[0:00] Welcome to the Provo City Council and
[0:02] the Provo RDA Governing Board and the
[0:03] Stormwater Service District Governing
[0:05] Board regular meeting. It is June 9th,
[0:07] 2026. It's 5:31 p.m. We'll have a roll
[0:11] call of each of the councilors.
[0:15] Jeff
[0:17] >> Jeff Whitlock
[0:18] >> Becky Bogden
[0:19] >> Rachel Whipple
[0:20] >> Craig Christiansen
[0:21] >> Patrice McKey
[0:23] >> Gary Garrett
[0:24] >> Today's opening prayer will be provided
[0:26] by our state rep, Grant Pace, and then
[0:29] we'll have the pledge of allegiance by
[0:30] Councilor Whitlock.
[0:41] » Our gracious heavenly Father, we come
[0:43] before thee at the commencement of the
[0:44] City Council meeting and pray as always
[0:46] thy blessings upon those chosen to
[0:50] perform important duties for the
[0:52] wonderful city in which we live. We
[0:54] thank thee for thy many blessings. We
[0:57] acknowledge them and pray that I will
[0:59] that thou will send rains of which thou
[1:01] knowest we need. We pray for wisdom and
[1:03] judgment, for protection and the distant vision to make those
[1:10] decisions which will serve us and our
[1:11] community now and in the future. This we
[1:14] pray for humbly in the name of Jesus
[1:16] Christ. Amen.
[1:17] >> Amen.
[1:18] >> Thanks, Grant.
[1:19] >> Please rise and join me for the pledge
[1:21] of allegiance.
[1:23] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:26] United States of America and to the
[1:28] republic for which it stands, one nation
[1:31] under God,
[1:32] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:35] for all.
[1:37] >> Thank you.
[1:40] » As indicated on the screen, a required
[1:42] public hearing will be held for certain
[1:44] agenda items prior to council action.
[1:46] After each such item has been presented,
[1:48] time to comment will provided for all
[1:50] those who wish to speak. For items that
[1:52] do not require a public hearing, public
[1:54] comment will still be taken following
[1:55] presentation of the item, but will be
[1:57] limited to 10 minutes. At this time, up
[2:00] to 15 minutes have been set aside for an
[2:01] open public comment period, which is
[2:03] intended to allow comment on matters
[2:04] that do not appear on the agenda, but
[2:06] are limited to topics regarding
[2:08] municipal business or within the
[2:09] municipal council purview.
[2:11] Persons who wish to speak during this
[2:12] time to an item that is on the agenda
[2:14] will not normally be afforded a second
[2:16] opportunity to speak during the comment
[2:17] period specific to that item.
[2:19] During any public comment period, each
[2:21] speaker will generally be limited to 2
[2:23] minutes.
[2:24] Due to noticing requirements, no formal
[2:26] action will be taken in this meeting on
[2:28] matters that do not appear on the
[2:29] agenda.
[2:30] Those with comments are invited to
[2:32] approach the podium, and those
[2:33] participating on Zoom will need to use
[2:34] the raise hand feature to indicate they
[2:36] wish to comment.
[2:38] The chair may choose to alternate
[2:39] between in-person and online commenters.
[2:42] Please begin your comments by stating
[2:43] your name and the city of residence.
[2:45] You'll have 2 minutes to speak. Do we
[2:47] have any public comment right now?
[2:52] All right, seeing no public comment,
[2:53] we'll move on to council business.
[2:56] First of all, we have an implied motion
[2:58] on a resolution to place 5.079
[3:01] acres of real property generally located
[3:03] to the south of the Epic Sports Park on
[3:06] Lakeview Parkway on the surplus property
[3:07] list. This was presented to us by Cody
[3:10] Hill. He's our division director of
[3:12] economic development.
[3:13] >> Chair, we skipped item number one.
[3:16] The presentation.
[3:20] » Yes, we did.
[3:22] Thank you.
[3:24] All right, sorry, Cody. You're delayed.
[3:26] Um
[3:27] First of all, we're going to do a
[3:28] presentation regarding the 2027 Provo
[3:31] City Citizens Budget. And this will be
[3:33] presented by um Britain.
[3:36] Yes. He is our new council office
[3:38] intern, and the citizens budget is
[3:41] something that we choose to do as a
[3:42] council to kind of just do an
[3:44] easy-to-understand
[3:46] overview of the entire budget.
[3:50] » Couldn't have said it better myself.
[3:51] Thank you. Um
[3:53] counselors, uh here to present the
[3:55] citizens budget today for the fiscal
[3:57] year 2027,
[3:59] um which will begin July 1st of this
[4:01] calendar year.
[4:03] Um and this citizens budget is meant to
[4:06] highlight some of the key components of
[4:09] the full tentative budget and is based
[4:11] off of
[4:12] um that document, which will is linked
[4:14] at the bottom,
[4:16] um which we'll get to in a minute.
[4:20] Here's my clicker. Perfect. Okay. So,
[4:22] the first page here is the revenue
[4:24] summary.
[4:25] Um and for total revenues and transfers
[4:28] in projected for the fiscal year 2027,
[4:31] uh we're anticipating approximately
[4:33] $334.62
[4:35] million. Um and that's derived um from
[4:39] three um
[4:40] main revenue sources, which include the
[4:43] sales of utility services,
[4:45] fees, and sales tax.
[4:47] Um and below there's a graph showing the
[4:50] total revenues and transfers in from the
[4:51] past five
[4:53] uh fiscal years, from 2023 to today.
[4:57] Um there's also a section to the right
[5:00] um explaining
[5:02] a little bit more about the taxes and
[5:03] fees that Provo City
[5:05] um
[5:06] charges, as well as how some of the
[5:09] transfers work.
[5:10] Um the bottom paragraph explains briefly
[5:13] um
[5:14] our sales tax revenue projection.
[5:17] Um and I'm pleased to announce that
[5:19] there has There's about a 14% increase
[5:22] from what was budgeted for the fiscal
[5:23] year 2026 and what we anticipate
[5:26] um actually um receiving.
[5:28] So, that is um also
[5:32] shown in the budget for fiscal year
[5:34] 2027. We have a little bit higher sales
[5:36] tax revenue projection, which is
[5:38] approximately $30.26 million. Um and
[5:43] Um onto expenses, our total expenditures
[5:45] and transfers out projected for fiscal
[5:48] year 2027 is $341.6
[5:51] million
[5:52] and to the left is another graphic
[5:55] showing
[5:57] total expenditures and transfers out for
[5:58] the last five fiscal years.
[6:01] The most significant expenses come from
[6:04] enterprise funds, so
[6:06] our airport and utilities. The general
[6:09] fund and then internal service funds.
[6:11] Below that is a little explainer bubble
[6:15] talking about the six different funds
[6:16] that comprise the entire city budget. Um
[6:21] which you can read about.
[6:23] As well, we have an explainer about
[6:26] general fund expenditure expenditures
[6:28] and transfers out that are
[6:30] being recommended for fiscal year 2027.
[6:33] Um which is approximately $94.22
[6:36] million. Um as well as a graphic to the
[6:40] right of all of the different
[6:42] departments and their general fund
[6:44] expenses.
[6:45] Um expected in fiscal year 2027. The top
[6:48] three being police at 27.9 million, fire
[6:52] at 16.8 million and parks at
[6:55] approximately 15.3 million.
[6:58] Uh
[6:59] the capital projects page here
[7:01] shows our capital
[7:04] improvement plan budget which is
[7:06] approximately $57.79 million for this
[7:09] upcoming fiscal year.
[7:10] Um as well as a breakdown of the
[7:13] different departments and their
[7:14] anticipated capital project costs.
[7:17] Um the top three being wastewater at
[7:19] approximately $14.8 million, energy at
[7:22] 13.03
[7:24] million and our water department at
[7:26] 7.88. Um below that we have given a
[7:31] little explainer on some significant
[7:34] capital projects that you can expect to
[7:35] see in fiscal year 2027.
[7:37] Um
[7:39] all of them have to do with water in
[7:40] some way.
[7:41] Um and one that I specifically wanted to
[7:43] highlight was the drinking water
[7:44] treatment plant that is entering its
[7:46] final phase of construction here in fall
[7:48] of 2026 with the plant um, projected to
[7:51] be open next calendar year. Um, and it
[7:54] will transform water into drinking
[7:57] quality water, which we all need. Um,
[8:00] and if you're interested in learning
[8:02] more about um,
[8:04] additional capital projects in the
[8:06] future that usually span more than a
[8:07] year, um, the full five-year capital
[8:09] improvement plan uh, can be viewed at
[8:11] the bottom of the page.
[8:13] Um, utility rates and rebates is a new
[8:15] page that I added this year.
[8:18] Um, or I should say the Municipal
[8:19] Council staff. Um, and
[8:23] on the page it explains a little bit
[8:24] about some utility rate adjustments that
[8:26] are proposed in the tentative budget for
[8:28] fiscal year 2027, including a 6%
[8:31] increase uh, for residential water
[8:33] rates, as well as a 4% increase for
[8:36] small commercial, 7% for large
[8:38] commercial, and 10% increase for
[8:40] industrial power customers to
[8:42] electricity rates. Um, I do want to note
[8:45] though that no increases are expected
[8:46] for residential power customers this
[8:49] upcoming fiscal year.
[8:50] Which is great.
[8:51] Uh, additionally on this page there are
[8:54] some resources for residents and
[8:56] business owners um, for utility rebates
[8:59] and sustainability programs to help
[9:01] offset some of the uh, increased costs
[9:03] of providing high-quality utilities to
[9:05] the city. Some of those include um,
[9:08] discounts on sprinkler controllers so,
[9:11] to help save water during this drought
[9:13] season. Um, shade trees that are
[9:16] absolutely free once every three years
[9:17] you can uh, they're eligible any
[9:19] residents are eligible for that. Um, and
[9:21] then rebates on sprinkler heads.
[9:25] Um, the funding and saving page uh,
[9:27] analyzes some ways that Provo City is
[9:30] trying to uh, operate more efficiently
[9:33] by cutting on expenses and um,
[9:37] improving revenue.
[9:39] Um and I've chosen to highlight five of
[9:41] the things from the budget that both the
[9:43] council, the mayor's office, and city
[9:45] staff
[9:46] um have attempted to do. Um
[9:48] one of those is a stricter
[9:50] approach to supplemental appropriations.
[9:53] So, department directors are now being
[9:54] asked to identify potential funding
[9:56] sources for every proposed project um
[10:00] ahead of time, which is a big deal.
[10:02] Uh secondly, is establishing an annual
[10:04] vehicle fleet budget. Uh wasn't a defined budget previously.
[10:09] Um addressing operational overtime in
[10:11] the fire department. Um and we've been
[10:13] able to hire more fire officers or
[10:16] firefighters, excuse me,
[10:18] um and lower their overtime costs, um
[10:20] saving the city money.
[10:22] Um investing in an economic development
[10:24] strategic plan has been one of the
[10:26] priorities of the council that I wanted
[10:28] to highlight. And then lastly, is
[10:29] improving building permit processes. Um
[10:31] and we've been able to add a new
[10:33] building inspector under this proposed
[10:34] budget at no cost to the general fund.
[10:37] Uh moving forward,
[10:39] um
[10:40] Provo is a great city and um that's been
[10:43] recognized by others. So, there's a
[10:45] little section about some achievements
[10:47] and rankings for the city of Provo, as
[10:48] well as the community vision that was um
[10:52] created in 2010 by the um Vision 2030
[10:56] steering committee and Provo city staff.
[10:59] Um and then at the very bottom is a
[11:01] little looking ahead um paragraph
[11:03] talking about how um this proposed
[11:06] budget meets those community aims.
[11:09] And then lastly, is contact information
[11:12] for all the councilors and the mayor, as
[11:14] well as a little explainer on how to get
[11:16] involved in the budget process
[11:18] um
[11:18] if you are a citizen interested in
[11:20] learning more. Um
[11:23] and at the very bottom is uh
[11:26] a link to the full fiscal year 2027
[11:29] tentative budget. Um I'll now welcome
[11:31] any questions if you have any. Thank
[11:33] you.
[11:34] >> Any questions for Britain?
[11:37] I think we're good. Thank you so much
[11:38] for doing that.
[11:39] >> Awesome.
[11:40] >> We'd like to recognize that we've been
[11:41] joined by Councillor Travis Hoban and
[11:42] the Mayor Marsha Judkins.
[11:45] Next is an implied motion on Now's your
[11:47] chance, Cody. A resolution to place
[11:49] 5.079 acres of real property Jerry
[11:52] located to the south of the Epic Sports
[11:54] Park on Lakeview Parkway on the surplus
[11:55] list.
[11:59] » Thank you, Council. Appreciate it. Um,
[12:01] so yeah, I'm here to discuss the
[12:04] surplussing of this property. It is
[12:05] located just south of the Epic Sports
[12:07] Park. It is about 5.
[12:10] Uh, 079 acres. It was originally
[12:14] included in the purchase for the land
[12:16] for the Epic Sports Park, which is just
[12:17] over 100 acres. And then looking ahead,
[12:20] the
[12:21] um,
[12:22] Development Services Department worked
[12:24] with Parks and Recreation to to zone the
[12:28] bottom portion of it, that 5 acres on
[12:29] the bottom as SC2. So, uh, commercial
[12:32] for that area. And
[12:35] we've been discussing this in the in the
[12:37] previous work session about the the RFP
[12:39] that went out for it. Um, and so the
[12:41] city is contemplating its development
[12:44] and looking at surplussing it so that it
[12:46] could be sold and developed. Um, and I'm
[12:49] happy to field any questions, additional
[12:51] questions you have about this property.
[12:53] But I feel like we've been talking about
[12:54] it quite a bit lately.
[13:00] » All right, any questions for Cody?
[13:04] All right, thank you.
[13:07] Brian, I did do open public comment
[13:09] before I went back and did
[13:11] >> Okay.
[13:12] >> Got you.
[13:12] >> Thanks for checking.
[13:13] >> I asked, well, never mind. Go ahead.
[13:15] Great.
[13:17] » Okay. Is there any public comment on,
[13:20] um,
[13:21] the surplus property of Lakeview
[13:23] Parkway?
[13:27] All right, seeing no public comment, any
[13:29] council discussion on this item?
[13:32] All right, we will do a vote on the
[13:34] implied Oh.
[13:36] Councilor Whitlock.
[13:37] >> If if I may just cuz I think sometimes
[13:40] the way in which [clears throat] these
[13:41] things get decided, the surplus property
[13:44] action happens sometimes before everyone
[13:45] has the full context. So, this is just
[13:47] by the airport and there's if you look
[13:49] in the work meeting, there's a really
[13:50] nice plan for a hotel and some
[13:54] restaurants next to the Epicenter Sports
[13:55] Park. So, we're putting this as a
[13:57] procedural thing we need to do in order
[13:58] to make that happen for people who use
[14:00] the airport and the Epicenter Sports
[14:02] Park.
[14:04] » Thank you. All right, next
[14:07] we'll do a vote on the implied motion.
[14:08] Councilor Garrett.
[14:10] >> Yes.
[14:10] >> Councilor McKay, yes. Councilor
[14:12] Christensen.
[14:13] >> Yes.
[14:13] >> Councilor Whitlock.
[14:14] >> Yes.
[14:15] >> Councilor Bogdan.
[14:16] >> Yes.
[14:16] >> Councilor Houben.
[14:17] >> Yes.
[14:18] >> And Councilor Whipple.
[14:19] >> Yes.
[14:20] >> That passes 7-0.
[14:22] Next, we have an implied motion and
[14:23] ordinance amending the zone map
[14:24] classification of real property
[14:26] generally located at 5568 North Canyon
[14:29] Road from the medium density residential
[14:32] MDR zone to the Arbors on the Avenue Pro
[14:35] A-10 zone, North Timpview.
[14:37] And this will be presented by Aaron
[14:38] Ardmore, our planning supervisor.
[14:42] >> Thank you, Council. So, this is uh
[14:45] maybe the third time you've seen this
[14:46] property come before you.
[14:48] Um so, if you recall, those of you that
[14:50] were on the council last year approved
[14:52] the medium density residential zone
[14:54] that's shown on the map on the left
[14:56] along with a development agreement to
[14:58] tie it down to 16 uh town home units.
[15:02] Uh so, the developer has come back now
[15:04] with uh
[15:05] new uh
[15:07] proposal to
[15:09] produce 46 condo units using the Arbors
[15:12] on the Avenue zone.
[15:14] Um so, this has gone through staff
[15:17] review and planning commission. Uh the
[15:19] concept essentially shows that it can
[15:22] meet the zone if if approved.
[15:24] Part of this is also
[15:26] amendment of the development agreement
[15:28] on record that's recorded at the county
[15:30] to to reflect the changes with this
[15:32] proposal.
[15:33] So that's what's before you and I'm
[15:35] happy to address any questions and the
[15:36] applicant is also here to address any
[15:38] questions you might have.
[15:39] >> Thanks Aaron.
[15:41] All right, any questions for Aaron?
[15:46] Councilor Christensen.
[15:48] >> So
[15:49] it just be helpful to know about the
[15:51] sewer capacity
[15:52] that we did not talk about in the work
[15:54] meeting.
[15:56] I'm just curious as to how this now
[15:58] works and it didn't before.
[16:01] >> I can't speak to sewer capacity but if
[16:03] there's someone from public works here
[16:04] that can that would be Looks like there
[16:05] is.
[16:06] >> Okay, great.
[16:08] >> We have Gordon Haight joining us. He's
[16:10] our public works director.
[16:12] >> Thank you.
[16:14] No, that that's an important question.
[16:15] So when they first came through the city
[16:17] had gone through with its master plan
[16:20] and looked at the cap the uh
[16:22] the city master plan and allocated for
[16:24] undeveloped property how many
[16:28] sewer spaces or connections would be
[16:30] allowed on each of those properties.
[16:32] This property was in the general plan of
[16:34] 12 units per acre or total of 12 units.
[16:37] And so we had allocated all the capacity
[16:40] in the southwest
[16:42] um knowing that we had some
[16:44] until excuse me the northwest
[16:46] >> northwest
[16:46] >> northeast section based upon some
[16:49] capacity restraints.
[16:51] Since that time we have looked at some
[16:53] properties that we have
[16:55] we had large apartment projects and
[16:58] others that did not come through that
[17:00] had different zonings and so we were
[17:03] still we were able to allocate
[17:06] units to this area after we did the mask
[17:08] after the master plan was adopted by the
[17:10] city
[17:11] and we looked at that we said okay let's
[17:13] pull some of these and we have the capacity for this. It's
[17:17] still tight. I think we've we've ended
[17:19] up with um after this project 150
[17:24] connections, but some of those again are
[17:26] allocated for undeveloped property that
[17:28] we say will develop in the future. So,
[17:32] we if there's a up-zone on some of those
[17:34] properties, it could be a real challenge
[17:36] for us and we may not be able to do
[17:37] that. So, this project is taking more
[17:40] than the 12 we had allocated for it. We
[17:42] can do that because of
[17:43] allocations that we now believe are
[17:47] what's really going to happen with the
[17:48] master
[17:49] >> initially it was 12 and now it's going
[17:50] up to 40.
[17:52] >> 48.
[17:53] >> Um
[17:55] So, does that put in jeopardy uh
[17:58] these I'm just wondering how tight that threshold is. What are we trading
[18:02] on?
[18:03] >> we believe that going ahead and
[18:04] approving this is going to be fine cuz
[18:05] we've looked at all the properties based
[18:07] upon the master plan the city council
[18:09] adopted and we have the capacity to meet
[18:12] that. Now, if something comes in and
[18:14] zones over that, would be a challenge.
[18:18] >> Okay. All right, thanks Kurt.
[18:21] >> All right, any other questions for
[18:23] Aaron?
[18:25] Councilor Whitlock.
[18:27] >> Um
[18:29] I I just had a question. So, this was
[18:31] previously there was a previous
[18:33] development agreement that was
[18:35] associated with this project, right?
[18:36] >> Correct.
[18:37] >> And are we still operating under that
[18:39] previous development agreement?
[18:41] >> As of right now we are.
[18:43] >> So, um can you just some questions about
[18:45] that? Um so, one was there any uh owner
[18:48] occupancy stipulated in that development
[18:50] agreement?
[18:51] >> There was.
[18:51] >> Can you explain?
[18:53] >> Yes, so it it's that portion of it has
[18:56] been continued in the proposed
[18:57] development agreement for tonight uh
[18:59] where the developer has committed to
[19:01] provide at least 50% of uh deed
[19:04] restricted owner occupant uh units
[19:06] within the project.
[19:08] >> And answer this as you're able, but part
[19:11] of the I guess justification to the
[19:14] public for more units but smaller is
[19:17] that these would perhaps be more
[19:18] affordable. Do you can you speak to
[19:20] maybe what the cost of these would be?
[19:21] >> Yeah. Uh
[19:22] David uh Peronje can can speak to that
[19:25] much more than I can but yes the the
[19:27] units that they were looking at before
[19:29] were going to be quite expensive um and
[19:31] be kind of counter to what the city has
[19:33] focused on with affordability.
[19:36] >> And then in the neighborhood meeting it
[19:38] seemed the primary concern for those who didn't want this development was
[19:42] traffic. What in the development
[19:44] agreement would address those concerns?
[19:46] >> Um there's road improvements tied to
[19:48] this. Uh there's infrastructure utility
[19:50] improvements tied to this. So uh it will
[19:53] actually be a benefit to the area in the
[19:56] in that regard.
[19:57] >> So it'll actually improve the overall
[19:58] system.
[19:59] >> Correct.
[20:00] >> And then sorry I said last but one more.
[20:02] And then the current uh
[20:04] property is effectively like a
[20:05] discontinued gravel pit. Hot topic
[20:07] lately.
[20:08] >> Yes.
[20:09] >> Okay.
[20:09] >> Thank you.
[20:10] >> Yep.
[20:11] >> I have a question.
[20:12] >> Councilor Christiansen.
[20:13] >> And so what was the answer to the
[20:15] current uh
[20:17] development agreement in terms of owner
[20:19] occupancy?
[20:20] >> I believe it's the minimum of 50% of the
[20:22] units.
[20:23] >> The the existing?
[20:24] >> The existing.
[20:26] >> It's my understanding that that was
[20:27] actually 100% owner occupancy.
[20:30] >> I can I can look up the city the the
[20:32] county record and double check that but
[20:33] I believe it was the 50%.
[20:35] >> Okay, that that would be helpful to
[20:36] know.
[20:37] >> Okay.
[20:41] » Councilor Bogdan.
[20:44] » Okay, Aaron.
[20:46] So
[20:47] this includes the trails too if I
[20:49] remember right that existing
[20:51] agreement he's going to develop the
[20:53] trails.
[20:54] >> Yes, develop the trails to connect up to
[20:55] our current trail system.
[20:57] >> And then parking was also brought up in
[20:59] the neighborhood meeting.
[21:01] So they were concerned that it didn't
[21:03] have enough parking and there would be
[21:04] parking on the trail head up above.
[21:07] That's
[21:08] >> There were some concerns about parking,
[21:09] but the proposal the concept plan meets the
[21:13] parking standard for the city for the
[21:14] zone.
[21:15] >> Right, but how many What is it?
[21:17] 2.something?
[21:18] >> 2.25 per unit.
[21:20] >> And then there's they're three-bedroom
[21:22] units.
[21:22] >> Yes.
[21:23] >> So, if you stick three students in there
[21:26] with three cars, it's still
[21:28] 2.25 still not going to meet the demand.
[21:31] >> city standard.
[21:33] >> Yes, and so
[21:36] where would that third car sit?
[21:41] Theoretically, is it going to be parked
[21:42] on the road on Canyon Road? Is it going
[21:44] to be parked up on a trail head?
[21:47] >> You're talking about a theoretical cars.
[21:49] I I I can't respond to that. I don't
[21:51] know.
[21:53] It It meets the city standard. It meets
[21:55] the city standard, so that's what we
[21:56] review.
[21:57] >> Right.
[21:57] >> Yep.
[21:58] >> But, where do we project some of this
[22:01] over I mean, it couldn't probably go up
[22:03] to the trail head because trail head
[22:05] would be
[22:07] no parking from 11:00 to 5:00, right?
[22:10] >> Right, and there's no parking on the
[22:11] adjacent streets, so.
[22:12] >> There's no parking on Canyon Road?
[22:14] >> No, not section of Canyon Road, no.
[22:16] >> Okay, so that should take care of that
[22:18] issue.
[22:18] >> I would believe so.
[22:20] >> Okay, thank you.
[22:21] >> Yep.
[22:23] » Councilor Whipple.
[22:25] >> Yeah, I was just looking at the numbers,
[22:26] so 19 town homes even if all of those
[22:29] had been o-
[22:31] owner occupied, the proposal now for 46
[22:34] condos with half would give us, you
[22:36] know, 23.
[22:38] So, we would be getting more
[22:40] owner occupied units for sale with this
[22:43] change than we would have with the
[22:44] earlier one, and the price for each of
[22:46] them would probably be a little bit more
[22:48] affordable.
[22:49] Um
[22:50] I also just note that this was a
[22:52] difficult property to work with with the
[22:54] substation and the other issues that
[22:57] were going through and next to the
[22:59] property.
[23:00] Um
[23:02] I think that there was support for it earlier and it
[23:07] was just but for that sewer capacity
[23:09] issue
[23:10] that we weren't able to do this, but I
[23:12] think this proposal's probably better
[23:13] than what we were looking at in that
[23:16] earlier iteration.
[23:23] » Yeah. What's that?
[23:25] >> Councilor Christensen.
[23:27] >> Well, uh yes and no. Um the concern is
[23:30] also the
[23:33] uh there was discussion about it the
[23:35] density at this point coming down the
[23:37] Canyon Road, parking, all those things.
[23:39] So, again, the challenge it may meet the
[23:41] city standard. The question here is not
[23:44] just does it meet the city standard,
[23:46] but like where do you park? In the other
[23:48] place you can park on, you know, surface
[23:50] streets. There are no surface streets
[23:51] here. So, that could be a problem.
[23:54] And also the uh just the the density of
[23:56] this can be an issue, especially in this
[23:58] location. Uh you come down off that
[24:00] street.
[24:01] Um it's a it's a very challenging spot
[24:05] um
[24:06] for I think this kind of density. We
[24:07] also talked about that.
[24:11] » Do you want to talk to us, David, as the
[24:12] developer?
[24:17] » I want to talk about theoretical
[24:18] parking. That's how we're going to start
[24:20] today. I can opine on that. I know it's
[24:23] a big concern. So, I just want to walk
[24:25] you through what would happen here. Um
[24:27] so, somebody comes in, buys a condo,
[24:30] they get two parking spots, one
[24:32] underground and then one surface. With
[24:35] about I I think it's like eight or so
[24:37] would be able to pay an additional fee
[24:39] and they would be able to have two
[24:40] spaces uh underneath. That's how it sets
[24:43] up. That's how it's set up. Then,
[24:44] there'll be
[24:46] I forget 10 or 11 visitor parking spots
[24:49] uh right there.
[24:50] Um so, if somebody did that and they
[24:53] come, they say, "Well, I'm going to put
[24:55] my three college students in this
[24:57] place."
[24:58] The first thing they would have to
[24:59] figure out is are they carpooling or
[25:02] where are they going to park? And as we
[25:03] walk through here, there's not a
[25:05] somewhere to park in this area. Um all
[25:07] of the places that are available, you
[25:09] could walk across the street in
[25:11] University Avenue. There's a new
[25:13] crosswalk there and try and get away
[25:15] with it there for a while. You could try
[25:16] and get away with it in the you know, up
[25:19] top in the trailhead parking for a
[25:20] while. None of these are great long-term
[25:23] solutions. And so in the end, you just
[25:26] couldn't do it. If you're parking in the
[25:28] visitor parking provided on site, same
[25:31] thing. Neighbors, HOA, they're going to
[25:34] squash that as well. So in the end,
[25:36] people who buy here,
[25:38] um
[25:38] they're going to be limited to two cars.
[25:40] That's going to limit the people who go
[25:42] there. Um I think that's good. If you're
[25:44] looking for a place where students
[25:46] aren't going to be able to go and live
[25:48] and take over an area, uh this is it.
[25:50] There's just not a place for them to do
[25:52] it.
[25:54] So that's that's how I see that. I don't
[25:55] see another solution there for them to
[25:57] park.
[25:58] >> So you are going to be managing the
[25:59] parking closely and doing assigned spots
[26:01] or assigned
[26:02] >> Yes, it'll be assigned. Everyone will
[26:03] have two assigned spots and visitor
[26:06] parking spots. Um there is an option if
[26:08] somebody, this is another theoretical,
[26:11] um
[26:12] if somebody wanted to have three cars in
[26:14] there, and you might you might have
[26:15] somebody maybe someone's turning 16,
[26:17] maybe someone is trying to put a third
[26:19] adult in there who drives, you could go
[26:21] to the HOA and try and rent a parking
[26:24] spot from another tenant in there. That
[26:26] happens in a condo project. That's an
[26:28] option.
[26:29] Uh you know, it's not a guarantee. It's
[26:31] a limited option. You're renting uh the
[26:33] parking spot. You don't own it. So maybe
[26:36] you could do that.
[26:39] >> Could you speak to the pricing? I think
[26:42] someone asked about the pricing.
[26:44] >> Um yes.
[26:46] Uh so the previous townhomes that I had
[26:49] designed on that I have designed on this
[26:51] site, they're all
[26:53] uh 3,000 or 2,500 square feet. They're
[26:56] larger. They're going to be priced
[26:57] higher. These are just going to be less
[26:59] because they're condos.
[27:02] The square footage as it's designed up
[27:04] there is about 1,525 per unit. That's a
[27:08] really good size for a a three-bedroom
[27:11] condo.
[27:13] In there we have eight two-bedrooms as
[27:14] well. They can be two or three-bedrooms.
[27:16] It's going to be mostly three-bedrooms.
[27:18] That's what the market wants. There is
[27:21] some demand for a two-bedroom
[27:24] you know, double primary kind of set up.
[27:26] So, we have eight in there
[27:29] in the proposal. Whether it's eight or
[27:31] four or zero, I guess we could change
[27:34] that. But so I don't have any
[27:36] These aren't going to be entry-level
[27:37] condos just given their location. The
[27:40] underground parking is is premium.
[27:43] That's an expensive feature. That's
[27:45] something that people want, but um
[27:49] Again, I see I've always thought that
[27:51] this will entice more people from the
[27:53] area who are moving out of older homes
[27:56] who are aging out of their homes. I
[27:58] always thought that would be more of the
[27:59] market. You can You'll be able to trade
[28:02] out an older home in the area for a new
[28:04] condo here.
[28:06] >> I was thinking that's going to be a
[28:07] large part of the market, too. I'm
[28:08] curious is there going to be an elevator
[28:10] in the building?
[28:10] >> Yep. You'll be able to drive in, park
[28:12] underground in whatever kind of weather,
[28:15] and get right on an elevator and go up
[28:17] to whatever floor you're on. That'll be
[28:19] pretty nice for a lot of people.
[28:21] Especially people who are you know,
[28:22] they're aging out of their home, but
[28:23] they're not going to an assisted living
[28:25] place. They just don't want stairs. They
[28:27] don't want a yard. They don't want an
[28:28] old home.
[28:32] Um
[28:33] >> Councilor Christian said
[28:35] >> David, um I asked the question of Aaron.
[28:38] My recollection was 100% home ownership
[28:42] in the current development agreement.
[28:44] >> Um it's 50% is what we agreed last time
[28:46] we were here. That's in there. Aaron
[28:48] told me he just verified it.
[28:49] >> Okay.
[28:50] >> I have it. I've read it. It's 50% I'm
[28:52] proposing that.
[28:53] >> Okay.
[28:53] >> Um so
[28:54] >> Thank you for verifying that. Um can you
[28:57] tell me how you're thinking about where
[28:59] home ownership would be and where rental
[29:03] rentals would be?
[29:04] >> Um yes. So
[29:06] uh the 50% um will make it a condo. So
[29:09] it won't be a
[29:10] uh an apartment building. This will be a
[29:12] condo project. That's minimum for FHA
[29:15] standards anyway. You have to go through
[29:16] the whole FHA process if you want to
[29:19] provide that kind of financing there. Um
[29:22] that also puts long-term
[29:24] uh limits on the project as far as owner
[29:27] occupancy. You have to maintain certain
[29:29] owner occupancies over time. Otherwise
[29:31] it can get hard for people to to sell
[29:34] their condos if they refinance. So again
[29:37] for me the the 50% is a uh we just set a
[29:40] minimum floor for owner occupancy. Um
[29:44] uh you know, as far as how many above
[29:46] that
[29:47] uh
[29:48] I don't plan on on owning anything in
[29:50] there. Uh so
[29:53] who knows how high it will be.
[29:54] >> Yeah.
[29:55] >> It is important to keep some flexibility
[29:57] in it as well. When you build this
[29:59] project has to be built in one building.
[30:01] That's 46 units at a time. Hopefully you
[30:04] can pre-sell during construction.
[30:06] Hopefully you can sell most of them
[30:08] within the year after that. So there is
[30:11] some to make the project work it's it's
[30:14] helpful to have some flexibility there.
[30:16] >> Thank you.
[30:19] » Can I have I have one other I think I
[30:21] have some slides in here.
[30:23] Oh, applicant slides. There we go.
[30:27] Okay. Oh, height. I was going to talk a
[30:29] little bit bit about height. That comes
[30:31] up often. Um the change in zoning I
[30:34] don't need for any height requirements.
[30:35] This building as it's shown here meets
[30:38] the current MDR height. Um it's also
[30:41] lower than the bottom of the substation.
[30:44] So, the top of this building lower than
[30:47] the substation, which is my closest
[30:49] neighbor.
[30:50] Um,
[30:51] uh, the change in zoning is needed to
[30:53] allow parking to be in front of the
[30:55] building. The way the building's
[30:56] designed, the parking structure would
[31:00] help retain the hill behind it and allow
[31:02] for more parking on the front.
[31:05] The
[31:06] um, the sewer capacity that's been
[31:08] talked about, there's more sewer
[31:09] capacity out there and available than
[31:12] what I've requested for the project.
[31:14] It's just parking that's the limiting
[31:16] factor here. How much parking can you
[31:18] get? So, this meets the requirement. It
[31:20] allows for
[31:22] two parking stalls per unit plus visitor
[31:24] parking as well.
[31:25] That's the why the zone change is in
[31:27] there. Um, also as far as height's
[31:30] concerned, the current plan has
[31:32] townhomes backing up to Canyon Road. Um,
[31:35] in my mind, this is just a a better
[31:37] project for the area. The front the
[31:39] front of the condo is going to be better
[31:41] than
[31:42] the back of townhomes, no matter how
[31:44] nice you make the back of the townhomes.
[31:57] Uh, units are under
[31:59] Let's see.
[32:01] I think these are my slides from the
[32:02] previous one.
[32:04] Or from planning commission.
[32:05] Anyway, there you go. Any other
[32:07] questions?
[32:08] >> I have a question for you, David. Um, we
[32:10] had a presentation this morning by a
[32:12] condo developer.
[32:14] And he mentioned that it's their
[32:15] standard that they do 80% owner occupied
[32:18] 20% rentals.
[32:20] And um, he talked about the FHA and I
[32:23] know I I've spoken to I've spoken to a
[32:25] few citizens in Provo who live by
[32:27] condos.
[32:28] And people can't resell them or
[32:30] refinance or buy with it because the
[32:32] percentage of ownership is so low.
[32:34] And I'm wondering it would meet our
[32:36] goals
[32:37] as a council if you'd be willing to like
[32:39] up who do work at 80% there.
[32:44] » Um
[32:46] you know, I'm not opposed to 80% owner
[32:48] occupied or 100% owner occupied. Again,
[32:51] I'm
[32:52] request just that I have the flexibility
[32:53] that I can. I think also you can have
[32:55] some people buying a a second home up
[32:58] here. I don't know how that would fit in
[32:59] to the requirement
[33:01] >> home is still owner occupied.
[33:02] >> occupied. Okay.
[33:03] I think that that's a group of people,
[33:06] you know, from
[33:06] >> Yeah.
[33:07] >> Provo living
[33:09] places south of us that are horrible in
[33:11] the summer.
[33:12] >> Yeah.
[33:14] Councilor Whitlock.
[33:15] >> Yeah, um if you could just kind of paint
[33:18] for us the picture of what will happen
[33:21] to the hill. Cuz right now, you know,
[33:24] it's sort of like you have this
[33:25] a narrow gravel pit area.
[33:28] You just help us kind of visualize it
[33:30] cuz it doesn't look like this right now.
[33:32] >> Um
[33:33] Correct. There's a couch on it right now
[33:35] that's not shown on the current
[33:36] pictures. That's a recent addition to
[33:38] the property. I someone else did that
[33:40] for me. I didn't have to pay for that.
[33:42] Um
[33:44] So, where the building itself sits,
[33:46] uh it sits pretty much in the footprint
[33:49] that's there. There'll be a little bit
[33:50] of retaining into the hillside there.
[33:52] The The current slope that's in the area
[33:54] was designed by Northern Engineering.
[33:56] It's two to one. And so, this building
[33:58] would retain a little bit of there. Most
[34:01] of the change would happen on the south
[34:04] the entrance way in between the Canyon
[34:07] Road and the substation. Um that's
[34:10] another thing I know we're talking about
[34:12] uh
[34:13] just the road and access there. I had a
[34:15] another picture I wanted to show, but we
[34:17] don't have to see it. It's It was just
[34:19] what the property looked like when I
[34:20] acquired it.
[34:22] was seven parcels overlapping with the substation as well.
[34:27] I owned property inside the substation.
[34:29] I owned where the new substation access
[34:32] is right now and um um
[34:35] this was a couple years ago we sat down
[34:37] and renegotiated all the boundaries. I
[34:39] paid for a joint survey with the city so
[34:41] we could identify everything. We were
[34:43] negotiated that. Um and now the
[34:46] substation has its defined boundaries.
[34:49] It has its new access. They've abandoned
[34:52] the current access road.
[34:54] Um and also I have I have an agreement
[34:56] with the city a signed agreement with
[34:58] the city to swap the parcel where the
[35:00] road this road expansion that's one day
[35:03] will happen there and that's on property
[35:05] that I own at the moment. Um but I
[35:08] already have a signed agreement with the
[35:09] city to transfer ownership to the city.
[35:11] works is going to do some work
[35:13] on site to offset that.
[35:18] » Councilor Ripple.
[35:20] Yeah, just following up on what you were
[35:22] saying Councilor McKay about the
[35:25] presentation we had from Edge. One thing
[35:27] that they noted is that they had to work
[35:30] really hard to sell six condo units in a
[35:34] development in a period of a year.
[35:36] >> A month.
[35:37] And so what we're
[35:40] Yes, so we're looking at, you know,
[35:44] they could only do that when they were
[35:46] doing, you know, significant incentives
[35:48] like interest rate buy down and things
[35:50] like that.
[35:51] Um and we're asking him to sell
[35:55] more than half of this, you know, that
[35:58] that's a significant amount of time that
[36:00] he's going to be probably holding some
[36:01] of these properties and I don't know if
[36:03] you have those same kind of
[36:06] financing options for the people who
[36:08] would be looking at purchasing these things.
[36:13] >> That was for first time home buyers
[36:14] though. That's not really his market.
[36:16] >> Right. And so that may make it harder
[36:19] for him to sell these as quickly.
[36:22] >> Easier.
[36:23] >> You think it would be easier?
[36:25] Listen.
[36:26] I don't know. But I was just wondering
[36:28] like how quickly do you anticipate being
[36:31] able to sell the for-sale units as
[36:34] opposed to how long do you think it
[36:35] would take to fill the rental units?
[36:39] >> You know, I'll respond to that in and
[36:41] one thing that matters a lot is interest
[36:43] rates. And right now, we're definitely
[36:44] in an environment where interest rates
[36:46] have ticked up when everyone thought
[36:48] that was was hoping they would go down.
[36:51] Interest rates were ticking down and
[36:52] they were at a multi-year low just
[36:54] before the Iran war. Unfortunately,
[36:56] they've ticked back up. That makes it
[36:58] harder, especially for
[37:01] uh first-time home buyers. That's a very
[37:03] interest rate sensitive segment of the
[37:06] market.
[37:07] You know, if we're talking about people
[37:08] selling their homes and moving into
[37:10] these, they're not getting loans, so
[37:12] that's helpful. Um that would help us
[37:14] out as well. But, definitely there's a
[37:16] concern. There's an absorption rate that
[37:18] the mark- the market's only going to
[37:19] absorb so many of these a month, a year.
[37:22] Um
[37:24] so
[37:25] there's a little bit of a roll of the
[37:26] dice there when you when you build
[37:27] something like this.
[37:29] And again, though, this is this is in
[37:31] Provo. You know, some of the the starter
[37:33] homes are in other areas of the county
[37:36] that, you know, maybe aren't as
[37:37] desirable.
[37:39] >> Councilor Bogdan.
[37:41] But, didn't he say that
[37:43] somebody that didn't try as hard as he
[37:44] did could sell three
[37:46] a month? And so, that's still 36 units.
[37:50] That's How many units did you have? 45?
[37:52] >> 46.
[37:53] >> Yeah.
[37:54] And so,
[37:55] I I don't see it as a problem.
[37:57] >> And and you don't have to, you know, if
[37:59] you sell 36 of these in the first year,
[38:02] you then you're doing pretty good at
[38:03] that point. I mean, at that point your
[38:05] carry cost is is much lower. It's a much
[38:07] more manageable. You've You've been
[38:08] successful at that point.
[38:13] » Councilor Whitlock.
[38:14] >> Is uh so, it's been great to help uh
[38:17] you you help us refresh our memories
[38:19] about this development agreement. I'm
[38:20] just wondering, is there anything else
[38:23] uh from the development agreement that
[38:24] would be helpful to highlight for us and
[38:26] for the public that people would
[38:28] appreciate? Like, for example, I think
[38:29] you that
[38:31] behind this condo there is going to be a
[38:32] trail connecting to Indian Indian
[38:34] Trailhead or Indian Trail Trail.
[38:36] >> So, I I have that in the drawing. I
[38:37] didn't propose that specifically as a
[38:40] something that would be in the
[38:41] agreement. It hasn't been designed yet.
[38:43] It looks very feasible. There's
[38:45] companies out there that just come and
[38:46] cut these trails in the hillside. Um I
[38:49] wasn't going to include that in the
[38:51] uh in the development agreement. For
[38:54] example, for some reason we didn't have
[38:56] access off the back of the property,
[38:57] which I think is unlikely, then
[39:00] all of a sudden you got to figure out
[39:01] how to do a trail around it. So, um I I
[39:04] think it will happen. Obviously, that
[39:06] that'd be a great amenity for the condo
[39:08] to be able to get right up on the trail.
[39:10] >> Are there any other things you'd
[39:11] highlight?
[39:17] » Um yeah, I think something that's
[39:18] important to to note when the project
[39:20] goes in, uh
[39:22] water will be looped in this area from
[39:25] Canyon Road to the other side of
[39:26] University. That'll be a a benefit to
[39:29] everyone who uses water in this area.
[39:32] Um same with sewer will be brought
[39:33] across University Avenue as well in this
[39:36] area for the first time. Uh to we'll
[39:39] connect there. Gas as well um has to be
[39:42] looped in this area. Um that'll improve
[39:45] gas pressure for
[39:47] anyone who obviously for the
[39:48] development, anyone who lives there.
[39:50] Um Google Fiber will be brought over to
[39:53] the area. So, there's lots of This is
[39:55] kind of a dead zone for utilities. So,
[39:58] lots of improvements will happen when
[40:00] the project goes forward.
[40:06] » Is this a accurate representation of the
[40:08] building or is this just like AI
[40:10] generated?
[40:12] >> I
[40:12] >> We've got a lot of AI generated ones
[40:13] lately.
[40:16] » Um
[40:17] uh I used AI to reskin this. I paid an
[40:21] architect a lot of money to draw
[40:22] something up and get everything exactly
[40:24] right. And when it was
[40:26] but we've been working on that for years
[40:28] now, right? When I started working out
[40:29] there was no AI generated anything. It's
[40:31] hard to just generate a an accurate
[40:33] building from AI. If I just go and say
[40:35] build me a four, you know, a a
[40:37] four-story high building, then it can't
[40:41] do it. So, this
[40:42] >> pretty accurate?
[40:43] >> Yes, this is very accurate. This is what
[40:44] the architect drew up and then it's been
[40:46] reskinned with AI. So, the finish
[40:48] materials on it are different. You know,
[40:50] the some of the roofs and stuff, but no,
[40:52] this was an architect. I had to pay them
[40:54] a lot of money.
[40:57] » And do you
[40:59] What does the build-out look like? The
[41:01] Are you building through the whole thing
[41:03] at at once or is there phases to this?
[41:06] >> Um, it's going to have to be built all
[41:08] at once. If you tried to You'd have to
[41:10] build the parking structure either way.
[41:11] I just
[41:12] >> Mhm.
[41:13] >> By the time you built the parking
[41:14] structure and did everything else and
[41:16] built half the building, you might as
[41:17] well build the second half. You know,
[41:19] the The underground parking structure
[41:21] could be
[41:22] a quarter [clears throat] to a third of
[41:24] the cost. And it's expensive.
[41:26] >> Okay, I just need to clarify, Aaron and
[41:28] David. I did remember like, um, Jeff,
[41:31] that there was a trail included in the
[41:32] development agreement.
[41:36] » Well, we never moved forward with that
[41:37] condo project and so there wasn't in the
[41:39] town homes we didn't have it.
[41:41] >> I think I think the section that you're
[41:42] remembering might be this. The developer
[41:44] must cause the ownership of the Indian
[41:46] Trail, uh, Bonneville Shoreline Trail
[41:48] section running through parcel
[41:50] 2014-111 to be transferred to the city
[41:52] via via deed transfer or easement prior
[41:54] to the issuance of building permit.
[41:56] Maybe that's the trail commitment that
[41:57] you remember.
[41:58] >> So, effectively it it transfers that
[42:00] portion of the Bonneville Shoreline
[42:01] Trail
[42:01] >> That's on his property.
[42:02] >> to the city.
[42:04] Thank you.
[42:04] >> Yeah.
[42:08] » Thanks, Aaron.
[42:09] Councilor Garrett.
[42:11] >> Um,
[42:12] Jason, to whatever extent this project
[42:16] is public, have you had is there
[42:17] pre-sale interest? Have you had people
[42:20] contact you with interest in being owners or renters? What kind of
[42:24] interest is there in
[42:26] >> No, not in final end users. I think it's a little early. Hasn't been
[42:30] marketed that way. Um, obviously as you
[42:35] once the zoning's in place, then there's
[42:37] a lot of things that need to happen and
[42:39] as the design was finalized more, you'd
[42:42] definitely start doing that.
[42:45] >> You've had the for sale sign up there
[42:46] forever. Are you planning on just
[42:48] entitling it then selling it? Are you
[42:49] planning on doing it?
[42:51] >> Um, entitling it and selling it. I would
[42:54] stay on as a as a partner, but
[42:56] um, I you just need someone who's built
[42:59] this before. I know a lot about it and I know enough that I I shouldn't build
[43:03] it myself.
[43:07] And if I again if I could go back to to
[43:09] one we had several parcels, a an
[43:11] experienced developer, they were out
[43:13] there, you know, they just walked away.
[43:15] They're like, well, that's a mess. I
[43:16] don't want to deal with that.
[43:23] I'm the
[43:24] >> The third time is the third time.
[43:25] >> questions? Okay, we're going to open
[43:27] this item up for public comment then.
[43:40] » Hi guys. I'm um, David Chappell. I live
[43:42] in Waquim. So, I'm not not nearby, but I
[43:45] just had some thoughts. Um,
[43:47] I support the higher density. I think
[43:49] that's good. I would even support more
[43:50] if they could make some of the um, units
[43:53] affordable. I think it would be good to
[43:54] have a mix of units cuz it could also be
[43:57] more marketable that way.
[43:58] Um, I also think that 100% would be
[44:01] easier to enforce, 100% owner occupancy.
[44:04] I think 50% is pretty hard for an HOA to
[44:07] enforce.
[44:08] And maybe the city through some sort of
[44:10] deed restriction or a like code
[44:13] enforcement could enforce 50%, but I
[44:15] think 100% is wiser.
[44:17] Um so, I think what we could do is offer
[44:20] like a a time period, maybe 5 years for
[44:24] the the developer. They can rent in the
[44:26] meantime so that they don't go under,
[44:28] but then within the 5 years they have to
[44:30] sell all the units so that it is
[44:32] eventually 100% owner-occupied.
[44:35] Um I think the parking
[44:37] appears fine, and that's all I have.
[44:41] Those are my thoughts.
[44:42] >> Thank you.
[44:45] Any other public comment?
[44:48] All right, we'll open this up to council
[44:50] discussion.
[44:54] To expand on what that gentleman said,
[44:57] um we do deed restrict it cuz it is
[44:59] really hard to enforce. So, Aaron, it
[45:02] per the development agreement it would
[45:04] be deed restricted at the 50, correct?
[45:08] And the HOA would also have to Is that
[45:09] also in there that the HOA language
[45:11] would have to
[45:12] manage that, too?
[45:19] » Yeah, it says it's implied because it
[45:21] says through deed restriction and CC&Rs
[45:23] on the property CC&Rs would be enforced
[45:24] by an HOA.
[45:25] >> Great, thank you.
[45:29] Any council discussion?
[45:33] All right, we'll vote on the implied
[45:34] motion.
[45:41] » I'll just make a comment while you're
[45:42] doing that. I just want to say thanks to
[45:44] the developer for sticking with it, and
[45:46] uh it's been a long haul for you, so
[45:47] happy to see you're at this point. Well,
[45:49] hopefully where you get approval here.
[45:53] >> Councilor Garrett.
[45:56] >> Yes.
[45:57] >> Councilor McKay.
[45:59] >> Yes.
[45:59] >> Councilor Christensen.
[46:00] >> Yes.
[46:01] >> Councilor Whitlock?
[46:02] >> Yes.
[46:03] >> Councilor Bogdan?
[46:04] >> Yes.
[46:05] >> Councilor Howden?
[46:06] >> Finally, yes.
[46:08] >> Councilor Whipple?
[46:10] >> Yes.
[46:10] >> 7-0.
[46:14] All right. Next, an applied motion
[46:16] ordinance amending the Provo City Code
[46:18] regarding flood plain management and
[46:19] development standards. This will be
[46:21] presented by Thomas Shribble.
[46:25] He is our engineer flood plain manager.
[46:31] You get your first work meeting and your
[46:33] first council meeting in the same day.
[46:35] >> Yep.
[46:38] Uh thank you for having me. Uh my name
[46:40] is Tommy Shribble.
[46:41] I'm you know, I work I work for Provo
[46:43] City uh public works as a storm water
[46:45] engineer as well as the flood plain
[46:47] manager of Provo.
[46:49] Uh I'm accompanied today by Benjamin
[46:51] Ruthy. He's on uh Zoom. And then uh he's
[46:55] from WSP. He is the contractor that
[46:57] helped write this ordinance.
[47:00] Uh and then also Shane Winters.
[47:02] Um
[47:04] So,
[47:05] this stems from uh
[47:08] FEMA first of all.
[47:10] Uh
[47:10] we are part of the National Flood
[47:13] Insurance Program uh through FEMA. Uh we
[47:16] had to apply to be a part of this
[47:17] program.
[47:18] And we had to adopt uh a resolution of
[47:21] intent to participate.
[47:22] And um
[47:24] So, this is all all stemming from FEMA
[47:28] uh and changes that uh have been made to
[47:30] our flood plain maps.
[47:32] Uh so, we are uh currently trying to
[47:35] adopt and enforce a flood plain
[47:36] management ordinance that meets or
[47:38] exceeds FEMA's minimum standards.
[47:41] Um and these will
[47:43] uh change
[47:46] basic language that are currently in our
[47:48] uh standards uh to meet um better better
[47:52] meet
[47:53] uh FEMA's minimum standards.
[47:55] Uh as well as using their flood plain
[47:58] maps that they have uh uh, changed in
[48:00] the last few years. Uh, this is a long
[48:03] time coming. Uh,
[48:04] some of you may have been hearing it for
[48:06] over 10 years from my understanding.
[48:08] Uh, and then oh,
[48:10] this uh,
[48:13] ordinance will help enforce development
[48:15] regulations within within flood hazard
[48:18] areas.
[48:19] So, uh,
[48:20] the ordinance itself, uh, like I said,
[48:23] is meeting the FEMA standards uh,
[48:27] and is changing um, minimally as far as
[48:31] what our current standards are. Uh, but
[48:33] it is uh, broadening
[48:35] those standards uh, so that is there is
[48:38] less confusion when um, building within
[48:42] flood plain
[48:43] uh, areas.
[48:44] Uh,
[48:45] so
[48:46] that that's that's basically
[48:49] uh,
[48:50] what is changing within the ordinance
[48:51] itself. Uh, just
[48:53] um, being more uh, additional definitions. There
[48:58] there's more authority uh, from
[49:00] administrative perspective. There's more
[49:02] details from for the permits and uh,
[49:05] flood proofing etc.
[49:07] So, um,
[49:09] what I have uh, next here are maps um,
[49:14] from FEMA FEMA showing the changes in
[49:17] the flood plains uh, within Provo City.
[49:20] Uh,
[49:21] these maps are just a few of them and
[49:23] they're where the the changes are
[49:25] greatest. Um, so if we look at these two
[49:28] maps, uh, the one on the left is what is
[49:30] currently adopted for Provo City. Um,
[49:34] and it was uh, created in 2020. Um, and
[49:37] it shows uh, the this blue area that you
[49:40] can kind of see it's kind of hard to see
[49:42] but it uh, the blue area is what we call
[49:45] the 1% uh, flood area. Um,
[49:49] and it is
[49:50] uh, changing with the new maps.
[49:53] Uh if you look on the right, this is
[49:55] what uh
[49:56] we'll be hoping to be adopted uh
[49:59] to be a greater area within this um
[50:04] within this map area. So,
[50:07] uh the 1% is all the blue area,
[50:11] and this is what is required if
[50:13] uh for
[50:15] FEMA
[50:16] uh to have a federally in a flood
[50:19] insurance for federally backed
[50:21] mortgages.
[50:22] Um
[50:23] all the orange area is uh
[50:27] a 0.2% chance flooding area, and these
[50:30] are not
[50:31] uh ones that are restricted for the
[50:34] those
[50:35] um
[50:36] flood insurances
[50:38] uh from federally backed mortgages, but
[50:41] uh they're still shown there, and I I
[50:43] want to make sure that uh that is
[50:45] understood. Uh you can't see that same
[50:47] kind of area in the left map. It's
[50:49] hashed, and it's harder to see,
[50:51] uh but it is there as well. So, we have
[50:53] just uh three maps here uh showing the
[50:57] west side of Provo and how there it is
[50:59] changing.
[51:00] Uh as you can tell uh
[51:02] in the on the first map, there's a
[51:03] greater uh area of 1% chance of
[51:07] flooding, and then uh here on this next
[51:10] map, it's basically the entire uh
[51:13] airport that is going to be now in the
[51:16] flood
[51:17] uh hazard area, as well as this map
[51:20] here.
[51:22] Um so, that is again, just to reiterate,
[51:25] this is a directive from FEMA. Um
[51:28] we we worked with FEMA, we worked with
[51:30] the Department of Emergency Management
[51:32] with uh Utah,
[51:34] uh as well as Benjamin Ruth from WSP to
[51:37] uh make these changes for our ordinance
[51:39] to follow FEMA's standards.
[51:41] >> Okay. Thank you, Thomas. Any questions
[51:43] for Thomas?
[51:46] All right. Thank you.
[51:47] We'll open this item up for public
[51:49] comment. Is there any public comment on
[51:51] the flood
[51:53] plain management? This is something
[51:54] that's really not up to us. It is
[51:56] federally mandated.
[51:59] All right. Um
[52:02] council discussion.
[52:04] All right, we'll take a vote on the
[52:05] implied motion. Council May Kay, yes.
[52:08] Council Christensen.
[52:09] >> Yes.
[52:09] >> Council Whitlock.
[52:10] >> Yes.
[52:11] >> Council Bogdan.
[52:12] >> Yes.
[52:12] >> Council Hoban.
[52:15] >> Yes.
[52:16] >> Council Whipple.
[52:17] >> Yes.
[52:17] >> And Council Garrett.
[52:19] >> Yes.
[52:19] >> So that passes 7-0. Next a public
[52:21] hearing regarding the
[52:24] year-end 2027 budget for Provo City.
[52:28] Not year-end.
[52:30] I don't know what FY stands for.
[52:31] >> Thank you.
[52:32] >> Fiscal year 2027
[52:34] budget for Provo City. It'll be
[52:36] presented by Kelsey Zarback.
[52:44] » Good evening.
[52:45] I'm Kelsey Zarback with finance and two
[52:48] week Sorry, on May 5th, the
[52:51] administration delivered the tentative
[52:53] fiscal year 27 budget.
[52:56] Did I say May 5th? Delivered that budget
[52:58] to the council.
[53:00] And this is the first of two public
[53:02] hearings on that budget.
[53:04] It can be accessed by going to provo.gov
[53:07] and then there's if you scroll on the
[53:09] home page down a little bit, there's a
[53:10] transparency portal.
[53:12] You click on financial and then budget
[53:15] and financial reporting, annual budget
[53:18] and then you can just click right into
[53:19] that 2027 tentative budget.
[53:23] Um a few pages that might be of interest
[53:25] to the public. Pages 5 to 6 is where
[53:28] you'll find the mayor's letter that kind
[53:29] of shows what her priorities were and
[53:31] then on pages 9 to 10, there are the
[53:33] council priorities listed there.
[53:36] Page 16 and for several pages after
[53:38] that, there are budget highlights so you
[53:40] can see what was added and just what
[53:42] some of the revenue sources are and so
[53:44] on.
[53:45] So, hopefully the public has had a
[53:46] chance to already look at that document,
[53:48] but if not, it's there and there's
[53:49] another public hearing on the budget on
[53:52] June 23rd before the council would adopt
[53:54] it. So, that's all I have and at this
[53:57] point if unless there are questions, we
[53:59] would just open it up to the public for
[54:00] the public hearing. Thanks, Kelsey. Any
[54:03] questions for Kelsey?
[54:05] All right, thank you.
[54:06] We'll open this item up for public
[54:08] comment.
[54:12] See no public comment.
[54:15] And there's no council discussion, we'll
[54:16] just go to the next item. All right, so
[54:19] we have continued item number six and
[54:21] seven. So, at this time if there's no
[54:23] objection, we will now adjourn the Provo
[54:25] City Council and convene the RDA
[54:27] governing board by unanimous consent.
[54:31] >> All right, we'd like to uh look at RDA
[54:33] business a resolution adopting a project
[54:36] area budget for Lakeview Parkway
[54:38] Community Reinvestment Area.
[54:40] And this will be presented by Melissa
[54:42] McNally, Redevelopment Agency Director.
[54:48] Unless she's not here, then it's going
[54:49] to be very difficult for her to do that.
[54:52] >> She's here.
[54:55] » Thank you, Bill.
[55:13] You know, how about if we uh Kelsey, do
[55:14] you mind if we go ahead and go to your
[55:16] topic? Thank you. We'll give uh Melissa
[55:19] a chance to rally here. Uh public, we'll
[55:21] go to item nine, a public hearing
[55:23] regarding the Redevelopment Agency FY27
[55:25] budget. And this will be presented by
[55:27] Kelsey Zarbuck,
[55:29] budget officer.
[55:32] >> Thank you. So, the Redevelopment Agency
[55:35] is a component unit of Provo City, so
[55:38] that means it's a legally separate
[55:40] entity, but financially intertwined with
[55:42] primary government, which is the city.
[55:44] So, we have a separate public hearing
[55:46] for that for its budget. However, its
[55:48] budget is also found in the Provo FY27
[55:52] tentative budget found on the website.
[55:54] You can go to page 144 and you'll be
[55:57] able to see what the budget is for that
[56:00] legally separate entity. Any questions?
[56:03] >> Any questions for Kelsie?
[56:06] All right. We'll open this up for public
[56:08] comment. Any public comment?
[56:15] Okay, any further board discussion?
[56:19] All right, then we'll go ahead and go
[56:21] back to a resolution adopting a project
[56:23] area budget for the Lakeview Parkway
[56:25] Community Reinvestment Area
[56:28] and we're back to Melissa
[56:30] McNally.
[56:33] Welcome, Melissa.
[56:36] » Hey, thank you.
[56:38] So, um this Lakeview Parkway um
[56:42] budget is anticipating three different
[56:45] parcels that are in the project area
[56:48] um
[56:49] as retail
[56:52] uh sites and commercial sites.
[56:55] Um the Epic Sports Park is anticipated
[56:58] to have um sorry, the parcel by the Epic
[57:01] Sports Park
[57:02] is anticipated to have a hotel as well.
[57:05] So, there is some transient room tax um
[57:08] figured into
[57:10] the budget as well.
[57:11] So, um these are just estimates because
[57:14] nothing's been built yet. So,
[57:17] um the
[57:19] uh and um based on the uh budget up
[57:24] on the screen, those are uh prop current
[57:27] property values. Um I know when this
[57:29] came up in work session, there was a
[57:31] question about that.
[57:33] The parcel by like
[57:34] the parcel by the Epic Sports Park
[57:37] is owned by the city currently. So, it
[57:40] has no taxable value. That's why that
[57:42] parcel shows no value on the
[57:46] um
[57:47] on the
[57:50] prop
[57:51] Okay.
[57:53] >> [laughter]
[57:55] » Apologies. My brain it just like shut
[57:58] off.
[57:58] >> That's why it's blank because there is
[58:00] no
[58:00] >> Yeah, that's why it's blank. There is no taxable value on that property
[58:04] currently.
[58:06] Um
[58:08] and the other the other parcels and the
[58:12] rest of the budget just anticipates
[58:15] like I said
[58:16] um
[58:18] the possible sales tax that could be
[58:21] gained from from those parcels if all of
[58:23] the retail and commercial space is
[58:26] developed and then there's also it shows
[58:31] on page three of the budget. It does
[58:34] show incremental property values on
[58:37] those um
[58:40] on the in the entire area and how that
[58:43] would benefit all of the taxing
[58:44] entities. Um
[58:46] Let me see if there's anything else
[58:49] I want to highlight.
[58:52] Um
[58:54] I think that's it as far as the as far
[58:56] as the budget. Any changes that that
[58:58] come up you'll see an amendment to this
[59:00] budget if other incentives are
[59:03] anticipated in this area.
[59:05] >> So. Okay. Thank you, Alyssa. Any questions for Alyssa? Please, Becky.
[59:11] >> So, just so that I understand correctly,
[59:13] we spoke about
[59:15] the parcel
[59:17] south of the regional sports park as
[59:20] having the value that it would have if
[59:23] it was not owned by the city to be the value. So, that will come back as an
[59:28] amendment to this
[59:31] once we work all those details out.
[59:33] Yes.
[59:35] Yeah. As soon that that'll all be worked
[59:37] out um with the RDA board with leadership and
[59:42] then with the full RDA board any changes
[59:45] like that as far as
[59:47] um
[59:48] because that would anticipate property
[59:50] tax increment rate um given. So, at that
[59:53] point yes, it would come back to the
[59:54] board. You come back to the board and
[59:56] amend this document. They'll probably
[59:58] just come joint with the the contract
[1:00:01] with
[1:00:02] the sport the
[1:00:03] portion below the sports park.
[1:00:05] Um they could potentially be done
[1:00:07] simultaneously.
[1:00:09] Um
[1:00:11] potentially. Okay, thank you.
[1:00:14] >> Any other questions?
[1:00:16] All right, we'll open this up for public
[1:00:18] comment.
[1:00:20] Any public comment?
[1:00:24] All right, then we'll see if there's any
[1:00:25] board discussion.
[1:00:29] All right, seeing no board discussion of
[1:00:30] all call for a vote.
[1:00:32] Um
[1:00:34] I Gary Garrett.
[1:00:35] >> Yes.
[1:00:37] >> Katrice Mackay.
[1:00:39] >> Yes.
[1:00:40] >> Uh
[1:00:40] >> Yes.
[1:00:41] >> Craig Christensen, yes.
[1:00:43] Jeff Whitlock.
[1:00:43] >> Yes.
[1:00:44] >> Becky Bogden.
[1:00:45] >> Yes.
[1:00:45] >> Travis Hoban.
[1:00:46] >> Yes.
[1:00:47] >> Rachel Whipple.
[1:00:48] >> Yes.
[1:00:48] >> Okay, and that's 7-0.
[1:00:51] All right, I'll now uh see if there's no
[1:00:53] objection, we'll now adjourn Provo RDA
[1:00:55] Governing Board and convene the Storm
[1:00:57] Water Service District Governing Board
[1:00:59] by unanimous consent.
[1:01:02] >> All right, next we have a public hearing
[1:01:04] regarding the fiscal year 2027 budget
[1:01:07] for the Storm Water Service District.
[1:01:09] And again, Kelsey Surbaugh.
[1:01:13] This is the last one, I promise.
[1:01:15] So, this is the Storm Water Service
[1:01:17] District's um public hearing for the
[1:01:20] fiscal year 2027 budget. You can find
[1:01:22] this budget on page 142 of the Provo
[1:01:25] City budget on the website.
[1:01:28] So, we will just open that up for a
[1:01:29] public comment. Um public hearing. Thank
[1:01:32] you.
[1:01:34] >> Thanks, Kelsey.
[1:01:35] Um we'll open this item up for public
[1:01:37] comment.
[1:01:39] I'm just dying to know why you're all
[1:01:40] here.
[1:01:42] >> I've been thinking the same thing.
[1:01:43] >> Budget. I know.
[1:01:45] Um
[1:01:46] >> be a second public hearing on this
[1:01:47] budget.
[1:01:48] >> And there will be a second public
[1:01:49] hearing on all of these, too.
[1:01:51] Remember to say your name and city,
[1:01:52] please.
[1:01:55] >> David Campbell, Provo.
[1:01:56] Um
[1:01:57] again,
[1:01:59] looking at the budget, I'm not seeing
[1:02:01] anything close in the water world close
[1:02:04] to what the
[1:02:05] uh consultants projected would be the
[1:02:07] cost. I know there are plans to um
[1:02:10] amend the budget with increased rates
[1:02:13] and etc. I just uh throw my two bits in
[1:02:17] to uh recommend that we get the the water infrastructure
[1:02:22] problem solved. It's just so easy to
[1:02:25] ignore because it's
[1:02:27] not super visible. So, that's it.
[1:02:29] Thanks.
[1:02:30] >> Uh just a update on that. We did have a
[1:02:32] work meeting today where we voted to do
[1:02:35] the 6% increase that the consultants
[1:02:37] recommended. So, we're on par with that.
[1:02:41] All right. Any more public comment?
[1:02:45] All right. If there's no objection,
[1:02:46] we'll now adjourn the Storm Water
[1:02:47] Service District Governing Board by
[1:02:49] unanimous consent.