[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.