[1:20:28] So, what what [clears throat] percentage

[1:20:30] of the times when we go replace a pipe

[1:20:32] that has not broke, is it purely on a

[1:20:35] risk based assessment versus what you

[1:20:37] just articulated, which is it's close to

[1:20:40] some other project that's happening? So

[1:20:42] last year when we did Imperial, there

[1:20:44] was a culde-sac that was experiencing a

[1:20:48] lot of breaks and it was right in an

[1:20:49] area where we have very high slide

[1:20:52] potential. In fact, the ground's

[1:20:54] constantly moving. So because we're

[1:20:56] injecting water into the slide area,

[1:20:59] that raised to the top of the list and

[1:21:01] we needed to have thumbs and need to do

[1:21:03] this and it was a critical piece. And so

[1:21:07] we're watching things not just of what

[1:21:10] is the consequence of this type breaking

[1:21:14] and how as well as how many times has it

[1:21:16] broken. And so right now in our GIS

[1:21:19] we're keeping track of all that

[1:21:20] information and trying to keep make sure

[1:21:23] we stay not too far above the national

[1:21:26] average.

[1:21:30] » Can I can I just address you?

[1:21:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. Also, I'll just uh say in

[1:21:34] addition to what board has said about

[1:21:36] us, other cities I've seen have a

[1:21:38] similar apparatus where it's a GIS map

[1:21:40] that extends about 10 years into the

[1:21:42] future mapping out projects based on

[1:21:43] risk. And that risk isn't a function of

[1:21:46] age alone. It's usually, you know, this

[1:21:49] section of pipe has five saddles on it,

[1:21:51] which is basically saddles giant pipe

[1:21:52] bandit. So, you you're seeing problems

[1:21:55] in a place and they'll try to quantify

[1:21:57] that risk and move it up in priorities

[1:21:59] as funds become available.

[1:22:04] Okay. So, an interesting thing I

[1:22:05] noticed, Gordon, when you said 20%, you

[1:22:08] know, you need to fix and that that's

[1:22:11] like your

[1:22:13] Yeah. So, we we we have I don't want to

[1:22:17] say 20% of our pipe. We know they're

[1:22:21] probably about that actually. Anyway, we

[1:22:23] know [laughter]

[1:22:24] of pipe that we are very anxious to fix

[1:22:27] if if all of a sudden we had that magic

[1:22:29] bomb. Well, that would be the bond item,

[1:22:31] right? I'm sorry.

[1:22:33] >> thing that could be that 20% that you

[1:22:35] know needs to be fixed

[1:22:36] >> and we could go in and

[1:22:39] I think that's a and we haven't done any

[1:22:41] analysis but I think that would be a

[1:22:42] really big dollar amount and

[1:22:46] it'd be a challenge to get that done

[1:22:48] like in a two or three year period

[1:22:49] because you're carrying up a ton of the

[1:22:51] city a lot of impact and and we're

[1:22:54] trying to keep up with our sewer our

[1:22:56] storm water and our road repair and all

[1:22:58] of a sudden each of those are falling

[1:23:00] behind and we're not coordinating and so

[1:23:02] People are asking why are we jumping

[1:23:04] ahead [clears throat] now these guys are

[1:23:05] coming and doing this and so I'm not so I'm not saying

[1:23:11] I'm a little more supportive of getting

[1:23:13] to

[1:23:15] less supportive of bond and more

[1:23:17] managing this through a um a thoughtful

[1:23:21] process management that and I could go

[1:23:24] in for a lot of reasons why I feel that

[1:23:26] way but um I've seen cities do this I

[1:23:28] know the city did this with the TUF we

[1:23:31] would bar [clears throat] year after

[1:23:32] every 3 or 4 years and it was just not

[1:23:35] keeping up with the problem. And so I

[1:23:38] think we're in a place the last [sighs]

[1:23:42] there was a time when we weren't really

[1:23:44] doing rate increases. We weren't doing

[1:23:46] pipe repairs. We went through a really

[1:23:48] big expansion of getting a lot of great

[1:23:51] water projects for new development out

[1:23:52] there. All those things led to a point

[1:23:55] where we are today. And so right now any

[1:23:59] money we get is focused right into just

[1:24:03] replacement. So as we look at anything

[1:24:05] that any savings, anything that goes in

[1:24:07] goes immediately to our pipe repair.

[1:24:09] That's our philosophy at this point.

[1:24:11] >> Okay. Thanks Gordon. Any other

[1:24:14] questions? Travis

[1:24:16] >> T. Um

[1:24:18] what was the slide that showed that we

[1:24:20] have a higher amount going to the

[1:24:23] general fund than other cities? What was

[1:24:24] that saying?

[1:24:27] I think that

[1:24:29] >> Whoops.

[1:24:31] >> Yeah. So, I looked through the budgets

[1:24:32] of the other cities that I compared to

[1:24:34] here year-over-year and I just looked at

[1:24:38] how much they're doing in transfers out

[1:24:39] from their enterprise funds to the

[1:24:41] general fund specifically and I

[1:24:43] confirmed with, you know, I just asked

[1:24:45] our division as well and our tenant

[1:24:47] budget and our historical budgets as

[1:24:49] well. So essentially, we're going to

[1:24:51] take revenues that we get from the power

[1:24:53] division and the water division and the

[1:24:56] wastewater division and we're going to

[1:24:57] shift them over into the general fund to

[1:24:59] make a balanced general fund

[1:25:01] >> to use for

[1:25:03] administrative functions of the cities

[1:25:05] that don't generate revenue on their

[1:25:07] own.

[1:25:07] >> So we're taking money that's water

[1:25:09] revenue and we're using it for other

[1:25:11] purposes outside of the water.

[1:25:13] >> That's correct. So when we do this

[1:25:15] additional 5% increase, a chunk of

[1:25:18] that's not even going to go towards

[1:25:19] water.

[1:25:20] >> Well, if you kept the rate as it is and

[1:25:22] you increase if you kept the amount

[1:25:24] flowing out of the division the same and

[1:25:27] then you increase the rate, they would

[1:25:29] keep

[1:25:29] >> Yeah. I guess I just don't like the idea

[1:25:31] that we've been raising water rates

[1:25:32] thinking that it's going towards helping

[1:25:34] us with water, but it's not.

[1:25:37] >> That's that [clears throat] just really

[1:25:39] bothers me.

[1:25:40] >> Tanner, that that's set by code,

[1:25:42] correct?

[1:25:43] Yes, that is. Yes,

[1:25:45] >> the transfer rate is set.

[1:25:46] >> Yeah. So, councelor Hovind. Um,

[1:25:49] >> yeah, help me feel better about this.

[1:25:50] >> I get what I get what you're saying and

[1:25:52] I don't know if this will make you feel

[1:25:53] better, but let [clears throat] me back

[1:25:55] up and talk about the philosophical uh

[1:25:58] thing behind general fund transfers. So,

[1:26:01] really,

[1:26:02] >> I mean, I like the power. No, I'm just

[1:26:03] kidding.

[1:26:04] >> Right. Well, we usually power is what is the one that we look at when we

[1:26:08] talk about it because

[1:26:09] >> not all cities have power utilities,

[1:26:11] right? A lot of cities have private

[1:26:13] utilities. Private utilities are

[1:26:15] shareholder utilities where some of the

[1:26:18] rate that every rateayer pays ends up

[1:26:20] going back into the pocket of the

[1:26:21] investors. Right? So the idea nationwide

[1:26:25] behind general fund transfers is that

[1:26:27] the citizens are the investors. And so

[1:26:31] you take a portion of the proceeds of

[1:26:33] the enterprise funds, whether it's

[1:26:35] whatever utility it is, all the

[1:26:37] utilities that charge rates, you take a

[1:26:39] portion of what's being paid by the rate

[1:26:40] payers, and you put it back into the

[1:26:43] general fund that benefits all rate

[1:26:46] payers. And it's in in essence a way of

[1:26:49] actually

[1:26:51] it's more important in you know again

[1:26:54] I'm not necessarily advocating for

[1:26:55] others to do that better than I but for

[1:26:57] those who have been in these discussions

[1:26:59] before it's more important in Provo than

[1:27:01] it is in other cities because of the

[1:27:03] makeup of our um rateayer base versus

[1:27:07] our property tax base. So, it's actually

[1:27:09] a way to have rate payers who are not

[1:27:13] property taxpayers contribute to the

[1:27:15] overall benefit of the citizens through

[1:27:17] the general fund.

[1:27:18] >> And is that why we're higher than

[1:27:19] probably other cities because of that

[1:27:21] makeup?

[1:27:21] >> That would be my guess and what I've

[1:27:22] heard before in discussions.

[1:27:24] >> Okay.

[1:27:26] >> You walked me off the ledge. [laughter]

[1:27:28] >> The numbers I've spoken to testify, they

[1:27:31] prefer the silver.

[1:27:33] >> Yeah, I get what you're saying for that

[1:27:34] same reason. Thanks for the context. I

[1:27:36] appreciate it.

[1:27:38] And so just to like but just the math of

[1:27:40] this make sure I'm understanding

[1:27:42] correctly Dr. Hovind's point is you take

[1:27:45] 06 times.12 or whatever.122 or whatever

[1:27:49] that is just above 12%.

[1:27:50] >> Yeah sure

[1:27:51] >> and that's so it's like a little it's

[1:27:53] like 0.7% of that rate increase goes to

[1:27:56] the general fund. Is that how you think

[1:27:57] about it?

[1:27:58] >> You could think about it that way.

[1:27:59] Correct. Yeah. And to Brian's point this

[1:28:01] is not without cost but it is higher

[1:28:03] than our than other people. Councelor

[1:28:06] Whipple.

[1:28:07] >> Yeah. So to just to address the idea of

[1:28:11] maybe doing a massive replacement

[1:28:13] project all at once, so when we are

[1:28:14] digging up

[1:28:16] to replace water, are we also checking

[1:28:19] sewer and other things as we've got the

[1:28:20] roads dug up? Like I'm just wondering if

[1:28:23] by doing that we would have cost in

[1:28:26] other departments beyond just the

[1:28:28] replacement of the water.

[1:28:29] >> I think that's what he said before.

[1:28:31] >> Yeah. I just wanted to be be sure I

[1:28:33] fully understood that. So, so that

[1:28:35] that's correct. Over on Freedom, when we

[1:28:37] replaced the water line, we replaced the uh storm brain as well. Storm brain

[1:28:42] and sewer are easier to determine if

[1:28:44] there's a problem because they can

[1:28:45] literally TDM. So, we are

[1:28:48] keeping track of those much more

[1:28:50] carefully than we can track all very

[1:28:53] carefully. We're able to manage it

[1:28:55] better with sewer waters than we

[1:28:57] [clears throat] are with um sewer and

[1:28:59] swing.

[1:29:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. Because it I don't know. It

[1:29:02] just seems to me that if we were to do

[1:29:05] bonding or something, it would make more

[1:29:06] sense for something like the water tanks

[1:29:08] or something than it would be the the

[1:29:10] pipe replacement. Does that sound about

[1:29:12] right?

[1:29:13] >> Yeah.

[1:29:13] >> Okay. There's nodding. So,

[1:29:16] we we went through the whole water thing

[1:29:19] last year, which was fun for everyone.

[1:29:22] Um but my understanding when when we

[1:29:26] voted on that was that we were

[1:29:28] acknowledging the schedule of increases

[1:29:30] over the next 8 to 10 years

[1:29:32] >> and that what we are doing now is to

[1:29:36] confirm that the rate that we

[1:29:38] anticipated is still warranted and

[1:29:40] appropriate that there haven't been big

[1:29:43] changes in conditions with our water

[1:29:45] system that would say that we need to up

[1:29:47] it dramatically or big changes in the

[1:29:50] cost of things like maybe inflation

[1:29:52] would have gone down and the price of

[1:29:54] pipe dra drastically dropped and then we

[1:29:57] could have done a lower rate. But had

[1:30:00] there been any large changes either in

[1:30:05] the cost or our knowledge of the system

[1:30:07] that would indicate that we need to

[1:30:09] deviate from the plan that we approved

[1:30:11] last year?

[1:30:14] Well, some of us approved it.

[1:30:18] Well, it was approved by a vote of the

[1:30:20] council. Yeah, but you you'd get none of

[1:30:22] us are like but my question remains like

[1:30:26] is that 6% that was anticipated last

[1:30:29] year still appropriate with the

[1:30:30] conditions that we have now

[1:30:33] right

[1:30:34] >> yeah none of us like I think it's a

[1:30:36] danger like we say we can't ever bound

[1:30:38] another council like there's going to be

[1:30:39] other people

[1:30:40] >> exactly which is why we're asking is

[1:30:42] that 6% appropriate now

[1:30:44] >> who are you asking

[1:30:45] >> well I believe it would go to them but I

[1:30:47] think that's that's the whole point of

[1:30:48] whether or not we would choose to adopt

[1:30:51] that rate. Um,

[1:30:53] >> so

[1:30:56] my friends in public works

[1:30:59] >> well parks to answer. [laughter]

[1:31:03] >> Um, so that that was a large part of the

[1:31:06] discussion. What is going to be the

[1:31:08] meaningful

[1:31:10] you looked at the issues that were went

[1:31:12] into the calculation of what the rate

[1:31:15] should be over the next 10 years to get

[1:31:17] into that percentage. It was inflation.

[1:31:19] and it looked at the cost of

[1:31:20] construction, materials, all those

[1:31:22] items. I don't believe we have gone back

[1:31:27] and and

[1:31:30] verified that those assumptions were

[1:31:32] right or wrong. Those are something that

[1:31:34] we we could possibly spend a little time

[1:31:36] doing that. I don't know did it um

[1:31:39] close up and see what but again one year

[1:31:42] doesn't make

[1:31:44] we we we haven't done that I don't

[1:31:45] believe unless somebody's looking at you

[1:31:47] nodding or I think the numbers we our

[1:31:52] one year olds we have not like

[1:31:53] reallocate done that

[1:31:56] >> but you haven't seen dramatic changes in

[1:31:57] the cost of your materials in this last

[1:31:59] year since

[1:32:00] >> so we've seen some ups and downs

[1:32:02] materials have actually

[1:32:04] gone a lot better gas prices have gotten

[1:32:07] a lot worse and so you see things that

[1:32:10] are petroleum based products like I not

[1:32:13] other it just so it's we have to do a

[1:32:17] little bit of analysis because there's

[1:32:19] up and down everything on that

[1:32:22] I think some of the construction costs

[1:32:23] have also gone down too so we we saw

[1:32:26] some projects come in bit better last

[1:32:28] year than they were the previous year by

[1:32:30] a lot so

[1:32:31] >> yeah

[1:32:33] that answer

[1:32:34] >> well and that for me is the information

[1:32:37] that I would need to know to know if

[1:32:39] this is the appropriate amount, but it

[1:32:41] sounds like you haven't been asked

[1:32:44] before now to provide that information.

[1:32:49] » Um, remember

[1:32:52] we haven't done that.

[1:32:53] >> Okay.

[1:32:55] We didn't do that.

[1:32:56] >> Yeah.

[1:32:57] Thank you. I that's I mean I think that

[1:33:02] just narrows it down to a really simple

[1:33:04] question that is answerable.

[1:33:08] » All right. Any other questions or

[1:33:10] comments or

[1:33:12] council Garrett?

[1:33:13] >> Um Tanner, can you go back um

[1:33:17] to the slide that shows the regular rate

[1:33:20] increases are normal? Well, this is our

[1:33:22] note. Yeah, that that so um

[1:33:28] because an earlier slide that it had the

[1:33:31] 10year history of Provo and it was more

[1:33:34] like 6%.

[1:33:36] You have to go back like 13 slides.

[1:33:40] >> Um

[1:33:40] >> yes,

[1:33:42] >> right there. Right there. So, so I'm

[1:33:45] just wondering if I'm missing something.

[1:33:47] >> Well, the rates above after 2026 go up

[1:33:51] more much more. And then you have that

[1:33:53] 20 and 11.

[1:33:56] >> But what's the other side indicating

[1:33:58] that our history has been an average of

[1:33:59] 9% per year?

[1:34:01] >> If you take the beginning the amount

[1:34:03] that someone paid at the beginning of

[1:34:04] the sample compared to what they pay

[1:34:06] now, it's an average yearly

[1:34:08] >> okay increase of 9%. So some were

[1:34:10] higher, some were lower.

[1:34:13] things that help

[1:34:15] >> and that 20% right was the increase that

[1:34:18] they did because they didn't do any

[1:34:19] previous increases for like a decade or

[1:34:22] so.

[1:34:22] >> Yeah, it was like a long time.

[1:34:25] >> Can that a majority of that uh in 2016

[1:34:28] was uh related to a bond that we

[1:34:31] >> oh

[1:34:31] >> we did in 2015 for two other tanks known

[1:34:34] as Lake Canyon and one

[1:34:36] >> Oh, that shouldn't be included in the

[1:34:37] rate increase then. Well, if a bond

[1:34:39] causes the rate to increase, then it

[1:34:41] should be.

[1:34:42] >> But they're separate things.

[1:34:44] >> The rate increase.

[1:34:45] >> I know, but it's still a separate like

[1:34:47] it can be a different line if it's

[1:34:48] percentage of the rate increase. Like we

[1:34:51] didn't, you know,

[1:34:54] >> when the bond goes away, it goes away.

[1:34:56] It doesn't stay on the rate till 2026.

[1:35:00] >> Well, it does if you increase the rate

[1:35:02] in order to cover it.

[1:35:03] >> How long does it

[1:35:04] >> That's not how bonds are. Bonds have to

[1:35:05] come down after they're paid.

[1:35:08] But not the rates.

[1:35:09] >> Is it funny or wrong? So it'll be either

[1:35:11] >> the rate is what's

[1:35:15] keep in mind that I guess this is not

[1:35:18] cumulative. This is it went up 20% then

[1:35:20] it stayed there and then they went up

[1:35:22] another 11%.

[1:35:23] >> And then now that stays there and so

[1:35:25] >> so our bonds in the past have not been

[1:35:27] something that came off. They stayed in

[1:35:29] the rate. We used we said we're doing a

[1:35:32] bond and we put the rate up say 20%. And

[1:35:35] we kept up there indefinitely even after

[1:35:36] the bond was paid.

[1:35:38] >> So um the 2015 bond is 20 years. So it's

[1:35:40] not paid off yet. So

[1:35:42] >> okay. So that would still so when it's

[1:35:44] paid off will it come off of our rate

[1:35:46] >> in 2035 will it go down 20%. That's what

[1:35:49] I think. depending on what the approach

[1:35:51] you want to take with the sustainability

[1:35:52] of the of the

[1:35:54] >> Well, I'm just asking that of an

[1:35:55] accounting question like I thought bonds

[1:35:58] came off period after they were

[1:36:00] >> Well, that's like toll roads, right?

[1:36:02] Toll roads pay for themselves and it's

[1:36:04] hard to actually stop that revenue from

[1:36:06] coming in. So, I that seems like that

[1:36:07] would be a decision of the council.

[1:36:09] >> Yeah. revenue bonds or the utility

[1:36:11] revenue bonds are I think are different

[1:36:13] than the you know general obligation

[1:36:14] bonds where it's tied to a specific

[1:36:17] percent of the uh property tax rate that

[1:36:19] goes away in this case it would be a

[1:36:22] council decision

[1:36:24] >> I have no idea fall off

[1:36:28] >> wow

[1:36:29] >> and at that point they'll probably say

[1:36:31] I'm not going to raise rates this year

[1:36:34] and just keep it

[1:36:36] >> or they'll bond again for something else

[1:36:38] and just keep

[1:36:39] That's usually how then

[1:36:40] >> I'll just forget that it ever happened

[1:36:42] there. That's what will happen.

[1:36:45] >> Yeah.

[1:36:48] I'll [laughter] put it in my

[1:36:49] calendar

[1:36:52] and he will admit that that comes up.

[1:36:55] [laughter]

[1:36:55] >> I mean, I might still be on council that

[1:36:59] >> everybody

[1:37:02] [laughter]

[1:37:03] tanner. Now, if you could go to the next

[1:37:05] slide. Uh, I mean, part of me wishes

[1:37:07] that it could be 5%, to be more in line

[1:37:12] with what neighboring cities are doing.

[1:37:14] And if you go back, it just so happens

[1:37:16] that minutes that we approved today from

[1:37:18] a year ago included the recommendation

[1:37:21] from the um,

[1:37:25] uh, that who that was outsourced to, and

[1:37:26] he recommended 5% per year. That's on

[1:37:29] page 17 of our notes. But maybe um some

[1:37:35] feel 5%'s not enough.

[1:37:37] >> Yeah. When if the council's a wish that

[1:37:40] I come back, we can I can work with the

[1:37:42] division to to look at the the adequacy

[1:37:45] and those changes and just work with

[1:37:47] them to make sure that you're in the

[1:37:48] loop on that and also the comparison,

[1:37:50] the financing as well.

[1:37:52] >> Right. And my understanding was that 5%

[1:37:54] got changed to the 6% because we only

[1:37:57] did the increase of 3.3 last year

[1:37:59] instead of the full recommended amount.

[1:38:01] And we had a year where we had 0%

[1:38:04] increase.

[1:38:05] >> But we also did tears which changed.

[1:38:07] >> So what?

[1:38:08] >> We also did tears.

[1:38:10] >> That's true.

[1:38:12] >> The recommendation for the increases was

[1:38:15] made in conjunction with going to the

[1:38:17] tiers. And it's important to remember

[1:38:19] that that had, you know, the 5% 5% 5%

[1:38:22] but then 88 77 and then going down to

[1:38:26] four.

[1:38:27] >> And so

[1:38:29] >> evens it out a little. Yeah, trying to not have a super sharp thing, but

[1:38:34] still get that revenue up and and

[1:38:38] everything. Um, which is why it's good

[1:38:41] that we're we're checking to see, you

[1:38:43] know, how the increase last year was

[1:38:45] helpful, if the conditions of the cost

[1:38:48] and everything have changed. We know

[1:38:49] that the condition of the pipe has not

[1:38:51] improved over the time. Um, I also

[1:38:54] thought that was interesting, Gordon,

[1:38:56] that you talked about kind of the

[1:38:58] shifting soils and everything because

[1:39:00] it's not just a matter of the pipe

[1:39:02] itself failing, but the soil around the

[1:39:04] pipe failing because we have all of

[1:39:06] these fun faults and liquefaction and

[1:39:09] other things that are putting external

[1:39:11] pressure on our pipes, which may not

[1:39:15] always be a a factor that some of the

[1:39:17] other cities have to contend with

[1:39:19] depending on how they're situated in

[1:39:21] their geology. Council

[1:39:25] Whitlock.

[1:39:26] >> Uh I like the question that councelor

[1:39:29] Whipple asked and if I could ask a

[1:39:30] follow-up is have we done the analysis

[1:39:33] um from last year to say we raised rates

[1:39:36] 3.3% and then this is what we had for

[1:39:39] projected revenues from that increase

[1:39:40] versus what actually transpired based on

[1:39:42] water usage.

[1:39:43] >> Question.

[1:39:46] » Yes, we do. And um we have so I track

[1:39:49] that monthly and compare it with what we

[1:39:51] anticipated and you know it was there's

[1:39:54] a lot of factors going into it such as

[1:39:55] weather and um

[1:39:58] the uh again we've only had um what

[1:40:02] eight n months. So yeah, as as far as I

[1:40:05] can tell, you know, so far for what I've

[1:40:07] anticipated for FY26, we're getting at

[1:40:10] least 3.3% depending, but you know, we

[1:40:13] get way more in May and June than we get

[1:40:16] January through.

[1:40:18] >> So what's the numbers at right now?

[1:40:29] [laughter]

[1:40:30] >> Ask all the hard questions. Thank you.

[1:40:35] Yeah. So for through 10 months we are we

[1:40:38] have 4.9% more revenue than we did the

[1:40:41] previous year's 10 months.

[1:40:45] So we're we're ahead of schedule for

[1:40:46] those months. But again the May and June

[1:40:48] are a lot bigger

[1:40:51] impact on

[1:40:56] » Thank you.

[1:41:02] One thing I did hear from council member

[1:41:04] Wibbles is probably what we'll do next.

[1:41:06] We want to sit down once we have a full

[1:41:08] years really look at that and maybe give

[1:41:11] you a little better representation of

[1:41:12] what that means. Generally, we like the

[1:41:14] whole year before we'll study something

[1:41:16] because it ends up being a little bit

[1:41:19] truncated. And so, we'll we'll take a

[1:41:21] good look at this after this last full

[1:41:23] year takes place and be able to come

[1:41:24] back to you. We'll better answer what

[1:41:27] council member Lib's questions were.

[1:41:29] >> Gordon, while I have you there, just

[1:41:31] what do you think about um investing in

[1:41:35] better uh backlog basal

[1:41:39] analysis? Like, do you think those

[1:41:40] technologies are promising? Do you think

[1:41:42] it's better to wait because there's more

[1:41:43] stuff in development? Because like the

[1:41:45] reason why I asked this is because I

[1:41:46] just think it's a very difficult

[1:41:48] analytical problem because you have a

[1:41:50] backlog that you don't really know. You do have 2.2% 2 sorry 200 160% higher

[1:41:57] costs when you run it to break, but

[1:41:59] there's this risk that if you replace

[1:42:00] too early that you replace a pipe that

[1:42:02] could have another had another 20 years

[1:42:04] on it. And so you're trying to balance

[1:42:06] these two competing analytical forces

[1:42:08] with like looking through mud basically.

[1:42:10] And I mean literally

[1:42:13] >> so we asked are so we internally we've

[1:42:16] discussed a number of these different

[1:42:18] models going out and doing some testing.

[1:42:22] They each have

[1:42:26] promises but they also seem to have some

[1:42:29] challenges to make them be very

[1:42:30] effective. So right now we

[1:42:32] [clears throat] hope to find one that

[1:42:34] really gives us the answer we're looking

[1:42:36] for. So we haven't actually executed.

[1:42:38] We've just been look exploring several

[1:42:40] of these and talking to different people

[1:42:41] to do this. So

[1:42:42] >> I think from my perspective I think it'd

[1:42:45] be very help again I don't want you're

[1:42:47] the expert and your teams are the

[1:42:48] experts but just from like a political

[1:42:50] and our role it would be a lot health

[1:42:52] more helpful to be able to communicate

[1:42:54] >> what we're actually looking at rather

[1:42:56] than oh you know we have these pipes

[1:42:58] that are this old and some old pipes are

[1:42:59] fine because they're in less soil and

[1:43:00] maybe it was made with different mater

[1:43:08] I think I think that would be very

[1:43:09] helpful for us to look at it from macro

[1:43:11] I

[1:43:12] One of the challenge, one of the

[1:43:14] benefits, I don't know what it is. We

[1:43:16] have enough really, really awful pipes

[1:43:18] that we almost don't have to check them

[1:43:20] cuz they break enough that we can know

[1:43:21] that. So, [clears throat]

[1:43:23] >> but that's what we want to

[1:43:27] » once we get past that log, then we're

[1:43:29] really going to have to do some more

[1:43:31] investigation. No, but your point is

[1:43:32] right. We probably ought to do it now.

[1:43:34] So, I'm uh so I'm taking your point

[1:43:37] seriously. We are going to come up and

[1:43:38] we'll come up and talk a little bit more

[1:43:39] about how we've done that. Thank you.

[1:43:45] » Anything [clears throat] else, Councelor

[1:43:48] Hoben?

[1:43:49] >> I just I just imagine it's probably hard

[1:43:52] though because like soils can shift and

[1:43:54] a pipe can look fine, but then something

[1:43:57] can move and it's you know probably I

[1:43:59] don't know. I just imagine it's probably

[1:44:01] difficult.

[1:44:02] >> Even if a pipe isn't cracked today, it

[1:44:04] could crack tomorrow just due to a shift

[1:44:07] in something. But obviously no expert on

[1:44:10] that. Um I liked the idea of a bond

[1:44:13] because I felt like well let's stop all

[1:44:16] of these just incremental little

[1:44:18] increases and let's let's just take care

[1:44:20] of the problem. But clearly it sounds

[1:44:22] like that's just not the case that you

[1:44:25] can't just you know cuz you can't tear

[1:44:26] up the whole city at once and just you

[1:44:28] know and not to mention it just ends up

[1:44:31] it ends up in the rain anyways and then

[1:44:34] >> doesn't drop off unfortunately like

[1:44:37] other bonds. So, it's not like you could

[1:44:39] just plan on it in 20 20 years or 30

[1:44:41] years it would drop off. So, I'm now I

[1:44:44] guess I'm just kind of back to where we

[1:44:46] were before. We just have to decide on

[1:44:47] every year, you know, if we want to do

[1:44:49] another increase this year or not and

[1:44:51] >> and how much And it sounds like that's uh kind of what we're stuck with

[1:44:58] given this problem. I mean, it's Yeah.

[1:45:01] Um,

[1:45:02] as you guys know, my main concerns have

[1:45:04] been around just putting most of the

[1:45:06] burden on these tier 2 and tier three

[1:45:08] users that from my perspective don't

[1:45:11] necessarily deserve kind of that uh that

[1:45:14] punishment. But I won't go there today.

[1:45:16] Um, I'll just say that I I could support

[1:45:19] if we do need a rate increase this year

[1:45:22] um across the board. I like I like how

[1:45:24] it's been proposed by the administration

[1:45:26] that just be across the board. um

[1:45:28] whether it's four or five 6% I think we

[1:45:31] probably need to hammer that out. Sounds

[1:45:33] like maybe some costs have gone down and

[1:45:34] maybe some revenue is up this year so

[1:45:36] that might warrant a smaller increase

[1:45:37] this year. Um just trying to be

[1:45:39] cognizant of that. So uh just a few

[1:45:42] thoughts on that.

[1:45:44] I think the one thing sorry

[1:45:47] >> I think the one thing the data clearly

[1:45:48] shows Tanner thank you for putting this

[1:45:50] together is that we are in a worse spot

[1:45:51] than other cities.

[1:45:53] We have, if you want to go to your slide

[1:45:54] where you're comparing. Yeah, we have a

[1:45:56] lot more breaks.

[1:46:00] » Yeah. I mean, I'd like to see more. Are

[1:46:02] you working on getting data from ORM and

[1:46:03] Springville, too?

[1:46:04] >> That's correct.

[1:46:04] >> Yeah. So, I guess I say we're worse than

[1:46:06] Spanish Fork like substantially. If you

[1:46:11] » I mean, yeah. I mean, there's one data

[1:46:13] point out there.

[1:46:16] >> I think ORM's a better comp to your

[1:46:17] point though, right? Because of the

[1:46:18] soil.

[1:46:18] >> I imagine there'll be more similar to

[1:46:20] based on my conversation there. How is

[1:46:23] there like a na is there a it might be

[1:46:25] even help it'd be helpful to even step

[1:46:27] back more and just understand nationally

[1:46:31] statewide what is what is uh normal I

[1:46:35] mean 50 breaks in a year seems like a

[1:46:37] lot

[1:46:38] >> but without that benchmark

[1:46:40] it's hard to conclude that definitively

[1:46:42] >> because you're looking at something you

[1:46:43] got to get have something comparable

[1:46:44] with the soil right

[1:46:46] >> and so you can't necessarily comparison

[1:46:49] to

[1:46:52] I think Worm would probably be your

[1:46:54] better bet.

[1:46:55] >> Yeah, I guess do some more research

[1:46:57] because the data is wide. So if there

[1:47:00] is, you know,

[1:47:01] >> yeah, maybe maybe to councelor Bogdan's

[1:47:03] point, maybe if there is a a city that

[1:47:06] has comparable soil because I think it

[1:47:09] ultimately is it's an economic decision

[1:47:11] but also a political decision. what what

[1:47:14] you're willing like like we said it's

[1:47:16] philosophical at some level what you're

[1:47:18] willing to tolerate as a city and um I

[1:47:20] think just benchmark will be helpful to

[1:47:22] frame this

[1:47:25] >> councelor witlock I mean councelor

[1:47:27] whipple

[1:47:31] » yeah I I like the idea that the 3.3 rate

[1:47:35] increase may have led to 4.9% revenue

[1:47:38] increase that that would be really

[1:47:40] lovely and I would hope that we would

[1:47:42] pop be trying to get ahead on some of

[1:47:44] this. Um I think even if we could

[1:47:47] replace a whole big chunk of it all at

[1:47:49] once, then we would be creating a

[1:47:51] problem for ourselves

[1:47:53] in the future. You know that the school

[1:47:55] found this when they replaced a lot of

[1:47:57] schools in what the 50s and 60s and then

[1:47:58] they all failed at the same time.

[1:48:01] >> Um like we I think it's better to be

[1:48:03] doing the gradual replacement so that we

[1:48:05] don't get into another choke point where

[1:48:08] a ton of the infrastructure is the same

[1:48:11] age and failing all at once.

[1:48:13] Um,

[1:48:15] yeah, it'll it'll be interesting to see

[1:48:17] how our water usage is this year, both

[1:48:19] with the super bad water year that we've

[1:48:22] had and the public concern about

[1:48:26] droughts and, you know, voluntary

[1:48:28] reduction in water use.

[1:48:31] Like the soil's not saturated, so

[1:48:35] everything's just going to poof away.

[1:48:38] So, I really don't know how our

[1:48:41] residents, our water consumers are going

[1:48:43] to to act this year.

[1:48:51] » All right. What is our next steps?

[1:48:54] >> Uh, my only recommendation was whether I

[1:48:56] just wanted to see whether you wanted me

[1:48:57] to come back and give you more

[1:48:59] information. So, I'm getting a yes.

[1:49:01] >> I think we're done with the bond. I

[1:49:03] think we want to look into

[1:49:07] the costs and the different figuring out

[1:49:11] what the increase will be.

[1:49:12] >> Sure. So like a justification for that

[1:49:14] the 6% number in detail and then yeah

[1:49:17] analysis of maybe the plan moving

[1:49:19] forward in in detail

[1:49:20] >> and then more data as you get it from

[1:49:22] other cities.

[1:49:23] >> Perfect. I think I understand the notes.

[1:49:25] Okay.

[1:49:25] >> Thank you.

[1:49:26] >> Thanks Tanner. I just

[1:49:28] >> counselor

[1:49:29] >> I do just want to know that our public

[1:49:30] works team I just think that they

[1:49:33] probably I don't know inde you know

[1:49:36] definitively but it sounds like you guys

[1:49:37] have taken a really good approach of

[1:49:39] like trying to balance the funds with

[1:49:41] the need and so just generally

[1:49:44] appreciate the work you guys do. I think

[1:49:45] you've been very cognizant of taxpayer

[1:49:48] dollars and trying to be wise with them

[1:49:49] and do the best you can what you got and

[1:49:53] taking a taking a good good strategy

[1:49:55] around that it sounds like. So thanks.

[1:49:57] >> We have a good team. Thank you.

[1:50:00] >> All right.

[1:50:01] >> Yeah, we're

[1:50:03] >> okay. We are exactly on time for our

[1:50:06] break

[1:50:07] >> for 10 minutes. So

[1:50:09] >> we got a bonus break in there. So

[1:50:11] >> see you at 3 o'clock.

[1:50:13] >> Recording stopped.

[1:50:18] » Your point of

[1:50:21] >> We could go around very simple.

[1:50:28] be like a gear replaceation.

[1:50:36] you spend a ton of money on something

[1:50:39] that you didn't need and time and

[1:50:41] resources

[1:50:44] like you just kind of have to attack it

[1:50:47] when it happens but then try to

[1:50:51] do others when you're in there you know

[1:50:53] like

[1:50:54] >> hey you want to fix my hernia while

[1:50:56] you're in there you know working on my

[1:50:59] >> there's a lot of domains where you

[1:51:04] go

[1:51:17] Maybe

[1:51:20] I think that macro

[1:51:23] offense.

[1:51:26] » Well, I would say that the huge jump

[1:51:28] that we had to 26,

[1:51:31] >> I would say that's that's a good

[1:51:32] >> sign. I agree. I totally agree 100%. I

[1:51:35] think

[1:51:36] >> if we had Steve I would say that

[1:51:39] >> if they both have so many songs there's

[1:51:41] right now you're saying well

[1:51:47] » you know from what I've hearing from the

[1:51:49] last few years

[1:51:50] >> here I heard especially

[1:51:58] » I agree

[1:52:04] » but we can't we can't get away from the

[1:52:06] geysers that he got today

[1:52:09] >> and we can't get away from all of that

[1:52:10] liability.

[1:52:18] But we we are to the point where we're

[1:52:22] seeing

[1:52:32] » I guess I guess

[1:52:34] >> if you want to look at us

[1:52:36] >> we got to keep Oh my.

[2:01:34] Okay.

[2:01:36] >> Recording in progress.

[2:01:40] » All right. Next, we have a resolution to

[2:01:42] place a 5.079

[2:01:45] acre parcel of ground located to the

[2:01:47] south of the Epic Sports Park on Lake

[2:01:50] View Parkway in Provo on the surplus

[2:01:52] property list. This is presented to us

[2:01:54] by Cody Hill, the division director for

[2:01:56] economic development.

[2:01:57] >> Hello, Cody.

[2:01:58] >> Hi.

[2:02:09] » Thank you, council.

[2:02:10] >> Just a hold up.

[2:02:15] » I'm presenting like it's 2020.

[2:02:19] >> Bringing back 2020 vibes. So, Okay.

[2:02:22] >> He doesn't want to breathe your air.

[2:02:25] [laughter]

[2:02:26] >> He still is just through that mask.

[2:02:27] Thank you so much, John. I really

[2:02:29] appreciate your time. So, a little bit

[2:02:31] of background on this site. When the

[2:02:34] city had originally acquired all of the

[2:02:36] acreage for the Epic Sports Park. Let me

[2:02:39] see if I can No. Um, it's just north of

[2:02:42] there. And when they initially acquired

[2:02:46] all of that land, they had contemplated

[2:02:50] zoning the bottom 5 acres commercial and

[2:02:53] having that be support for their

[2:02:56] operations at the epic sports park and

[2:02:58] also something that could complement the

[2:03:00] airport. It just made sense. And so this

[2:03:02] is really a long time in in the making.

[2:03:06] And so this 5 acre little little over 5

[2:03:09] acre piece of property, it is already

[2:03:11] zoned um SC2 and the city put out an RFP

[2:03:16] recently on it and uh selected a group

[2:03:20] to to work with to develop that site as

[2:03:23] part of the development process. Um we

[2:03:25] saw fit and necessary to surplus the

[2:03:28] property. And so we um yeah, we

[2:03:34] had an appraisal done on the property

[2:03:36] and it was appraised at $4.36 million

[2:03:40] um which was actually a bit higher than

[2:03:43] pumps that I put together. And then also

[2:03:46] the developer that we're working with

[2:03:47] had a broker's opination of value and it

[2:03:50] actually came in above that. So that

[2:03:52] about 4.36 million um is is the amount

[2:03:55] that we got back and was actually higher

[2:03:57] than than we had actually anticipated.

[2:04:00] And so um

[2:04:02] >> so what were what did the other two

[2:04:04] appraisals say?

[2:04:06] >> The the comps that I put together came

[2:04:08] in at 3.7

[2:04:11] and the broker's opinion of value came

[2:04:13] in at the 2.8. And so that 4.3 is quite

[2:04:18] a bit higher than the broker's

[2:04:19] opination. and even my a little bit

[2:04:22] above the comps that I put together the

[2:04:25] comparables. So, um so yeah, we are

[2:04:29] working right now with the development

[2:04:30] group to um term sheet and we'll discuss

[2:04:35] that in the very near future. But if

[2:04:37] there's any questions about this uh

[2:04:40] 5acre piece of land, the background,

[2:04:42] what's contemplated for future, happy we

[2:04:44] discuss that.

[2:04:46] Okay. Any questions for Cody? Council

[2:04:50] Bogdan.

[2:04:50] >> So, is there anything that we can give

[2:04:52] the public like what was in the RFP that

[2:04:54] we're asking for down there? Like give

[2:04:57] them a heads up of what's coming.

[2:05:00] >> I think once we have a development

[2:05:02] agreement ironed out with the city, then it is a good time to start reaching

[2:05:05] out to the public and and letting them

[2:05:07] know that this is coming online. But I

[2:05:09] think from the West Provo perspective,

[2:05:11] it'll be pretty exciting to have not

[2:05:14] just, you know, um, accommodations, but

[2:05:16] also retail space, um, and [snorts] a

[2:05:20] gas station and a convenience store

[2:05:21] there.

[2:05:22] >> So, we put out on the RFP that we wanted

[2:05:24] a gas station, a convenience store,

[2:05:27] and retail space. Is that what you said?

[2:05:28] >> Yeah. And a hotel.

[2:05:30] >> And a hotel.

[2:05:30] >> Yes.

[2:05:31] >> So,

[2:05:32] >> and councelor Bugden, the RFP document

[2:05:34] itself is a public document. I mean, you

[2:05:36] can get that and you can distribute that

[2:05:38] if you want to. All it does is say what

[2:05:40] we were asking for, not what we're

[2:05:41] getting. But that document is public.

[2:05:44] >> Okay. Thank you, [clears throat]

[2:05:47] >> Cody. Am I remembering that this 5 acre

[2:05:49] parcel has already been leveled and

[2:05:52] filled?

[2:05:53] >> It's it's very close to shovel ready.

[2:05:55] Yeah, it's very close to shovel ready.

[2:05:58] The the utilities are are there are

[2:06:00] lined up and

[2:06:02] >> Yeah. So, I think a little bit of

[2:06:03] grading and earth work will be required.

[2:06:05] Not very much. And then Yeah.

[2:06:11] » All right. I think that's it.

[2:06:13] >> Thank you.

[2:06:15] >> Thanks, Cody. All right. Next, a

[2:06:17] discussion regarding external accessory

[2:06:19] dwelling units. This will be presented

[2:06:21] by Malia Dailyaly, the council policy

[2:06:23] analyst.

[2:06:28] Okay. Awesome.

[2:06:33] Okay. My presentation is fairly short,

[2:06:35] but if you notice, there's a lot of time

[2:06:38] slated for this item. Our goal is to

[2:06:40] just get any and all amendments we might

[2:06:44] possibly want done today so then we can

[2:06:47] move forward. And we're going to do it,

[2:06:49] guys. We can do it. I promise.

[2:06:50] >> You believe in us?

[2:06:51] >> I do. So, this is coming about one. And

[2:06:56] we were going to talk about this anyway

[2:06:58] because it's statemandated changes we

[2:07:00] have to make to our ADU chapter which is

[2:07:04] 14:30. But then also there was a

[2:07:06] majority of council that wanted to

[2:07:08] discuss this pre the implementation date

[2:07:12] of October 1st to just relook at our

[2:07:15] code see if there's any other

[2:07:17] regulations we want to take away or add

[2:07:20] before the October 1st implementation

[2:07:22] date. So this hopefully is the simplest

[2:07:27] way to talk about external IDUs.

[2:07:29] Everything in blue is SB284 changes that

[2:07:33] the state is requiring of us. So

[2:07:37] prohibited and allowed zones. The the

[2:07:40] change about where external ADUs are

[2:07:43] allowed is any parcel in the city that

[2:07:46] is 11,000 ft or greater and permits or

[2:07:50] allows single family dwellings. So, it's

[2:07:52] not necessarily a residential zone,

[2:07:55] which I made the mistake of saying at

[2:07:57] first. It's any parcel in the city that

[2:08:00] allows single family dwellings as a use

[2:08:03] and is 11,000 ft in our city that almost

[2:08:07] completely overlaps with only

[2:08:09] residential zones. There's like one

[2:08:11] zone, I think it's the West Gateway zone

[2:08:14] that allows single family dwellings

[2:08:17] and that's it. That's not primarily

[2:08:19] residential. So,

[2:08:22] And then this is a very simplified

[2:08:25] version of our current regulations on

[2:08:27] external ADUs.

[2:08:29] And then you can see here the regulation

[2:08:32] that we have to change because of the

[2:08:33] state is our parking standard. So right

[2:08:37] now we say you have to have four off-

[2:08:40] streetet parking spots for an external

[2:08:42] AU. The state code is changing that. You

[2:08:45] can require two if the unit is 650

[2:08:49] square ft and only one if it's 650 or

[2:08:53] less. So, we do have to change that. The

[2:08:55] state code is pretty

[2:08:58] quiet on the rest of the regulations

[2:09:01] besides parking and the parcel size. So,

[2:09:04] as far as So, in the packet I gave this

[2:09:07] giant comparisons to other cities and I

[2:09:10] also sent you the accelerating so you

[2:09:12] could actually read it. Um

[2:09:15] those are all of those regulations

[2:09:17] besides the parking and some of the

[2:09:20] permitted zones just because of the

[2:09:21] parcel we can adjust we can change.

[2:09:26] So this is just the map I wanted to show

[2:09:30] really quick.

[2:09:32] Um and this is also online on the city's

[2:09:36] website. The city's website map is a

[2:09:39] little bit different because there's map

[2:09:42] in the

[2:09:43] unfortunately. Um,

[2:09:47] but

[2:09:49] >> I'll get it.

[2:09:50] >> Okay. Anyway, the map on the city's

[2:09:54] website doesn't have the yellow parcels

[2:09:56] within the blue overlay. So,

[2:10:01] all this is showing. So, the blue is

[2:10:04] currently it says overlay. We don't

[2:10:06] technically have

[2:10:08] a nuance. Um the blue is where ADUs as

[2:10:12] we stand to today right now where they

[2:10:15] are allowed by zoning or by area. That

[2:10:18] doesn't mean they can just go have them.

[2:10:20] They still have to go through all the

[2:10:21] regulations and the license. That's

[2:10:22] where it's allowed. The yellow is where

[2:10:26] now if you are within there now you're

[2:10:28] doubly allowed I guess because now you

[2:10:30] also allow under SB284.

[2:10:33] But it also includes a lot of hair in

[2:10:35] the tree streets. A lot in the

[2:10:36] northeast. There's some on the west

[2:10:39] side. Again, a lot of these parcels are

[2:10:41] not necessarily like south of Lake View

[2:10:44] Parkway just because that parcel is

[2:10:47] zoned something that allows single

[2:10:48] family dwelling.

[2:10:50] There might not even be a house on it,

[2:10:53] but the zone does allow it. So, if a

[2:10:56] house ever happened there one day, it

[2:10:57] could, I guess, unless the zone changed

[2:10:59] to a zone that didn't allow single

[2:11:02] family dwellings, then it wouldn't. But

[2:11:04] so that's kind of that map.

[2:11:07] >> I have a question.

[2:11:07] >> Yeah.

[2:11:08] >> So does this just allow for external

[2:11:10] ADUs, not an internal?

[2:11:12] >> Just external. Yep.

[2:11:14] >> So even in those northeast ones where

[2:11:16] it's not currently permissible, they are

[2:11:19] only allowed to do it outside of the

[2:11:21] house.

[2:11:22] >> So external on the northeast a little.

[2:11:25] Perfect. That's great. So you can see

[2:11:28] here like this outline of blue here. So

[2:11:31] those are allow. But then here I feel

[2:11:33] like all reception

[2:11:36] they're allowed external if they go by

[2:11:38] all the regulations but they still would

[2:11:40] not be allowed to enter.

[2:11:43] So anywhere that's not also have a

[2:11:45] little blue

[2:11:47] outline

[2:11:50] it's just external. So there's a couple

[2:11:52] places that allow internal and they'll

[2:11:55] be double covered. I don't know what to

[2:11:58] say, but the map online is a little bit

[2:12:02] more simple because it doesn't have the

[2:12:04] overlay of both.

[2:12:07] But

[2:12:10] thank you.

[2:12:11] >> Yeah.

[2:12:14] Okay, Kevin, if we can go to the next

[2:12:16] slide and go back to the slides. Thank

[2:12:19] you.

[2:12:20] >> I'll keep this just in case.

[2:12:22] >> Perfect.

[2:12:23] >> There you go.

[2:12:24] >> Great.

[2:12:26] So that's just about everywhere in the

[2:12:27] city, right?

[2:12:28] >> Yeah. Oh, Kevin, it's like

[2:12:33] it's not the full thing.

[2:12:36] You just exit out and then go back into

[2:12:37] it. Anyway,

[2:12:40] now it's time for council discussion.

[2:12:42] Thanks, Kevin. So, two options. one, if

[2:12:45] there are amendments that the council

[2:12:47] wants to make and made that comparison

[2:12:50] sheet just to kind of a starting point

[2:12:52] and something else to look at and see

[2:12:54] what other cities are doing and maybe

[2:12:56] you want to tweak something they're

[2:12:58] doing or adopt something they're doing

[2:13:00] or if you have a idea that's not within

[2:13:04] other cities that's fine as well as long

[2:13:06] as Brian says it's legal and then we can

[2:13:09] do those amendments or no amendments and

[2:13:12] then just as part of the zoning I mean,

[2:13:14] you're right, that is coming to council

[2:13:17] late summer, early fall,

[2:13:19] then we'll just update it in 14:30 just

[2:13:22] with the minimum state requirements,

[2:13:24] which are back on that other slide. But

[2:13:26] if there are amendments,

[2:13:28] then we'll decide if we want to go

[2:13:30] option one or option two. Option one

[2:13:32] just being we take those amendments, we

[2:13:35] say noted, we work with legal to write

[2:13:39] those into the new zoning rewrite in

[2:13:41] 1430. And then it just comes as part of

[2:13:44] that package of the new zoning code

[2:13:46] rewrite that we are going to adopt al

[2:13:48] together in late summer, early fall. Or

[2:13:52] we can do option two, which is also just

[2:13:54] as easy, which is where we just

[2:13:58] incorporate those into 14:30 starting

[2:14:00] now, which means we could get on June

[2:14:03] 10th planning commission and then July

[2:14:05] 14th council meeting for passage. So it

[2:14:08] would be a couple months earlier but

[2:14:11] >> and is there a benefit to one versus

[2:14:13] two?

[2:14:14] >> Just the timing of when you want new if

[2:14:16] there are new regulations when you want

[2:14:18] those enacted.

[2:14:20] So it would also Oh go ahead. Well, I I

[2:14:25] was going to chime in from a completely

[2:14:27] selfish perspective after spending an

[2:14:30] entire flight down to Chile and 20 hours

[2:14:32] sitting in my stepmother's kitchen uh

[2:14:35] finishing the zoning rewrite.

[2:14:38] >> I'd love everything that you want to do

[2:14:40] in Title 14 to get pushed off until we

[2:14:42] actually finish the zoning rewrite

[2:14:44] because everything we do before then we

[2:14:47] have to make the change and then

[2:14:48] reinccorporate it into the changes. But having said that, if there's any

[2:14:53] urgency,

[2:14:54] >> is there any responsibility

[2:14:55] [clears throat]

[2:14:56] uh to the city or any exposure to the

[2:14:58] city by not communicating that standard

[2:15:00] earlier?

[2:15:01] >> No. No. As long as we have it in place

[2:15:03] by October, there's no problem.

[2:15:08] » Yes. Well, I think so. I haven't had a

[2:15:10] chance to talk to Aaron since I've been

[2:15:12] back, but I

[2:15:13] >> It's going to planning commission work

[2:15:14] session tomorrow

[2:15:16] and then it will go to the next planning

[2:15:18] commission after that which I think

[2:15:20] >> isn't just part of it going to them is

[2:15:21] the whole thing.

[2:15:22] >> They're doing it they're splitting it

[2:15:23] into two parts. So the part one is going

[2:15:26] and then so that's why I said we don't

[2:15:29] have an exact timeline but it'll be

[2:15:32] before the October 1st deadline.

[2:15:35] So there is no

[2:15:38] there but anyway. So now it's open. We

[2:15:41] have scheduled a lot of time to just try

[2:15:43] and get out any amendments that we might

[2:15:46] want. Now, Councelor Christensen,

[2:15:49] >> so uh your sheet was actually very

[2:15:52] helpful, uh to see what other cities are

[2:15:54] doing. And so I went through and cherry

[2:15:56] pick.

[2:15:57] Um I would love to see us

[2:16:00] keep them to one story in the basement.

[2:16:06] I'd like to see to make sure that we're

[2:16:08] we put in language about not having

[2:16:10] opposing windows. You're not, you know,

[2:16:12] looking into another. That's that's

[2:16:14] possible. The third would be to have a

[2:16:16] specific ratio.

[2:16:18] What um what kind of ratio of 25% of the

[2:16:23] house or 10% or 50% or but some ratio

[2:16:27] where the that dwell that unit cannot be

[2:16:30] more than certain percent.

[2:16:31] >> Yeah. Like some cities

[2:16:34] said you can only have if your lot is

[2:16:36] this big, it can only be this percentage

[2:16:39] of the lot versus some say it can only

[2:16:41] be this percentage of the square foot of

[2:16:43] the primary dwelling.

[2:16:44] >> Yeah, I would be on the lot

[2:16:46] >> of the primary. Okay.

[2:16:49] Can I mention something there?

[2:16:53] >> We do have um we do have code that says

[2:16:56] like what percentage of the lot can be

[2:16:58] taken up with

[2:17:00] um [clears throat] housing already. I I

[2:17:02] don't know if you want to take a look at

[2:17:04] what that is.

[2:17:06] >> Setback requirements.

[2:17:07] >> Yeah, setback requirement. There's all

[2:17:08] kinds of things like that. So,

[2:17:10] >> yeah, the surface area coverage is

[2:17:12] already limited.

[2:17:13] >> Yeah. So, it's not like and I think that

[2:17:16] also you can't make I think state law

[2:17:18] says you can't make these larger than

[2:17:20] the home that's existing either. So, I

[2:17:22] don't know. It just might be something

[2:17:24] you want to look at.

[2:17:25] >> Yeah. And that's why I was thinking it

[2:17:27] would be helpful if you give specifics

[2:17:30] to that

[2:17:31] >> within 1430.

[2:17:33] >> Yes.

[2:17:34] >> Okay.

[2:17:34] >> So,

[2:17:36] council,

[2:17:36] >> selfishly, I think I don't like what you

[2:17:39] just said. selfishly. That's understood

[2:17:42] >> because um for a house like mine that

[2:17:45] doesn't already have a garage, I would

[2:17:47] like to build a garage with a little

[2:17:49] apartment above it. But if you're just

[2:17:51] saying a a singlestory thing, then you

[2:17:54] couldn't do a garage with an apartment

[2:17:55] above it. And I've seen a couple of

[2:17:58] those going in my neighborhood because

[2:18:01] we do have old houses that don't have

[2:18:03] attached garages.

[2:18:05] >> So I I think that you're cutting off

[2:18:08] that possibility. that is actually

[2:18:09] really useful for a lot of our external

[2:18:11] ADUs. And my house is, you know, two

[2:18:15] stories plus an attic, so it's really

[2:18:16] tall. And so I could easily build

[2:18:19] something that is, you know, below the

[2:18:21] height requirement that matches

[2:18:23] architecturally, but it wouldn't have a

[2:18:25] basement, right? And digging out a

[2:18:27] basement is a different kind of expense.

[2:18:29] So I I wanted to push back on that

[2:18:33] suggestion with with these reasons.

[2:18:37] She brings up a good point. Like in

[2:18:40] Southwest Pro, you really can't have a

[2:18:42] basement,

[2:18:44] right? You just have a starting

[2:18:45] elevation and if you have a basement,

[2:18:46] they bring in the filter to make it look

[2:18:48] like a closet basement, but it's not a

[2:18:50] basement. So

[2:18:53] maybe one level and no basement. I I

[2:18:56] just I can see that being an issue.

[2:18:58] Yeah.

[2:19:03] So just on the height discussion,

[2:19:07] >> exactly. Now we allow this. It it can't

[2:19:10] be larger than the house.

[2:19:11] >> It has to be less than the main

[2:19:12] dwelling,

[2:19:12] >> but it could be like one inch less than

[2:19:14] the main dwelling, right?

[2:19:15] >> It just says less than the main

[2:19:17] dwelling.

[2:19:17] >> Okay. Um

[2:19:19] >> as long to the mayor's point, as long as

[2:19:21] it doesn't exceed the the lot coverage.

[2:19:23] >> Yes. because we also have setbacks

[2:19:26] >> that it has to be

[2:19:27] >> a lot to have a look at your house.

[2:19:30] >> Yeah. We've seen a couple and we've

[2:19:32] gotten calls on them and asked to go

[2:19:34] look at them that are very tall and

[2:19:36] skinny in like like three levels and

[2:19:38] like

[2:19:40] so and they're likew they're looking in

[2:19:42] on people's yards and definitely

[2:19:44] changing the privacy or of the area.

[2:19:49] Trying to think. There was a city that

[2:19:51] had depending on

[2:19:55] uh

[2:19:58] oh, it's West Jordan.

[2:20:01] It just has the maximum building height

[2:20:03] is 20 ft or 17 ft high if it's in a

[2:20:08] certain part of the property. Like if

[2:20:10] it's if you're set back, your closest

[2:20:12] setback is from the sidey yard versus

[2:20:14] the rear yard plus one additional foot

[2:20:17] of height. Anyway, they have like a

[2:20:20] bunch of if then statements on the

[2:20:22] height. Well, in that the height thing

[2:20:25] is the issue, right, on like overlooking

[2:20:27] Tiff Falls, but I agree that garages

[2:20:30] that is a very good way to use an ADU.

[2:20:33] But if we incorporate the no windows

[2:20:35] that would those have to be one level

[2:20:38] above the garage and then no windows on

[2:20:41] >> no windows looking

[2:20:42] >> like Murray did no windows looking in

[2:20:45] over yards

[2:20:47] >> or if you're going to be higher then

[2:20:48] you're further back kind of like we're

[2:20:51] thinking about with the

[2:20:54] Brit like the mall redevelopment. We

[2:20:56] didn't want those in heaven's homes

[2:20:58] looking right over or the apartments

[2:21:00] being right on top of the homes next to

[2:21:02] them or Yeah.

[2:21:03] >> Do like fiery living see like regress

[2:21:07] windows without window like bedrooms

[2:21:09] without windows I guess.

[2:21:10] >> Yeah.

[2:21:12] The design I don't know. Seems like it

[2:21:14] could make for a really ugly apartment

[2:21:16] if you don't have windows

[2:21:18] >> or has fire code. I don't think. Well,

[2:21:20] it wouldn't be a little big.

[2:21:23] >> Yeah. you just wouldn't be able to have

[2:21:24] any better.

[2:21:25] >> What is What is Murray's?

[2:21:27] >> Murray's just has

[2:21:30] the different setbacks based based on

[2:21:33] where you're putting it in your yard.

[2:21:35] So, if it's in the corner sideyard,

[2:21:38] which I don't know how that's defined,

[2:21:40] it's 20 ft from both property lines side

[2:21:43] and then it's just sideyard 10 ft, just

[2:21:45] rear yard 10t. And then it has to be

[2:21:49] a one-story structure. If it's

[2:21:53] in the corner in the rear yard, it can

[2:21:57] be a twostory structure if it meets

[2:21:59] single family dwelling setbacks for the

[2:22:01] zone and maintains a minimum separation

[2:22:05] from the primary dwelling and once lines

[2:22:07] in addition to the setback. So they just

[2:22:10] have

[2:22:11] I think de facto. It doesn't say

[2:22:13] anything necessarily on the windows, but

[2:22:14] I think de facto the windows aren't

[2:22:16] going to look over because your setbacks

[2:22:17] equaling like

[2:22:18] >> this instead be the code that there were

[2:22:20] no windows. You could look over. We

[2:22:22] couldn't look over certain.

[2:22:23] >> Okay, I'll double check on that then.

[2:22:25] >> I get the principle of it. I wonder if

[2:22:26] we should as a council decide on the

[2:22:29] things we like and don't like in

[2:22:30] practice and then have have maybe have

[2:22:33] staff back

[2:22:35] there's lots of

[2:22:36] >> so like I don't I mean generally I just

[2:22:38] say I don't like the idea of somebody

[2:22:40] building this massive two or three story

[2:22:42] ADU in their backyard when people have

[2:22:45] purchased homes around them with the

[2:22:47] expectation of like oh I bought this

[2:22:49] home and here's my privacy here's my

[2:22:51] backyard and all of a sudden boom you

[2:22:53] know they lose their shade for their

[2:22:54] garden or they they lose the sunlight

[2:22:56] for their garden or whatever it might

[2:22:57] be, right? It could it can be pretty

[2:22:59] disruptive of somebody's quality of life

[2:23:02] to like have that, you know, all of a

[2:23:05] sudden in their backyard

[2:23:07] and it really could impact things like,

[2:23:09] you know, sunlight for the garden and

[2:23:11] stuff like that. Like, so I think I

[2:23:14] don't like the idea of like having this

[2:23:16] towering ADU in somebody's backyard. I

[2:23:19] also am sensitive to the idea of like

[2:23:21] windows too if it is tall. But that's

[2:23:24] why I'm kind of more like maybe it's

[2:23:26] just basement and one story and then you

[2:23:29] kind of avoid that issue of like being

[2:23:32] towering over somebody's backyard. Um if

[2:23:35] we did allow windows I I I are there

[2:23:41] windows that kind of are more like

[2:23:42] translucent, you know, like I've seen

[2:23:44] those bathroom windows that like have

[2:23:45] >> Yeah, but you're still looking into

[2:23:46] their backyard. Well, but I'm saying

[2:23:48] like you could still allow some light

[2:23:50] into the home

[2:23:52] >> without cubes

[2:23:54] >> those glass cubes that are like blurry.

[2:23:56] You know,

[2:23:56] >> I I have one in my house that I had put

[2:23:59] in that is it's like geometric.

[2:24:02] >> I'm just thinking of like

[2:24:03] >> you can't see in it. You can't see out

[2:24:05] of it, but it lets all the light in.

[2:24:07] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Something

[2:24:08] there could be maybe be something that

[2:24:09] would allow that. Again, I don't I don't

[2:24:11] think I'm going to come up with ideas,

[2:24:12] but I like the idea of ensuring people

[2:24:14] have privacy and ensuring that there's

[2:24:16] not things like

[2:24:17] >> that's the goal.

[2:24:19] >> Yeah. And

[2:24:20] um I also don't like it the idea of it

[2:24:23] being like as big as the primary growing

[2:24:26] then it's like

[2:24:28] >> do you have a percentage? Cuz currently

[2:24:30] we have footprint and square footage.

[2:24:35] footprint would make sense to me cuz you

[2:24:36] could have a basement and a main level

[2:24:38] and the foot like

[2:24:42] >> I don't I guess I wouldn't care if there

[2:24:43] were a basement and it were 2,000 square

[2:24:45] ft. The primary dwelling were the

[2:24:48] primary footprint was 2,000 ft. The

[2:24:51] >> the footprint would only be 1,000 ft

[2:24:53] then, right? if you had a main level.

[2:24:55] And I I don't know what the number is,

[2:24:57] but I

[2:24:58] >> I guess I just think like

[2:25:01] are we turning it into like moving from

[2:25:04] like one home on the lot to essentially

[2:25:07] like two really big homes on the lot,

[2:25:09] you know? I don't know if I like that

[2:25:10] idea.

[2:25:12] >> Um

[2:25:12] >> it's a really big home in here.

[2:25:14] >> Like

[2:25:15] >> Well, like I have a lot of space, so I

[2:25:17] could build a really big ADU,

[2:25:19] >> right? But you have like a 4,000t house.

[2:25:22] What is a really big

[2:25:24] >> unit to you? Like 1,800,900

[2:25:28] square feet.

[2:25:28] >> So, do you like the idea of like being

[2:25:30] able to build another one the same size?

[2:25:32] Is that what I'm saying?

[2:25:32] >> The same size as my house. No,

[2:25:35] >> that's what I'm saying. If it's 1500,

[2:25:37] you would have a house my size in your

[2:25:39] backyard.

[2:25:40] >> Yeah, but if the lot's big enough and

[2:25:42] the other home is big enough, I guess

[2:25:44] I'm looking at like relative to the size

[2:25:46] of the home. Um,

[2:25:49] I don't know. I don't know what the

[2:25:51] answer is.

[2:25:52] >> I don't know why that bothers me, but

[2:25:53] the idea of like you're kind of like

[2:25:55] splitting your lot and just adding

[2:25:56] another house the same size. It seems

[2:25:58] weird that that's what this enables, you

[2:26:00] know,

[2:26:00] >> right? But is an ADU really another

[2:26:04] 8,000 foot house? It could be.

[2:26:08] >> Malia, it might be helpful to know

[2:26:09] [clears throat] what the what code is

[2:26:11] relative to a flag lot. if you you were

[2:26:15] allowed to have a flat lot normally on a

[2:26:17] larger lot.

[2:26:18] >> Um what size lot that would need to be?

[2:26:24] >> I see flag lots everywhere.

[2:26:28] >> Councelor Wlock.

[2:26:29] >> Uh I just have a couple questions um

[2:26:31] just to kind of help me get my bearings

[2:26:33] here. What uh Molina, if you can't

[2:26:36] answer these off top of your head, no

[2:26:38] pressure. How many detached ADUs were

[2:26:42] built in the city in the last year?

[2:26:44] >> I think we had two requests for permits

[2:26:47] in the last 5 years.

[2:26:49] >> Okay,

[2:26:50] >> that I don't know if that means they

[2:26:51] were built that that encapsulates those

[2:26:55] that legally requested for a permit and

[2:26:57] got a license

[2:26:59] >> in the last 5 years.

[2:27:00] >> Yes. So, I don't know if that with ADUs,

[2:27:03] you just don't know. So,

[2:27:05] >> and then what how many marginal lots are

[2:27:08] now

[2:27:10] these are now permitted on with this

[2:27:11] change.

[2:27:12] >> How many more are added in?

[2:27:14] >> Yeah,

[2:27:14] >> I think it's like 3,900.

[2:27:18] >> And what was the previous baseline?

[2:27:21] >> I don't remember.

[2:27:22] >> So, this is like a doubling like

[2:27:24] >> Yeah, easily doubling if not more.

[2:27:26] >> Okay.

[2:27:30] Is there any reason to suspect that the

[2:27:34] lots that are now going to allow them

[2:27:35] are going to systematically have a

[2:27:37] higher rate of people wanting to be old

[2:27:39] adus on them?

[2:27:41] >> I don't I don't know. I would say

[2:27:45] it might be because there was I don't

[2:27:47] know there was one that

[2:27:51] » I do know in speaking with our planning

[2:27:53] division I do know unlike other cities

[2:27:56] if you I didn't put setbacks on this

[2:27:59] comparison not setbacks impact fees we

[2:28:04] do charge impact fees for external ADUs

[2:28:06] in Provo there is a reduced impact fee

[2:28:09] for I think only wastewater

[2:28:12] Everything else is charged at the same

[2:28:14] impact fee that a single family dwelling

[2:28:16] is. So it equals out to about $6,000 in

[2:28:18] impact fees. That's in code. That's like

[2:28:23] what we charge. other cities I didn't

[2:28:26] check their impact fees but I know also

[2:28:29] as far as utilities and metering we also

[2:28:33] in code in 1430 you have to permanently

[2:28:35] connect and you have to be approved for

[2:28:39] all separate utility connections and

[2:28:42] laterals to the external ADO so it has

[2:28:45] to be like its own separate things where

[2:28:47] in all the other cities I checked um

[2:28:50] where they specifically said anything

[2:28:52] about that it was illegal to have your

[2:28:54] own separate connections. You had to

[2:28:56] come off of the primary dwelling. And

[2:28:58] I'm just bringing that up cuz that is a

[2:29:00] big cost difference for people to set up

[2:29:02] their own utility.

[2:29:04] >> So we require these ADUs to have a

[2:29:06] separate hookups for every

[2:29:08] >> So they're treated the same almost the

[2:29:10] same as a single family dwelling unit

[2:29:13] besides the fact that they need to be

[2:29:15] >> so they could sell them.

[2:29:18] They could parcel them off if they

[2:29:21] requested to parcel their lot for like

[2:29:24] three years and then decide, hey, this

[2:29:26] is another sell it

[2:29:28] >> split their which is why I think other

[2:29:30] cities don't have the separate

[2:29:31] connection because then it's always

[2:29:33] connected to the main dwelling. So then

[2:29:35] I think Gary's got a good point that we

[2:29:36] need to look at flag lot requirements

[2:29:39] because if they could eventually be sold

[2:29:41] off five years, 20 years, 50 years from

[2:29:44] now, they probably need to have the

[2:29:46] same.

[2:29:47] >> Well, could they be sold? I mean,

[2:29:49] wouldn't they have to go

[2:29:52] >> to get here?

[2:29:57] » There really aren't any different flag

[2:29:59] requirements than the zone that the flag

[2:30:02] lot is in. All the same zoning

[2:30:04] requirements would apply. In another

[2:30:07] jurisdiction I worked for, the detached

[2:30:10] ADU added separate laterals. A divorce

[2:30:13] occurred and they divided them off and

[2:30:15] sold them as two separate units. no

[2:30:18] >> to split assets. That triggered a zoning

[2:30:21] problem that we spent years fighting

[2:30:23] over because judge gave a divorce decree

[2:30:26] saying this is okay and then city zoning

[2:30:29] saying no this is illegal. So, I've

[2:30:32] always hated that separate lateral

[2:30:34] requirement in our ordinance because it

[2:30:36] teases the ball up for somebody to sell

[2:30:38] it off separately, legally or illegally.

[2:30:41] And many times it happens illegally

[2:30:43] because the recorder's office at the

[2:30:45] county will record whatever deeds you

[2:30:47] bring to them.

[2:30:49] on the Billy height thing. If we're

[2:30:51] trying to

[2:30:53] keep a certain amount of open space and

[2:30:55] green space on the lot and we have a lot

[2:30:57] coverage requirement that R1's not zone

[2:30:59] says you can't cover more than 40% of

[2:31:00] the lot of buildings to be able to build

[2:31:03] over the garage really helps keep that

[2:31:05] green space otherwise you're going to

[2:31:06] have separate parking spaces and a

[2:31:08] separate unit. But I agree with what

[2:31:10] you've also said about

[2:31:13] it feels

[2:31:15] doesn't feel right to have the ADU

[2:31:17] detect height as the house. The height

[2:31:20] of the house in our zone can be 35 ft.

[2:31:22] Perhaps we should say the maximum height

[2:31:24] for the detached unit should be 25 or 20

[2:31:28] something less because that does feel

[2:31:30] overwhelming for the detach to be the

[2:31:33] same height as the main house. So, I

[2:31:35] think there's some things like that that

[2:31:36] we can work with your staff on that

[2:31:40] can [clears throat] kind of address

[2:31:40] these things you're raising.

[2:31:42] >> How about that's very helpful. How about

[2:31:43] the issue of privacy?

[2:31:46] >> Any thoughts on that?

[2:31:48] >> Um, if we help to limit that height, I

[2:31:50] think that starts to address it. Um, why

[2:31:54] I would hesitate on windows and window

[2:31:57] placement is it sure it sure makes the

[2:32:00] ADU more livable

[2:32:02] when it's got the window space on it. It

[2:32:04] brings natural light in. It adds a

[2:32:06] window to a bedroom where now this area

[2:32:09] can be a bedroom because there's a

[2:32:10] window where it couldn't if I can't have

[2:32:12] a window there. So, it can be very

[2:32:14] limiting to to say that. But I'm hoping

[2:32:16] that by limiting the building height, we

[2:32:18] can help to lessen that impact your

[2:32:21] fearing.

[2:32:22] >> I think definitely based on these other

[2:32:25] cities having read through all their

[2:32:26] code, we could come up with something I

[2:32:28] could work with Bill based on if you're

[2:32:32] certain setbacks and certain heights. I

[2:32:34] know. I think it was Sandy. They have

[2:32:36] like

[2:32:38] Let's not do what Sandy does. They like

[2:32:40] pages of charts of how height it can be

[2:32:42] based on setbacks and where it is on the

[2:32:44] yard. But we can do that. But um but

[2:32:49] they have a lot of different kind of if

[2:32:51] it's this close to the sidey yard, it

[2:32:54] can be 17 feet. If it's this close, it

[2:32:57] can be like 15. Like it's just changes

[2:33:00] based on you have to meet minimum

[2:33:02] setbacks. And then if it's right at the

[2:33:03] line, you get more height the further

[2:33:05] away you are from your neighbors.

[2:33:08] >> Well, I would be with you. The simpler

[2:33:12] terms of what we

[2:33:14] >> know. A couple years ago, we talked

[2:33:15] about the require the specific separate

[2:33:19] lateral that public works wanted. It was

[2:33:21] public works, right?

[2:33:22] >> Yes. So, what was their reason then? And

[2:33:26] has it changed?

[2:33:29] >> Yeah, they're not in the room right now.

[2:33:32] The reason that was stated years ago and

[2:33:34] that was under Dave Der and Gary Calder

[2:33:36] was because then there wouldn't be

[2:33:38] fights over if there's a clog in the

[2:33:40] line who's responsible. But that never

[2:33:43] made sense to me because it's owner

[2:33:44] occupied

[2:33:46] is responsible regardless.

[2:33:48] >> So [laughter]

[2:33:53] yeah,

[2:33:56] >> you mentioned flag lots. So, like

[2:33:59] somebody couldn't a flight lot has to

[2:34:01] have a driveway, but couldn't somebody

[2:34:03] just build a detached ADU and not have a

[2:34:05] driveway? Like, yes,

[2:34:06] >> people walk to to the backyard

[2:34:08] >> as long as you have parking spots.

[2:34:11] >> But, but Bill was saying our ADUs would

[2:34:13] be subject to the flag lot zoning.

[2:34:17] >> All those regulations would apply the

[2:34:19] same to a flag lot as it would to the

[2:34:21] other lots in that zone. There setback

[2:34:24] requirements. There's building

[2:34:25] requirements apply perhaps. Maybe what

[2:34:27] you're thinking is the flat line already

[2:34:29] puts a home behind other homes and this

[2:34:31] would add another home behind other

[2:34:32] homes. Is that what you're thinking?

[2:34:34] >> No. Well, I was just thinking like I

[2:34:37] want people to be able to build an ADU

[2:34:39] without having to have like a driveway

[2:34:41] in case

[2:34:42] >> you need a separate unit.

[2:34:44] >> Yeah.

[2:34:44] >> I don't think they would have to.

[2:34:45] >> Okay.

[2:34:50] » Wet box.

[2:34:51] >> I just have a few other questions here.

[2:34:53] Do do we have a minimum size of adus?

[2:34:56] >> Yes.

[2:34:58] >> At least 200 ft. I mean say we have it

[2:35:01] >> and that would still be that would still

[2:35:03] be applicable. Correct.

[2:35:04] >> Yeah.

[2:35:04] >> Okay. And then

[2:35:06] >> do we and this is maybe a Brian

[2:35:08] question. Do we have

[2:35:10] what is what is within our authority to

[2:35:12] for ownership definition?

[2:35:15] The reason why I ask is because one of

[2:35:17] the things that I think came up at least

[2:35:19] when I've been talking to constituents

[2:35:21] is like this duplex loophole they call

[2:35:23] it where you put someone on the title

[2:35:26] >> and then it becomes effective.

[2:35:28] >> That's when we made a law about this

[2:35:29] talked about scam transactions. Yeah, I

[2:35:32] was going to say we we've that's been

[2:35:36] something that we've worked with over

[2:35:38] and over again through time. I've

[2:35:40] actually made some more tweaks when I

[2:35:42] did the definition section just last

[2:35:44] week [laughter] that I don't know if

[2:35:46] Aaron reviewed yet. Um that's a

[2:35:50] something we constantly struggle with.

[2:35:51] It's although to be to be clear, I guess

[2:35:55] it's not that hard to write the law.

[2:36:00] It's hard to enforce the law because

[2:36:02] then you because you find yourself in

[2:36:04] these situations where you're demanding,

[2:36:06] you know, their tax returns and the and

[2:36:08] the membership the LLC membership

[2:36:10] records and stuff in order to try to to

[2:36:13] try to prevent that. But right now the

[2:36:16] rule is if the that in an ADU situation

[2:36:22] that either the ADU or the main home

[2:36:25] must be owner occupied and owner

[2:36:27] occupied means that the persons on that

[2:36:32] all of the persons on title live in the

[2:36:35] home or if it's held by an LLC that all

[2:36:38] of the members of the LLC live in the

[2:36:39] home.

[2:36:40] >> Okay, makes a lot of sense.

[2:36:43] Any

[2:36:45] other thoughts to give Malia? So

[2:36:47] Whipple?

[2:36:48] >> Yeah.

[2:36:49] >> Um

[2:36:52] I I appreciate the desire to protect the

[2:36:56] private backyards of existing neighbors.

[2:36:59] Again, thinking about the way my

[2:37:01] property is situated, the backyard that

[2:37:03] I look over is a parking lot for a

[2:37:04] duplex,

[2:37:07] as is the one next to it and and

[2:37:08] everything, right? like it wouldn't make

[2:37:10] sense to restrict a view of the

[2:37:13] mountains

[2:37:14] from a garage apartment in my place

[2:37:17] because there's nobody's privacy that

[2:37:19] you would be violating.

[2:37:21] Um, just thinking about how a good

[2:37:24] intention thing could actually end up

[2:37:26] being a very negative thing in some

[2:37:28] circumstances.

[2:37:29] >> Yeah. But how would you allow it for you

[2:37:31] and not everybody else?

[2:37:32] >> Well, I think we actually could do that

[2:37:33] in some of the ways that we do

[2:37:35] transitional buffer areas. It just is

[2:37:37] more complicated to draft. But yeah, it can be instead of the rule being no

[2:37:42] windows that overlook the adjoining

[2:37:44] property, it's no windows that overlook

[2:37:46] the adjoining property if it's

[2:37:47] residential with a house inside so many

[2:37:49] feet, right? You just have to think

[2:37:50] through

[2:37:51] >> Yeah.

[2:37:52] >> how to define it.

[2:37:53] >> So careful thinking on that is is

[2:37:55] useful. Um, what I've heard about this

[2:37:59] is we already have a lot of of hurdles

[2:38:04] to building an external ADU in our city,

[2:38:07] right? It's very very expensive to do

[2:38:09] that with our permitting, with the

[2:38:11] infrastructure that we have to put in.

[2:38:13] Um, and because it is so ownorous to do

[2:38:17] this, we've had almost no people

[2:38:19] applying to do external AD use even

[2:38:21] though it's been allowed for some years.

[2:38:25] And

[2:38:27] I don't know that we need to

[2:38:30] create more barriers to this. I it it

[2:38:33] just doesn't sound like a real problem

[2:38:35] that we have. Why do we need to make it

[2:38:37] even harder if it's already almost

[2:38:39] impossible?

[2:38:40] Um in any case, it seems that

[2:38:44] the thought of erecting more barriers is

[2:38:47] certainly contrary to what the state

[2:38:49] legislature is is doing in imposing this

[2:38:53] on us, right? and and removing this

[2:38:55] little bit of local control. Um,

[2:38:59] so I I don't know how that plays out

[2:39:02] politically in this struggle that we

[2:39:05] have between city and and state control.

[2:39:08] But I am anxious about that.

[2:39:12] The other thing is that

[2:39:15] honestly for a lot of these these

[2:39:17] properties that are newly allowing

[2:39:18] external ADUs, many of those already

[2:39:22] have large existing houses that could

[2:39:24] easily have internal ADUs and they're

[2:39:26] not allowed to have that with this law

[2:39:28] because the law just says external. I

[2:39:31] think it would make sense to say that

[2:39:33] any place that you would have this

[2:39:34] external ADU under state law, you should

[2:39:36] be able to have an internal one because

[2:39:38] then you are not running into those

[2:39:41] overlooking privacy concerns. You're not

[2:39:44] running into the problems with taking up

[2:39:46] more of the lot coverage and everything

[2:39:48] else, right? Like you you've already got

[2:39:50] the structure there. And if we've got

[2:39:52] the necessary parking and everything,

[2:39:55] that seems like the the obvious

[2:39:57] solution. So, I don't understand why we

[2:40:00] aren't looking at changing our code to

[2:40:03] say any of these places where you can

[2:40:05] have the external ADU under SP 284. You

[2:40:09] could also have an internal one so long

[2:40:11] as you're meeting our other city

[2:40:13] requirements.

[2:40:14] Um and we have had some inquiries from

[2:40:17] some of these areas about doing internal

[2:40:19] ADUs

[2:40:21] and but even those are such a small

[2:40:24] portion of the properties that are

[2:40:27] asking for it that I don't think the the

[2:40:29] huge I don't think there's a huge impact

[2:40:32] but that would actually help some people

[2:40:37] and I see my job here on the city

[2:40:39] council is to help the people in my

[2:40:42] city. So why would we not consider

[2:40:47] something that's more expensive and

[2:40:49] actually benefits the residents in that

[2:40:51] way instead of of adding additional

[2:40:55] restrictions

[2:41:01] because I think wouldn't we rather some

[2:41:03] of these places just do the internal one

[2:41:05] then build a whole another structure

[2:41:07] that that has those other negative

[2:41:09] impacts.

[2:41:13] I definitely don't feel that way. I we

[2:41:14] have a shortage of four plusbedroom

[2:41:16] homes and that's my biggest thing

[2:41:17] against internal it is we have we we

[2:41:19] have a limited housing stock and it

[2:41:21] becomes just two smaller homes where we

[2:41:22] lose a bigger [clears throat] home

[2:41:24] >> and we lose families and move up homes

[2:41:27] and

[2:41:29] we lose the higher median income and

[2:41:32] >> but see with the makeup of our city that

[2:41:34] doesn't make sense to me. But with this,

[2:41:36] what you would have is that that large

[2:41:37] house that's also in a large lot. And so

[2:41:40] what they end up doing is losing their

[2:41:43] backyard.

[2:41:44] >> Yeah. I I disagree.

[2:41:45] >> And so then you still have this

[2:41:47] disincentive for this large family. Do

[2:41:49] you see what I mean? Like I I don't see

[2:41:51] it as a

[2:41:55] » we would need to replay

[2:41:57] every ADU discussion we had.

[2:41:59] >> Go back to listen to that.

[2:42:00] >> I I just see I just see that

[2:42:02] differently. Uh you're I think what

[2:42:04] you're saying is rational. Uh I don't

[2:42:09] think it's reasonable.

[2:42:10] >> Wait, what's the difference between

[2:42:12] rational and reasonable?

[2:42:13] >> Rational is yes, you can make a case for

[2:42:16] that. Reasonable means we can see that

[2:42:19] differently in terms of how it affects

[2:42:20] neighborhoods, how it affects housing

[2:42:23] stock,

[2:42:24] >> what I yeah, what I think is best.

[2:42:26] >> It makes sense that we can see that

[2:42:28] differently. That's reasonable to me.

[2:42:29] >> Okay. So, um, we went through this in

[2:42:32] great detail. I haven't been on the

[2:42:34] council a long time, but I PST

[2:42:37] to show that it was it was it was an

[2:42:39] exhaustive discussion. So, having to

[2:42:42] take that offline, but uh I I don't see

[2:42:44] that any different. Now, the stage is

[2:42:46] overreaching. I think again,

[2:42:48] [clears throat] you can see that

[2:42:49] differently. Um, and telling us how to run the city and and we we will

[2:42:56] we'll we'll figure that out. So, I think

[2:42:58] us figuring out some meaningful things

[2:43:01] uh in terms of what those amendments

[2:43:03] should be, I think that makes sense. I'm not of the opinion that we need to

[2:43:08] rewrite and to make the kind of changes

[2:43:11] that you're talking about.

[2:43:18] » Councelor Whit,

[2:43:20] >> I think um one one point of curiosity I

[2:43:23] just have on this on this topic is uh I

[2:43:27] mean the data is pretty strong in my

[2:43:30] opinion that people are not going to do

[2:43:31] this.

[2:43:33] uh is that what we want or do we want to

[2:43:35] try to make it actually more likely that

[2:43:38] people will do this but in a way that we

[2:43:39] want it to happen or is it more just

[2:43:41] like we're kind of just trying to check

[2:43:42] the box with the state and see what

[2:43:44] happens cuz I think there's a reasonable

[2:43:47] debate to be had of the state clearly

[2:43:49] again I actually agree with you they

[2:43:51] overreached but there's clearly a policy

[2:43:53] reason why they're doing this and that's

[2:43:55] because we have a housing affordability

[2:43:56] crisis in the city or sorry in the state

[2:43:59] and the city and um you know I think

[2:44:02] there's I think there's some debate

[2:44:03] about the the impact the ADUs have on

[2:44:06] addressing that, but there's enough

[2:44:07] people in the state legislature who are

[2:44:09] convinced that it helps or at least

[2:44:10] provides options for folks to try to

[2:44:12] afford their homes. And so the question

[2:44:14] in my mind is do we do we sort of take

[2:44:17] the policy intent from the state and try

[2:44:19] to say okay let's let's actually follow

[2:44:21] their policy intent but in a way that

[2:44:22] works for Provo or do we just kind of

[2:44:24] say hey we're going to put up barriers

[2:44:27] because we think you overreached and

[2:44:28] then see how that game plays out over a

[2:44:30] few more legislative sections.

[2:44:32] >> Yeah, I actually think we're doing that.

[2:44:34] I think we're we're taking their

[2:44:37] legislation, which they have every right

[2:44:39] to do, and making sure it works for

[2:44:41] Provo. Um, I don't feel the need to do

[2:44:45] any more than that. I want to make sure

[2:44:46] it doesn't do damage to Protool.

[2:44:48] >> And so that's why he requirements and it

[2:44:52] wasn't Windows. I said Windows, but it's

[2:44:54] just more privacy to make sure privacy.

[2:44:57] >> Yeah. Need for privacy. And we may have

[2:44:59] a lot of this already in in place. So

[2:45:01] maybe not need maybe there isn't much

[2:45:03] that needs to go into it. That would be

[2:45:04] my interest.

[2:45:06] >> And we have staff that has experience

[2:45:09] with this kind of a thing that I think

[2:45:11] we need to put guard rails up for

[2:45:13] because he has a lot of good points and

[2:45:16] divorce can get really messy and this is

[2:45:19] a huge asset that they try to split up

[2:45:22] and I think we need to guard against

[2:45:23] that as well.

[2:45:24] >> I actually really love Bill's

[2:45:26] suggestions. I'm fully supportive of

[2:45:28] them. I think they make a lot of sense.

[2:45:30] But I anyway, yeah, I I actually think

[2:45:32] like I mean we could debate this, but I

[2:45:34] think if you actually remove several

[2:45:35] hookup requirements, you'll probably get

[2:45:37] more ADUs, but you also address the

[2:45:39] issues that Bill is addressing, which I

[2:45:41] think are real, too. So for me, I would

[2:45:43] say like the removing a sec separate

[2:45:45] hookup requirements to me that probably

[2:45:47] increase the supply. More people would

[2:45:49] take this option because I imagine

[2:45:50] that's part of the cost prohibitive

[2:45:52] nature of the equation.

[2:45:53] >> Yeah. if the pipe's big enough to

[2:45:55] support both houses that's coming off of

[2:45:58] the lateral. Right. Yeah.

[2:45:59] >> Because a lot of it

[2:46:01] >> we'd have to get back with public works

[2:46:03] to define if they still now that Dave

[2:46:05] Decker's gone. I think if that's still a

[2:46:08] policy that they hold really strong too

[2:46:10] and if they do why

[2:46:12] >> and if they're not old pipes,

[2:46:15] >> you know, maybe that's the other reason

[2:46:16] is because they need the pipes redone

[2:46:19] and this is a way for them to do that. I

[2:46:21] mean, we all need to we we need to

[2:46:23] respect that reason as well.

[2:46:27] >> Councelor Hoben,

[2:46:28] >> I think we just need to give staff a

[2:46:30] list. So, I mean,

[2:46:32] >> can you get a list?

[2:46:33] >> I've been writing a list. I was going to

[2:46:34] confirm before we

[2:46:37] moved on.

[2:46:37] >> All right. Confirm your list.

[2:46:39] >> Okay. One is the discussion around

[2:46:42] height and window. Mainly the

[2:46:44] overarching is privacy. And by fixing

[2:46:48] privacy issues by looking at setbacks,

[2:46:50] whether that overlooks residential,

[2:46:51] single other homes, we can I've already

[2:46:55] started thinking about other cities that

[2:46:57] have I know I think it's St. George has

[2:47:00] some that I like that we can try and

[2:47:02] pull from.

[2:47:02] >> I think Brian's suggestion was good that

[2:47:04] we can you know something about like

[2:47:06] distance or based on what you're looking

[2:47:08] over and all that.

[2:47:09] >> Okay. Um second is the percentage of the

[2:47:13] parcel coverage. So I know in

[2:47:14] residential zones it's you can't cover

[2:47:17] more than 40% but we can look at that

[2:47:19] cuz I know some of these are not

[2:47:21] necessarily residential zones. So we can

[2:47:23] just make sure that maybe we want to

[2:47:25] keep it 40 across and just say if it's

[2:47:27] an ADU just by the way you can't cover

[2:47:29] more than 40%. We'll look at that. And

[2:47:32] then two is the utilities have to be

[2:47:36] attached to the primary

[2:47:38] instead of separate. Those are the three

[2:47:41] >> I have. Well, I think Rich's point, um,

[2:47:45] I think there are heritage homes, I

[2:47:49] don't know what we call them,

[2:47:51] >> older, you know, lots where it it

[2:47:53] actually is a different dynamic and

[2:47:55] there isn't a place to put another and

[2:47:56] the garage may be the right place to put

[2:47:58] that.

[2:47:59] >> Yeah.

[2:47:59] >> Um, so I I'd love to I'd love to see if

[2:48:03] we could come up with

[2:48:04] >> something creative there.

[2:48:05] >> Yeah.

[2:48:06] >> Well, I will work on something. It'll be

[2:48:09] good. And then

[2:48:11] my next my next question is Vinnie

[2:48:14] wanted

[2:48:17] here's my idea is that we work on these

[2:48:19] things we come back and present them but

[2:48:22] then we'll just write it into the zoning

[2:48:24] rewrite and they'll just come. So we

[2:48:26] would come back to a work meeting

[2:48:28] hopefully the next one and just discuss

[2:48:30] these three things and how we would

[2:48:32] incorporate those and then we'll just

[2:48:34] put it into the zoning rewrite that

[2:48:36] comes early fall late summer. So

[2:48:38] basically that would be option.

[2:48:40] >> Yeah, we would just do it as option one,

[2:48:42] but I would also come back to the June

[2:48:45] 9th work meeting to just discuss

[2:48:48] >> need to see the like final

[2:48:49] >> Yeah. before we incorporate it in. Make

[2:48:51] sure that you're okay with that language

[2:48:53] and those amendments.

[2:48:54] >> Don't we have some

[2:48:56] requests to wait until after the zoning

[2:48:59] revites come before council? Just kind

[2:49:01] of delay it until September.

[2:49:04] >> Well, he was Ryan was saying

[2:49:05] incorporated into the rewrite.

[2:49:07] >> Yeah. Incorporate into the

[2:49:08] >> but I want to make sure that you guys

[2:49:10] see the language before it just comes in

[2:49:12] the package of this

[2:49:13] >> hit you back on a plane to

[2:49:16] >> your mother-in-law's kitchen I'm hearing

[2:49:18] is a productive time

[2:49:21] >> does that sound like an okay path

[2:49:23] forward

[2:49:24] >> so the implications are that in the

[2:49:26] meantime somebody could come and request

[2:49:28] a

[2:49:28] >> no because in the meantime SB284 is not

[2:49:33] active so

[2:49:34] >> until October

[2:49:35] >> this is not live. This is just what's

[2:49:38] going to happen when we incorporate it

[2:49:42] in. So

[2:49:43] >> the plan is whatever we do will be in

[2:49:45] effect goes live.

[2:49:48] >> Yes.

[2:49:48] >> I mean Travis, if this is your question,

[2:49:50] uh any place in the blue, somebody could

[2:49:54] build an external right now that doesn't

[2:49:57] match the rules that we're talking

[2:49:58] about. But again, we've had two

[2:50:00] applications in five years in that area.

[2:50:03] >> Okay.

[2:50:04] >> So

[2:50:05] >> thanks. Almost done.

[2:50:08] >> Looks hesitant.

[2:50:09] >> Almost done.

[2:50:10] >> No, we've had two.

[2:50:13] >> Okay,

[2:50:14] >> that's all we have.

[2:50:19] » All right,

[2:50:23] we are doing so well on time.

[2:50:27] >> Take that advice. [clears throat]

[2:50:28] >> No, finish, right? It's like one thing.

[2:50:31] Kind of silly to do a break before

[2:50:33] meals. No, finish it up.

[2:50:35] >> And okay, next. An ordinance amending

[2:50:38] propy code to add a caretaker dwelling

[2:50:40] as a forbidden accessory use in the

[2:50:41] general commercial zone. It's presented

[2:50:43] by Aaron Armore, our planning manager.

[2:50:46] >> Just early.

[2:50:49] >> I guess we do need a break. Oh, we don't

[2:50:51] need break.

[2:50:52] >> There are actually two items.

[2:50:57] » So, are they both presented by

[2:51:01] I need them.

[2:51:06] » Oh yeah.

[2:51:08] >> I want a family compound

[2:51:11] 80 raw build like six in my backyard.

[2:51:16] >> Rio

[2:51:16] >> only if they're my direct relatives.

[2:51:19] [clears throat]

[2:51:19] >> My kids are my parents.

[2:51:25] » Again can't anybody.

[2:51:29] >> We're good. This one between

[2:51:32] my sideyard

[2:51:34] worry about

[2:51:37] water that grass

[2:51:39] is mostly house

[2:51:42] like cement right

[2:51:45] there. Yeah.

[2:51:49] [clears throat]

[2:51:51] >> Sorry about that. I was schedu

[2:51:55] » um all right. So,

[2:51:58] air tracker dwellings during partial

[2:52:00] zone. Do you have any questions?

[2:52:02] [laughter]

[2:52:03] >> A lot. Aaron, you're the first one to do

[2:52:06] it right.

[2:52:08] >> Hey, are there any questions?

[2:52:10] >> What inspired this?

[2:52:12] >> Um,

[2:52:12] >> tell good direction.

[2:52:14] >> Tell them about the business that asked

[2:52:15] for it and where it started.

[2:52:17] >> Oh, the request. Okay. Yes. So, River

[2:52:19] Health um out there on

[2:52:22] >> was it Columbia Lane?

[2:52:24] >> It's all the way to Grand View. in Grand

[2:52:25] View on the the corner there

[2:52:27] >> behind the eye service.

[2:52:29] >> It's 1561 North Grand View Lane. Um

[2:52:31] they've had some issues with

[2:52:34] crime, homelessness, um stuff like that

[2:52:38] happening after hours.

[2:52:40] >> Um so they started to talk to staff

[2:52:42] about, you know, what can we do here?

[2:52:44] Can we can we have somebody there

[2:52:45] overnight? No, you can't. It's in a in

[2:52:47] this commercial zone. Uh so they uh came

[2:52:51] back to me with this request saying

[2:52:52] could we have caretaker dwelling as an

[2:52:55] accessory use like it is in PF zone and

[2:52:57] a couple other zones. Um so I told them

[2:53:00] how to apply for that kind of helped

[2:53:02] them point out where the language would

[2:53:03] have to be. Um directed them to to that

[2:53:07] process. Um so that's where it came

[2:53:09] from. I went through planning

[2:53:11] commission. They asked some pretty good

[2:53:13] questions more to do with the actual

[2:53:15] caretaker dwelling standards. That's not

[2:53:18] part of this discussion, but um that's where it's at. That's where it

[2:53:22] came from.

[2:53:22] >> What are our caretaker standards?

[2:53:25] >> Um we can go there. 1434

[2:53:29] >> because I know they were commenting on

[2:53:30] how small.

[2:53:31] >> Yeah. So there's there's one one per

[2:53:35] business

[2:53:36] >> like 200 square feet.

[2:53:37] >> There's size requirements.

[2:53:39] >> Um has to be has to be an employee of

[2:53:41] the business.

[2:53:44] >> Just taking a second to get there.

[2:53:47] Thank you Kevin. I appreciate that. Max

[2:53:50] one

[2:53:54] » they have to be employed so much time

[2:53:57] data thing

[2:53:58] >> but does that employment in

[2:54:00] >> like include like night time because

[2:54:02] then they're all all night time with

[2:54:04] that

[2:54:06] >> security

[2:54:07] >> I have

[2:54:09] >> okay

[2:54:10] >> basically accessory to a functioning

[2:54:12] principal use max one per lot same

[2:54:14] property as principal use occupied by

[2:54:16] one family only one kitchen No

[2:54:19] associated accessory living space, max

[2:54:21] 1200 foot architecturally compatible

[2:54:23] green building, not a manufactured

[2:54:24] dwelling, and occupied or rented only by

[2:54:26] an employee or subcontractor of the

[2:54:28] legal entity that owns the principal

[2:54:30] uses.

[2:54:31] >> So that doesn't sound too bad. My

[2:54:33] question would be why a conditional use

[2:54:36] permit? Why not just an overlay

[2:54:39] where they'd have to

[2:54:40] >> It's not a it's an accessory.

[2:54:43] >> It'd be a permitted accessory use to the

[2:54:45] permitted principle of some. So if they

[2:54:47] have that they can automatic

[2:54:49] >> so they have a commercial use

[2:54:50] established then they can do this as

[2:54:52] accessory use

[2:54:54] by right

[2:54:56] with a building permit. [clears throat]

[2:54:58] >> What are the downsides?

[2:54:59] >> Yeah. How is this ab get abused or worst

[2:55:03] case scenario?

[2:55:03] >> Why don't we have this in the books

[2:55:05] already?

[2:55:06] >> Nobody's asked for it. [laughter]

[2:55:09] >> It would be citywide.

[2:55:11] through all the CG

[2:55:13] zones that meet these standards. Um,

[2:55:15] currently it's it's listed in a few

[2:55:17] zones, um, but very rarely used. Uh,

[2:55:20] there's storage facility out by the lake

[2:55:22] on in the PF zone that's used it. Um,

[2:55:25] there's a couple others.

[2:55:29] » I think the fact that this being listed

[2:55:31] or proposed as an accessory use is

[2:55:33] helpful because as an accessory use, it

[2:55:35] has to be a minor part of the land use.

[2:55:39] We we this wouldn't be able to be used

[2:55:41] to allow residential to start to take

[2:55:43] over the commercial building. It's only

[2:55:46] accessory to the commercial building

[2:55:48] subject all these restrictions that Jeff

[2:55:50] referred to.

[2:55:52] >> Um can I ask a question? Give me an idea

[2:55:55] of what 12,200 ft looks like.

[2:55:57] >> It's this room right here.

[2:55:59] Okay.

[2:56:01] >> I mean sorry don't take my

[2:56:06] 10 by 12. So there's some by me that's

[2:56:08] just like a one one level, three

[2:56:11] bedrooms, one bath, living room and a

[2:56:13] >> Okay. Um, so I like this. So tell me how

[2:56:17] do we have this already built or Aaron

[2:56:19] or is like I like the idea of someone

[2:56:22] having a mortuary house and they live up

[2:56:24] above it or they have a pet store and

[2:56:26] they live above the pet store like they

[2:56:28] take an old house like can that be done

[2:56:29] right now in our code?

[2:56:31] >> Um, yes. So in certain areas that can be

[2:56:34] done. The CG zone you can't currently do

[2:56:35] that. So this would kind of open up that

[2:56:38] opportunity for more of a a live work

[2:56:41] environment.

[2:56:42] >> So in those other zones, is it limited

[2:56:43] to 1,200?

[2:56:44] >> Uh it's not limited to 1200 specifically

[2:56:47] like it is under our caretaker building

[2:56:49] because it's just a another permitted

[2:56:51] use within the zone.

[2:56:52] >> Okay.

[2:56:54] >> I'm thinking the downtown zones, mixed

[2:56:56] use zones, things like that. As I was

[2:56:58] reviewing the um commission report, uh

[2:57:01] there was reference to um a comment

[2:57:05] Julie Rose made on behalf of com online

[2:57:08] commenters about potential abuse of the

[2:57:11] caretaker dwelling and I couldn't think

[2:57:14] of did anyone speak to that or

[2:57:16] >> no I think I think you're speaking to

[2:57:18] that just as much as any other rental

[2:57:20] property. You know what what if it's

[2:57:22] over occupied? What if they try to put a

[2:57:24] second unit in there? Things like that.

[2:57:26] Okay,

[2:57:29] >> that's what I took from it.

[2:57:31] >> I mean, or does a business

[2:57:34] just supplement their income by renting

[2:57:36] out a apartment above their business

[2:57:38] that it's not really a caretaker?

[2:57:41] >> Okay. Sure.

[2:57:44] >> That becomes mixed use.

[2:57:45] >> But as a caretaker, they have to be an

[2:57:47] employee.

[2:57:47] >> They have to be an employee.

[2:57:49] >> So maybe it's a

[2:57:50] >> thing of use.

[2:57:51] >> Yeah. Maybe they don't follow the rules.

[2:57:53] So if there's a concern or a complaint

[2:57:54] issued to the city, we can go and knock

[2:57:56] and go and ask for those records to

[2:57:59] >> Yeah. So where I live, we we've got a

[2:58:01] couple of these things, right? Both with

[2:58:03] motel and with Burke mortuary. Um and

[2:58:05] I've seen it with storage units. It it

[2:58:08] really makes sense to be able to have

[2:58:10] someone on site. But I like the idea of

[2:58:12] somebody live above their pet store or

[2:58:15] whatever it is. Like that's that's kind

[2:58:17] of a fantastic thing.

[2:58:19] >> That brings up a thought. So when I was

[2:58:20] in college down in Price, they did

[2:58:23] something like that with the hotels, but

[2:58:25] they'd have college kids do that. So

[2:58:27] would that be a permitted use to allow

[2:58:28] three college kids to service?

[2:58:31] >> Well, I think it says a single

[2:58:33] individual or a family. So three single

[2:58:36] college students would

[2:58:37] >> No, they would family definition.

[2:58:40] >> That's true. But for the people who do

[2:58:43] live, I think there there are two

[2:58:45] families associated with Berg mortuary

[2:58:47] and they have ships that they have to be

[2:58:49] that's what they did on all the time and

[2:58:51] so

[2:58:53] >> it's and they're their odd hours.

[2:58:55] >> So you're saying that it wasn't really

[2:58:56] their living that's not their primary

[2:58:57] residence.

[2:58:58] >> Yeah,

[2:58:58] >> it is where they live. So like young

[2:59:00] married couples,

[2:59:02] >> they share their home else. Well, I I

[2:59:06] think there are I don't know if Burke

[2:59:07] has two apartments or I think it just

[2:59:09] has one, but there are two families that

[2:59:11] have to take turns because you have to

[2:59:13] have somebody available to answer the

[2:59:14] phone 24/7.

[2:59:17] >> That was like fire department where you

[2:59:18] have a shift. you take a 24-hour shift,

[2:59:21] someone's takes

[2:59:22] >> Well, I don't know Berg's exact

[2:59:24] employment standards, but somebody's

[2:59:25] always got to be there. And it makes it

[2:59:28] hard for the families who are living in

[2:59:30] those caretaking things to, you know,

[2:59:32] get off on vacation and everything, but

[2:59:33] they usually get supplemented rent or

[2:59:35] lower rent.

[2:59:36] >> Yeah.

[2:59:36] >> Because of that, but that's why it's

[2:59:39] nice to be able to have somebody that

[2:59:41] you can tag team on for it.

[2:59:44] >> Yeah. And I'm sure what they would do is

[2:59:46] just say you're in charge of security at

[2:59:48] night and we will pay you in lie of rent

[2:59:50] or something. These kids, they'd all

[2:59:52] three live in that apartment behind the

[2:59:54] check-in desk and then they'd have

[2:59:56] shifts who had to work what night,

[2:59:58] right? So

[3:00:03] » something like that.

[3:00:07] » Well, I I couldn't see any downside uh

[3:00:10] to this. Uh that's why the question was

[3:00:12] asked. any downside that you see?

[3:00:17] >> Um, not in my opinion. No.

[3:00:23] >> Right. Well, thanks. Any other questions

[3:00:24] for Eric?

[3:00:27] >> Okay. Thanks, Eric.

[3:00:27] >> Okay. Thanks.

[3:00:30] >> If there's no objection, we'll now

[3:00:31] recess the promises council and convene

[3:00:34] the RDA governing board by unanimous

[3:00:36] consent.

[3:00:40] I have a resolution approving the league

[3:00:41] development agency of Provo City to

[3:00:43] adopt a project area budget for the Lake

[3:00:45] View Parkway community reinvestment

[3:00:47] area. This is can be presented by

[3:00:49] Melissa,

[3:00:51] the RDA director.

[3:00:56] » Welcome.

[3:00:58] >> Good afternoon.

[3:01:00] Um so this is is just bringing forward

[3:01:04] um the budget uh reimagined from what

[3:01:08] everybody saw in December and January

[3:01:11] iterations um at council's request. We

[3:01:14] reworked we reworked the budget um

[3:01:18] contemplating the spaces just being

[3:01:20] general retail as opposed to like a

[3:01:22] superstore or something like that. Um,

[3:01:25] so the numbers are based on on that

[3:01:29] square footage being general retail and

[3:01:33] um and on any incentive being a sales

[3:01:37] tax um a percentage of sales tax um

[3:01:44] incentive based and that would be based

[3:01:46] on point of sales um and

[3:01:49] the store specific um and the This

[3:01:54] budget in no way um obligates us to do

[3:01:56] that. Any um any incentive that um that

[3:02:02] would be awarded would come before the

[3:02:04] full RDA board um through first of all

[3:02:06] an interlocal agreement for any um

[3:02:10] participant and then again through um

[3:02:14] the participation agreement with the

[3:02:16] entity. Um, that's was there.

[3:02:22] Um,

[3:02:26] I think I think that's about

[3:02:30] it. Unless you have any questions for me

[3:02:33] about the

[3:02:34] >> Well, let's let's figure that out.

[3:02:35] >> Okay.

[3:02:36] >> Do you have a question?

[3:02:38] >> Okay. So, the first one's the Walmart

[3:02:40] parcel. The second one is the one to the

[3:02:42] south of the Walmart parcel in Lake

[3:02:43] Parkway. And the third one is the epic

[3:02:46] sports part parcel. Right. So is this

[3:02:49] saying that for Walmart we're going to

[3:02:51] say 1.7

[3:02:54] is that 1.7 million? 1.7 million is what

[3:02:58] we will allow for 50% of the sales tax

[3:03:01] reimbursement. No

[3:03:02] >> no that is that's the value of the

[3:03:04] parcel right now undeveloped. Those are

[3:03:07] parcel values. The Epic Sports Park um

[3:03:10] right now has a zero value because it is

[3:03:12] owned by the city. So it has no taxable

[3:03:15] value. Those are the current taxable

[3:03:17] values according to the um the uh county

[3:03:21] land records.

[3:03:22] >> Okay. So why is this a part of that? We

[3:03:26] have to have this for state retirement

[3:03:28] or

[3:03:29] >> Yes.

[3:03:30] >> And then in no way we don't have we can

[3:03:32] say no to any one of these three parcels

[3:03:35] or we can negotiate instead of 50% we

[3:03:37] can say okay we're only going to do 20.

[3:03:39] >> Absolutely. Absolutely. In the past we

[3:03:42] did I did 50% because when we've done

[3:03:44] sales tax incentives in the past it's

[3:03:46] been 50% of the portion that Provo

[3:03:49] receives um from point of sale sales

[3:03:52] tax. So, but it's been the increment,

[3:03:53] right? It hasn't necessarily been,

[3:03:56] >> right? It's in for the sales tax, it is um it is the increment and um in

[3:04:02] this case, because there are no retail

[3:04:04] spaces, anything that is established is

[3:04:07] incremental adds to the incremental

[3:04:09] value.

[3:04:13] » Thank you.

[3:04:13] >> Any other board members?

[3:04:18] » No.

[3:04:20] So, we just got the the appraised value

[3:04:23] for this sports park property.

[3:04:27] >> Are we going to need to update that and

[3:04:28] pop that in there?

[3:04:29] >> Um, it has no that's the taxable value

[3:04:33] >> and the parcel is still owned by the

[3:04:35] city

[3:04:36] >> as of today,

[3:04:38] >> right?

[3:04:38] >> Um, and it doesn't matter. So, it has no

[3:04:41] taxable value right now.

[3:04:42] >> Okay.

[3:04:43] >> Yes.

[3:04:44] >> But when we do sell it, we we don't have

[3:04:46] to update this budget. Um it depends on

[3:04:50] if we're going to offer a different

[3:04:52] incentive. So the the budget currently

[3:04:54] does not anticipate a property tax

[3:04:57] increment. Um if that is considered at

[3:05:00] some point, we would have to amend the

[3:05:01] budget and then the the appraised value

[3:05:04] for that parcel specifically would be um

[3:05:08] would be updated to the appraisal value

[3:05:10] and then incrementally from there.

[3:05:12] >> Okay. So right now we don't need to do

[3:05:14] anything with that information. We got

[3:05:16] perfect.

[3:05:18] Oh yeah.

[3:05:20] >> And in reality any deal we do with

[3:05:23] anyone or any have to a separate meeting

[3:05:25] separate everything this really means

[3:05:27] nothing in the big picture as far as

[3:05:29] what we are required to do

[3:05:33] to someone if we do make a deal with

[3:05:35] them.

[3:05:37] >> Right? So this is so this is kind of the

[3:05:39] first part of the process. A budget has

[3:05:41] to be in place before we can do any

[3:05:44] separate deals um through a

[3:05:47] participation agreement.

[3:05:48] >> So I understand that we have to have the

[3:05:49] budget in place so we can amend it if we

[3:05:51] need to in the future.

[3:05:52] >> Yes.

[3:05:53] >> Yeah.

[3:05:54] >> Put a tool in your toolbox.

[3:05:56] >> Yeah.

[3:05:58] >> All right. So we want to make a motion.

[3:06:02] >> I'll make a motion we we get this

[3:06:04] approved in Well, we do we need to

[3:06:07] >> um Yeah. I don't think so because the

[3:06:09] public hearing on this will be the next

[3:06:11] um council meeting in June, the first

[3:06:13] one in June. Um so that's when the

[3:06:16] public hearing is scheduled and a

[3:06:17] resolution will come before the board

[3:06:19] >> at that time.

[3:06:20] >> So we don't need a motion.

[3:06:21] >> I don't believe so.

[3:06:23] >> Okay.

[3:06:24] >> This is just informationformational

[3:06:26] only. I really want a motion. All right.

[3:06:29] How about

[3:06:30] >> How about

[3:06:31] >> I I give you a motion that we adjourn

[3:06:33] this meeting. Oh, I'll second that.

[3:06:36] >> Hold on.

[3:06:37] Well, no. Everybody get

[3:06:40] excited. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[3:06:41] >> I need to turn the page.

[3:06:43] >> All right. If there are no objections,

[3:06:46] we will now adjourn the RDA governing

[3:06:47] board and reconvene as the Provo

[3:06:50] Municipal Council by unanimous consent.

[3:06:53] >> You take all the fun out of that.

[3:06:54] >> All right. And as the pro municipal

[3:06:56] council will turn over to Brian to

[3:06:57] explain our closed meeting, please.

[3:07:00] >> Very good. Uh we have three topics

[3:07:02] actually to discuss tonight which

[3:07:04] involve um all reasons that are approved

[3:07:06] by the statute, character and competence

[3:07:08] of an individual uh property

[3:07:10] transaction. So uh that are permitted by

[3:07:14] state statute. So it would be

[3:07:15] appropriate to move to close the meeting

[3:07:17] at this time.

[3:07:18] >> Thank you, Brian. Do I have a motion?

[3:07:20] >> I'll motion that we close the meeting.

[3:07:22] >> Great. Do I have a second?

[3:07:24] >> Second.

[3:07:25] >> All right. We will now recess approve it

[3:07:28] to a council work meeting with you to

[3:07:31] vote.

[3:07:32] >> Oh, sorry. Have to vote for that motion.

[3:07:34] Apologize. Councelor Whipple,

[3:07:36] >> yes. Councelor Garrett,

[3:07:38] >> yes.

[3:07:38] >> Council, councelor McKay, yes. Councelor

[3:07:42] Bogdan,

[3:07:42] >> yes.

[3:07:42] >> Council Hoben,

[3:07:43] >> yes.

[3:07:44] >> And council,

[3:07:45] >> yes.

[3:07:45] >> We will now re That's 70. We'll now

[3:07:48] recess the permissible council and

[3:07:50] reconvene in the preunction room for a

[3:07:51] closed meeting.

[3:07:56] Recording stopped.

Provo City Council - Work Meeting | May 26, 2026

Transcript