[0:00] 1:00

[0:02] p.m.

[0:03] >> a.m.

[0:07] » [laughter]

[0:08] >> Not a typo.

[0:09] >> Thankfully, we don't meet at 1:00 a.m.

[0:10] >> It has to be in China.

[0:11] >> It's the other one.

[0:12] >> Um today we have with us Gary Garrett,

[0:15] Council Becky Baldwin, Katrice Mackay,

[0:17] Craig Christiansen, and Jeff Whitlock.

[0:19] And we have Travis Hoban online.

[0:24] » Yes, he's on.

[0:25] >> All right, great. And we have Mayor

[0:28] Michelle Kaufusi.

[0:31] Although this is a public meeting, only

[0:32] the presenters and those invited by the

[0:33] council may speak or ask questions

[0:35] unless otherwise invited by the chair.

[0:37] Please wait to speak until called on by

[0:39] the council chair. When speaking, please

[0:41] be sure to use the microphone so that

[0:43] the record is clear

[0:48] and those attending virtually can hear

[0:49] you. Please also be sure to limit side

[0:52] conversations as they interfere with the

[0:54] audio recording. If you need to have a

[0:55] side conversation, please step out of

[0:57] the work meeting room.

[0:59] It is proposed that we approve the

[1:00] following minutes, June 8th, 2020 work

[1:02] meeting.

[1:03] Are there any objections or requested

[1:05] changes?

[1:08] All right, seeing no objection, I

[1:08] declare the minutes approved by

[1:10] unanimous consent.

[1:12] All right.

[1:13] First we're going to look at is a

[1:14] resolution approving urban deer

[1:17] an urban deer control plan.

[1:20] And we'll have 30 minutes and we're it's

[1:21] to be presented by Nicholas

[1:23] Wollstein, assistant city attorney,

[1:27] and Greg Hoak, a BYU managing director

[1:29] of building operations and grounds. I'm

[1:31] actually very excited to hear about

[1:32] this.

[1:33] You're welcome to come up.

[1:42] » I just come.

[1:44] It's not going to be

[1:45] and this is the mic guy I'm assuming.

[1:48] >> It is.

[1:48] >> So we guess.

[1:52] Yeah, we don't we don't have any slides

[1:54] so I'm a

[1:56] this one

[1:57] I was told more or less that um, well,

[2:00] people read the materials. They don't

[2:01] want too much for preliminary

[2:02] presentation. So, there's a few things

[2:05] though I want to want to cover that will

[2:07] lead to um, uh

[2:08] First, one thing that isn't in your

[2:10] materials though I think in at least the

[2:11] resolution it refers to it is that if we

[2:14] were to go forward with this there would

[2:15] need to be a contract between BYU and

[2:18] um, uh Provo. That would primarily be

[2:21] basically they agree to act as described

[2:24] in this deer plan since really as you

[2:26] know as it's written they do basically

[2:27] everything as far as the daily

[2:28] operations. If

[2:30] they also have to follow that what they

[2:32] call the core, you know, the certificate

[2:33] of registration. There are certain

[2:35] limitations on how you approach the

[2:37] program. Because of that they agree to

[2:39] that and we would agree, you know, to we

[2:42] oversee it. We have to be the liaison. I

[2:44] mean, it's

[2:45] we're approaching this in an unusual

[2:46] way. It's still our program. It's still

[2:48] the Provo program, but at this moment if

[2:50] it were approved it would be, you know,

[2:53] most of the daily operations again we

[2:54] run by BYU. One other thing that would

[2:56] be included in that is uh

[2:59] a sort of broad indemnification clause

[3:01] saying that the actions taken by the um,

[3:04] uh

[3:05] BYU employees in creating this, you

[3:08] know, in running this plan, uh they'll

[3:10] indemnify BYU or Provo I should say

[3:12] against, you know, incidents damages

[3:14] that arise from that because um, uh

[3:17] I mean that's just

[3:19] sort of our our compensation to a degree

[3:21] and of course there are risks involved

[3:22] in this. So, if BYU is the one testing

[3:25] this program which they are, seems

[3:27] sensible to have them be the ones you

[3:29] know sort of taking on the risk there.

[3:31] One other thing in the current um, uh

[3:35] version of the program, it says the deer

[3:39] could be euthanized with 2020 with 22

[3:42] uh firearms. Having reviewed that,

[3:44] discussed that with, you know, police

[3:46] officials both here and at BYU, that is

[3:49] not what we we to go forward with. The

[3:51] current intention if we can continue

[3:53] with this plan we'd really use a captive

[3:55] bolt pistols to euthanize the um uh

[3:58] deer. So, it wouldn't fundamentally

[4:00] change that. They'd still be trapped,

[4:01] still be euthanized, but there would not

[4:02] be a firearm used in um uh

[4:06] at this which of course would

[4:08] reduce the danger and we'd hope reduce,

[4:11] you know, potential public disturbances

[4:12] as well. Anyway, I'm uh

[4:14] And really, that's about all I had. We

[4:17] do have a Greg Cook here. He's sort of

[4:18] be running it on there and we do have an

[4:20] attorney from BYU uh Aaron Worthen. If

[4:23] we have any questions for him, he could

[4:24] run up too. But uh I guess I'll just

[4:26] open the floor any anything anyone wants

[4:28] to discuss about this and um uh

[4:30] >> Any questions? Counselor Gary Garrett.

[4:34] >> When this um was first presented to us

[4:37] several months ago, possibly a year or

[4:39] two,

[4:40] there was talk of a range of 50 to 60

[4:43] deer

[4:44] in the campus area. Is that still the

[4:46] case or does that say?

[4:47] >> Uh yeah, that's the estimate that

[4:49] there's about 60.

[4:50] >> I guess that there's more than 60, but

[4:53] probably on the lower end 60.

[4:55] >> Mhm.

[4:55] >> Yeah, okay.

[5:01] » Have you

[5:02] Can I add on to that or do I have

[5:03] >> Yeah, I'm just Sheriff they're if

[5:05] they're okay.

[5:05] >> And once again, the idea is not to

[5:07] eliminate all the deer on campus, it's

[5:08] just to get that down to like a

[5:09] manageable amount and we're good from

[5:11] point

[5:12] on that. Hopefully we can call 20 per

[5:15] year till we get down to

[5:17] keeping 20 on campus.

[5:19] >> Counselor Becky Bogden.

[5:20] >> I saw

[5:22] you're looking at safety. So, when would

[5:25] you do this? Would you do it like during

[5:27] the summer or

[5:28] >> Yeah, good question. We have We have We

[5:29] would We're hoping to do this just in

[5:31] the month of August while most of our

[5:32] students are off campus and there's not

[5:34] as much going on on campus.

[5:38] » We'd hate for there to be a human and a

[5:40] deer that gets hit or something, right?

[5:42] >> I I didn't hear that. Sorry.

[5:43] >> We'd We'd hate for it to be a human, not

[5:45] a deer that gets hit cuz

[5:47] the way your campus is still pretty much

[5:49] within the inner parts of our city.

[5:51] >> Correct.

[5:53] >> And this is just on your property,

[5:54] right?

[5:54] >> Yep, just on campus.

[5:58] » Councilwoman Buck.

[5:59] >> So, uh just

[6:01] walking through the basics, just layman,

[6:04] make sure I understand. Basically,

[6:05] you're going to catch the deer with

[6:06] traps,

[6:07] take them

[6:08] >> What kind of traps?

[6:09] >> Uh it's a it's a walk-in trap.

[6:11] >> Walk-in trap?

[6:12] >> Like a whole like the whole body goes

[6:14] into a trap?

[6:14] >> It's almost like a netted

[6:17] pen about this tall, that wide. We bait

[6:19] it with apples and they go in, close it.

[6:22] >> And then you're going to then move it

[6:23] somewhere and shoot it. Where is it

[6:25] going to be moved to?

[6:26] >> So, we would we would euthanize the deer

[6:29] right there on spot and then the people

[6:30] that were donating the venison the meat

[6:32] to, they would show up at that time and

[6:34] >> So, it's going to be all pre-coordinated

[6:36] the the donation of the meat is

[6:38] pre-coordinated.

[6:38] >> Correct. Yeah, once we know that we have

[6:40] it in the trap, we're going to start

[6:41] calling people that are on that list and

[6:42] say, "Hey, can you be here within an

[6:43] hour?" and and have that all happen

[6:46] about the same time.

[6:47] >> As

[6:49] sorry.

[6:49] >> You can go.

[6:50] >> As part of the program, you are required

[6:52] to use the you know, the carcasses and

[6:55] the meat as much as we can. So, we do

[6:56] have a list of 20 donors who will they

[6:59] can get it and take it and they'll

[7:00] ensure that they'll have put the you

[7:01] know, the

[7:03] to good use instead of it just being

[7:05] wasted. That said, as you may have seen

[7:07] the antlers they're all taken by the um

[7:09] they're taken by the wildlife division.

[7:12] So, it's not some sort of I don't know,

[7:13] secret antler collecting method or

[7:16] anything like that. It's Yeah.

[7:19] >> And then I assume

[7:21] >> [clears throat]

[7:22] >> there's going to be like you have some

[7:23] protocols in place for safety as far as

[7:26] discharging the firearm.

[7:28] >> Yeah, so and

[7:29] so things have changed. We're going to

[7:31] use a bolt gun as well. So, there will

[7:33] be no discharging of a firearm.

[7:35] >> What is that? What's a bolt gun?

[7:37] >> It's a gun with a bolt comes out. It's

[7:38] shoots really fast. Stops it. It's

[7:40] pneumatic. So, the bolt shoots out about

[7:41] 2 and 1/2 in and then immediately goes

[7:43] back in. So, nothing is shot or

[7:46] >> As I understand it, it's pretty much the

[7:48] standard livestock, you know, uh uh

[7:51] >> slaughtering method.

[7:53] >> And then um

[7:55] one last uh two two final questions on

[7:57] my end.

[7:58] What's the underlying motivation? Can

[8:00] you speak that a bit more?

[8:01] >> Is that safety for the students?

[8:03] >> yeah. There's There's deer all all over

[8:05] campus. If you guys have the opportunity

[8:07] to drive through there and we don't want

[8:08] somebody to get hurt, whether it's uh

[8:10] driving and hitting them or if they're

[8:12] on their Segways or

[8:14] uh etc. Uh another one of the problems

[8:17] that we're starting to have is that

[8:18] there's a lot of inbreeding that's going

[8:19] on. And so, these 60 deer that we

[8:21] believe are staying on campus, they're

[8:23] just they're just inbreeding and I don't

[8:26] know if I

[8:27] pass this around, but here's here's a

[8:28] picture of one of the deer. You can see

[8:30] that there's

[8:31] it's deformed. I don't know what's going

[8:33] on with their eyes, but this is kind of

[8:34] a severe case. A lot of them have antler

[8:37] issues as well. Should I pass this?

[8:39] >> Um

[8:40] I mean, welcome to the

[8:41] >> Yeah, okay. Thank you.

[8:43] Um so so, safety um

[8:46] and uh and then you damage on campus as

[8:48] well.

[8:50] >> Do uh

[8:52] the goal's to reduce the herd to 20.

[8:54] >> Correct.

[8:54] >> Basically 20. Why why down to 20 instead

[8:56] of all the way? What's the thought

[8:57] process there?

[8:58] >> Uh I don't I don't think

[9:00] First, I don't think we'll ever get it

[9:01] all the way down just our proximity to the mountains.

[9:05] Um and then we feel that

[9:08] without eradicating them completely. Um

[9:11] we know that there's people that enjoy

[9:12] having them. They're on campus. Students

[9:14] walking by and seeing them and they're

[9:15] cute. Um

[9:17] we just thought it'd be more manageable

[9:19] at that number.

[9:21] >> And then last final question, the

[9:23] indemnification

[9:25] I don't think I saw that drafted in the

[9:27] packet. Will that be drafted before the

[9:28] final meeting for us to review?

[9:30] >> Yeah, it will be.

[9:32] >> Okay. And Brian, you feel

[9:34] comfortable with that?

[9:36] >> Well, I

[9:37] >> in concept.

[9:37] >> I was going to say in concept. We need

[9:38] to see the draft, but I I think as long

[9:40] as the

[9:41] There's pretty standard language for

[9:43] that usually. So, as long as it meets

[9:45] the standards, I think we'll be That'll

[9:46] be fine.

[9:47] >> Yeah, thank you.

[9:51] » So, along those lines, if you're not

[9:53] eradicating to zero potentially every 5

[9:56] years, is there a need to undertake a

[9:58] program again? Is that

[9:59] >> Well, we're Yeah, we're I think we're

[10:01] hoping

[10:03] Yeah, we feel that it's getting close to 20. We'd probably pull off four a

[10:07] year, but I think it'll take a few years

[10:10] to to get down to that number.

[10:12] Yeah, especially with us just doing this

[10:14] for 1 month. You know, if we were doing

[10:15] it all fall, we could get more. But,

[10:18] yeah.

[10:19] >> And to ex- get a little more, it is

[10:20] currently set that it runs through If

[10:22] you approve it, it runs through 2029.

[10:24] So, like I said, you can they can they

[10:25] can adjust. They can They do it for a

[10:27] year. They see what things look like,

[10:28] see how it looks like, and then I think

[10:30] it says they could take up to 20 each

[10:32] year, but that doesn't That's sort of

[10:34] the max. It doesn't mean that they're

[10:36] going to do that. It's just um

[10:38] That That said, these I mean, these

[10:40] programs aren't set in stone. If it

[10:42] turns out that it uh

[10:44] you know,

[10:45] we dis- discuss it and think there's

[10:47] ways to potentially modify to make it

[10:48] better, we can revisit in the future,

[10:50] but this is how it'd be set. All right.

[10:52] Obviously, we haven't set it now, so but

[10:54] my point being that if we provide a

[10:56] program and if we set it, that's, you

[10:58] know, there's still room for

[10:59] modification in the future if we uh we

[11:01] can look into it and think it's needed.

[11:04] >> All right. Any other questions?

[11:07] All right. Well, thank you so much.

[11:09] >> Thank you.

[11:12] » All right. Next, we have an ordinance

[11:13] amending the general plan to add the

[11:15] storm drain master plan. And this will

[11:17] be presented by Hanal Sausal, our city

[11:20] planner, and Carlos Garcia, our storm

[11:21] water engineer.

[11:23] >> Or Shane Winters.

[11:31] » So, my consultant We had a consultant

[11:34] that was actually going to present and

[11:35] then Carlos or they're on the way here.

[11:37] You guys are done about a half hour

[11:39] early so or ahead of schedule.

[11:42] So, they are on their way.

[11:44] Um

[11:45] So, this

[11:46] >> you, Shane.

[11:47] >> I will go ahead and I'll start.

[11:49] >> Yeah.

[11:49] >> You want to go?

[11:50] Um

[11:52] So, the storm water master plan

[11:54] um

[11:56] Again, this is not my my presentation so

[11:59] may fumble through a little bit. Yes.

[12:01] Um

[12:03] Every so often we we update our master

[12:05] plan every five or typically five to 10

[12:07] years on our storm water. Um and we

[12:10] identify

[12:12] some issues or system capacity um

[12:16] problems throughout the system. We also

[12:18] identify and pull out capital projects

[12:22] or projects that were um as part of the

[12:24] impact fee that we've completed and then

[12:27] we update those um

[12:30] uh again on that five to year 10 year

[12:31] plan. In that modeling, we look at um

[12:36] We look out on the horizon about 10

[12:37] years on storm water.

[12:39] Um we do a complete study taking city um

[12:42] information, um the consultant's

[12:44] background,

[12:46] and then we also look at um

[12:48] new policies

[12:49] that are implemented within storm water.

[12:51] Often times we get um

[12:53] new regulations from the state and

[12:55] federal regulations that require us to

[12:59] update our storm water policy. Our water

[13:01] quality is a big um concern within storm

[13:04] water. And then of course, um one of the

[13:07] big ones is our impact fees. Um those

[13:10] from the development side help pay or

[13:11] fund for those future um development and

[13:14] their impact that they cause to our

[13:16] system.

[13:17] Um and that's a big one that we looked

[13:20] at this year in changing how

[13:22] um we apply impact fees um

[13:26] and how that works.

[13:28] Um so a storm water

[13:31] how how we deal with storm water is

[13:33] there's two competing different ways

[13:35] that we look at One is we can convey all

[13:38] the water

[13:39] and if we just say we're going to convey

[13:41] it all, we're going to move all that

[13:42] water, the pipes can get really big. Um

[13:46] bigger than probably we could even

[13:47] construct.

[13:49] So the second component of that or

[13:51] second idea is to reduce those pipe

[13:54] sizes and that is by taking detaining

[13:57] water. Um we detain water within in

[14:00] various different types of systems. A

[14:02] lot of those you see open basins. Um and

[14:05] what we try to do is we take off this

[14:07] really peak high flow. We store this

[14:09] area that's under or above that curve.

[14:13] We store that area and then we release

[14:14] it back slowly back into the system so

[14:17] that our pipes don't get extremely

[14:18] large.

[14:20] Um

[14:21] and that's how to how we we manage our

[14:22] storm water systems.

[14:25] Um one of the other key components that

[14:28] federally mandated now is water quality.

[14:30] Often times that can get overlooked, but

[14:33] that has over the last 10 years become a

[14:36] high priority. Keeping our rivers, our

[14:40] lakes clean um

[14:42] through those and so these detention

[14:45] systems often help with that water

[14:47] quality. We actually we require it um as

[14:50] part of

[14:51] our policies.

[14:53] Um

[14:54] >> And how does it make it

[14:55] >> What's that?

[14:56] >> How do you make the

[14:57] water cleaner by detaining it?

[14:59] >> So

[15:00] we do that by what happens is is when a

[15:03] storm first comes or storms come,

[15:06] there's that first part of the storm

[15:08] where we get really the oils, the sands,

[15:11] the all that stuff that's really yes.

[15:14] So by federal requirements ask at have

[15:17] us or are required to actually keep that

[15:20] on site.

[15:21] They're they are to retain what we call

[15:23] the 85th percentile. So, there's a

[15:25] certain amount of water based on that

[15:27] area that they need to retain on site,

[15:29] keep that stuff on site. Like they can

[15:32] include that within their storm drain

[15:34] basins, they can include that within

[15:36] like landscaping, um they include that

[15:39] within swales, that first part of the

[15:41] storm um retained on site that way then

[15:44] it can be cleaned on the site. And that

[15:46] does not get into the storm system or

[15:48] into our lakes and rivers. And that's

[15:49] how we deal with the water.

[15:50] >> you saying that it settles at the bottom

[15:52] of

[15:53] >> Yeah.

[15:54] >> know.

[15:54] >> So, sometimes they'll put underground

[15:55] chamber like we have underground

[15:57] chambers that they'll store masses

[15:59] amount of water. One of the chambers

[16:02] will just be strictly for retention. It

[16:04] actually It's It's built such that that

[16:06] will fill up, it'll let that all that

[16:09] those really water quality issues kind

[16:11] of settle into that chamber, and then it

[16:13] kind of spills over or it's contained in

[16:15] that comes out, and then anything after

[16:17] that comes out much much cleaner.

[16:19] >> Oh.

[16:19] >> That's one process. We have hydrodynamic

[16:21] separators where these big huge manholes

[16:25] actually work through through kind of a

[16:27] big whirlpool and separate a lot of

[16:29] oils, and then it'll cuz oils like to

[16:32] raise, sit on top. They'll actually let

[16:35] then under underneath it'll let water

[16:37] underneath through a a hole, and that

[16:40] way then it clean we we can clean it s-

[16:42] on the bottom but kind of middle. That

[16:44] way we keep the oils on top, the sands

[16:46] and the grease down on the bottom. And that's another way. So, there's

[16:49] various different methods. Other areas

[16:52] like curbs, we do curb cuts,

[16:55] um

[16:55] and you'll put them in swales. So, that

[16:57] first part will actually will drain

[16:59] through large long swales, and then

[17:01] it'll come out at the other end.

[17:03] Um and it'll let all that oil and and

[17:05] sand and and those things settle into

[17:07] that park strip before it comes out on

[17:09] the other end clean, and then gets into

[17:10] our storm water system.

[17:12] >> So, we have these magic whirlers

[17:13] underneath our streets?

[17:13] >> Yeah, they're kind of hydrodynamic

[17:15] separators, yeah.

[17:16] We have a big one on University Parkway.

[17:18] It's a It's part of a It was part of the

[17:20] U dot that we and all to save on space,

[17:24] well, we use those. They're expensive,

[17:26] but they save space. So, we have all

[17:28] these different methods that that we and

[17:31] the developers and those that are

[17:34] um

[17:35] meeting those federal requirements um

[17:37] have variety of options to use for that

[17:39] water quality.

[17:40] And and it's it's And then that way we

[17:43] can clean those systems out and not have

[17:46] issues in a in a water quality.

[17:48] Um it it is one of the bigger issues

[17:50] that we deal with within stormwater.

[17:53] >> Chris, and you're referring to like streets.

[17:57] >> Yeah.

[17:57] >> Correct?

[17:58] >> Street any any drainage.

[18:00] So, any drainage off any property within

[18:03] the city.

[18:04] That's what we're talking about.

[18:06] Now,

[18:07] in

[18:08] our residential, we don't require

[18:11] detention. So, most of all residential

[18:13] because it's impervious, meaning

[18:16] um it just kind of infiltrates.

[18:19] Um those areas we don't require.

[18:20] Commercial, we do require detention. So,

[18:23] residential single family, we do require

[18:25] we don't require, but with mostly a

[18:27] streets. Commercial, we do require the

[18:30] detentions. But even in our streets,

[18:32] even in the streets and everything that

[18:33] we deal with within the city requires

[18:35] those water quality features. So, when

[18:37] we design our own systems, the streets,

[18:39] they are required to have these water

[18:41] quality some kind of water quality

[18:43] system as part of that.

[18:45] So, that's all water quality. All

[18:47] water's treated.

[18:48] >> So, go on.

[18:50] So, you say, you know, how it's set up

[18:52] leaves, you know, sand or the oil. So,

[18:55] do we go through and clean that stuff up

[18:56] afterwards? So, there's a whole process?

[18:58] >> Yep.

[18:58] >> Is it like always

[19:00] is it just systematic? Like we do this

[19:01] once a month? Or is it like, oh, we had

[19:03] a big storm where there's extra stuff?

[19:04] Like what's the system?

[19:05] >> It's systematic. So, there's federal

[19:07] requirements

[19:08] um that we as part of our It's called

[19:11] the MS4. It's our permit. We are

[19:13] actually permitted through the state on

[19:15] our water quality and our storm water

[19:17] which is then overseen by the federal

[19:18] government. Um we are required by our

[19:21] permit every 5 years to go through our

[19:23] entire system and clean it. So that

[19:25] means

[19:26] 20% yeah 20% of the year we go through

[19:29] and we clean our our catch basins and

[19:32] detention basins all that stuff.

[19:33] Constantly we're out there. It's a year

[19:36] round process.

[19:37] >> I want to go on a cleanup trip.

[19:39] >> You can come with us. We have a huge vac

[19:41] truck. So yeah, you're more than

[19:43] welcome. We love to our guys would love

[19:45] to do that.

[19:45] >> It's one of the vacuum trucks, isn't it?

[19:47] Is it one of those vacuum trucks?

[19:48] >> It's a big vacuum truck.

[19:50] >> That goes down the manhole.

[19:51] >> Goes down we'll put them down manholes.

[19:52] Yeah.

[19:53] We do TVing of of our pipes.

[19:56] >> Go down the manhole.

[19:56] >> Yeah.

[19:57] >> She wants to go down the manhole. I

[19:58] don't want to go down the manhole.

[19:59] >> We have some pipes you could actually

[20:01] walk down. So

[20:02] Um they get very big.

[20:04] >> Also with lights.

[20:05] >> Um

[20:06] this seems like one of the headline

[20:09] policy changes here is the shift in how

[20:12] we assess fees from just gross acre

[20:16] charge to per ERU.

[20:18] >> Yeah.

[20:19] >> Um

[20:20] >> I'll we'll get to that.

[20:21] >> You'll get to that.

[20:21] >> Now that our consultant is here I I want

[20:24] to have a talk cuz we we did spend a lot

[20:26] of time with that. That was an important

[20:28] feature for us

[20:29] that and and working with the

[20:31] administration we felt that we needed to

[20:33] change how we did it. We did it

[20:35] typically on a just everybody pays on a

[20:37] gross acre. So now we want to make it

[20:38] more specific to to what your impact

[20:41] was. How much impervious or sorry

[20:43] pervious area hard surface you're

[20:45] bringing in and so proportionately apply

[20:48] that impact fee to that impact.

[20:51] So I'll go over that they're here now.

[20:53] I'll go ahead and turn the time over to

[20:54] Carlos

[20:55] and our consultant here to kind of walk

[20:57] through the rest of this.

[21:10] » Okay.

[21:12] Maybe.

[21:14] First slide my friend.

[21:17] >> Yeah.

[21:17] >> Okay, great.

[21:19] Um

[21:20] As mentioned, my name's Carlos Garcia,

[21:22] engineer with uh public works storm

[21:24] drain. And we'll just be covering an

[21:26] update to the city storm drain master

[21:28] plan. With that, we're just going to go

[21:30] over some key findings, some

[21:31] differences, uh

[21:33] some recommended capital improvement

[21:35] projects, and as you mentioned, the uh

[21:37] proposed impact fee changes. With me

[21:39] here is uh Kason Shultz with Hansen

[21:41] Allen and Luce. He's been our consultant

[21:44] uh

[21:45] and been behind the technical analysis

[21:47] on this update.

[21:49] With that, um we'll just go walk through

[21:52] the presentation. I understand you guys

[21:53] might have the slides, so feel free to

[21:55] stop us whenever. You might already be

[21:56] familiar with it. Um feel free to stop

[21:58] us with that. Um I'll just turn it over

[22:00] to Kason.

[22:01] >> Thank you. So, it looks like you might

[22:03] have been a little bit through. Thank

[22:04] you, Shane.

[22:05] Um when we do this master planning, um

[22:09] some of the key things that we're

[22:10] looking for is just looking at the

[22:11] system as a whole. A lot of times when

[22:13] developments come in,

[22:15] it's like they want to look in this

[22:16] little box, but we have to look at the

[22:17] system as a whole because we're

[22:18] receiving water from upstream sometimes,

[22:21] and so we have to take all of that

[22:23] into account. And so, we want to size

[22:24] these facilities based on

[22:26] the best engineering practices that we

[22:28] have. And so, we use modeling to do

[22:30] that. We use um

[22:32] technical data that's available online

[22:35] through different sources like NOAA,

[22:37] um soil surveys from the NRCS, and

[22:40] things like that to base um the analysis

[22:42] off of those things. And we try to plan

[22:45] for cost-effective solutions. I I heard

[22:47] when as I walked in, Shane was

[22:48] describing there's many different ways

[22:49] to manage storm water. And so, we try to

[22:51] use all the tools in the tool belt to

[22:53] get a cost-effective solution to manage

[22:55] the storm water. There are federal

[22:57] requirements, there's lots of different

[22:59] ways that we can do that, but we do have

[23:02] some things that we have to do

[23:04] to be in compliance. We have our

[23:05] engineering design standards that we

[23:07] use, and then we also have projects that

[23:10] have higher priority than others.

[23:12] And then we'll have our impact fees that

[23:14] help us to fund future growth. The the

[23:18] infrastructure that's required to fund

[23:20] future growth.

[23:22] And so, here's and so like you're

[23:24] talking a little bit about detention, so

[23:26] I don't want to belabor this point, but

[23:27] you have a couple different choices in

[23:30] terms of are we going to When I say

[23:31] convey, that's just think about a ditch, a pipe, something that water

[23:37] flows through.

[23:38] Um and then we have detention, which are

[23:41] these kind of large areas where we

[23:43] temporarily store water until there's

[23:45] enough capacity in those conveyances

[23:47] downstream to pass the water through.

[23:50] And so, those are some effective ways

[23:51] that we can kind of reduce pipe sizes

[23:53] when used detention. So, if you don't

[23:55] use detention throughout the whole city,

[23:58] you would end up with huge pipes.

[24:00] Maybe pipes that are too big to put in

[24:02] the ground, and then you could you're

[24:03] talking about a channel or a river or

[24:04] something like that to handle it. And

[24:06] so, we use these techniques to kind of

[24:08] knock that peak flow rate down, and

[24:10] that's what this figure

[24:12] I guess you can't see it on the screen,

[24:13] but that's what this does. This is

[24:15] without detention, you get this big

[24:18] this spike.

[24:18] >> Yeah, Shane went over all this for us.

[24:21] >> Okay.

[24:21] >> We're on top of that.

[24:22] >> Okay.

[24:23] So, here's some of the key differences.

[24:25] We We went We had some stuff to work

[24:28] with to begin with. You had a prior

[24:29] master plan.

[24:31] We We increased the resolution of our

[24:33] drainage basins. That just means we cut

[24:35] them up into smaller pieces. I'll kind

[24:37] of explain why later. We have um we

[24:41] defined some directly connected

[24:43] impervious versus unconnected impervious

[24:45] areas, and so that's that's the

[24:47] difference between like a driveway that

[24:49] goes directly into a street right into a

[24:51] drainage catch basin versus say a patio

[24:54] in your backyard that drains off into

[24:56] the grass. Those are two different

[24:58] things when we're modeling that kind of

[24:59] thing.

[25:00] We did a city-specific analysis to

[25:03] define impervious surface throughout the

[25:05] entire city.

[25:07] And then we had a few different projects

[25:09] that we did that were a little different

[25:11] than last time to manage the storm

[25:13] water.

[25:15] So, when I'm talking about resolution,

[25:16] this is this is just a depiction of what

[25:18] I'm trying to say is like

[25:20] the the picture on the left, you can

[25:21] tell that it's like a lake and a canoe

[25:24] and a mountain in the background, but

[25:25] it's a little fuzzy, right? There's bigger pixels.

[25:29] And then when we get more and more small pixels, we can get better

[25:32] resolution. And it's much the same with

[25:34] our drainage basins.

[25:36] There's a drainage basin that could um

[25:39] define what the Provo River drains,

[25:41] right? And then there's a basin that

[25:43] could define what this parking lot

[25:45] drains. And so, you have to create a a

[25:48] balance of that when you're doing a

[25:49] citywide master plan to kind of come up

[25:52] with that, how much resolution do we

[25:54] want? Right? Cuz there can be overkill.

[25:57] There can be too low resolution, so we

[25:59] want to try to uh meet

[26:01] a good kind of um

[26:06] We usually like to have about 10 to 30

[26:07] acres.

[26:08] That gives us what we found over the

[26:10] years, that's kind of a good sweet spot

[26:12] to be in.

[26:14] And so, here's just an example.

[26:16] Uh the red outline was a sub-basin, a

[26:19] drainage basin from the prior master

[26:20] plan, and then we split it up into 1 2 3

[26:23] 4 5 6 7 different basins. And basically,

[26:27] what that allows for how for this to do

[26:29] is if all the water's coming down and

[26:31] it's coming down to this point right

[26:33] here,

[26:34] um

[26:35] and if I just had this one sub-basin, I

[26:37] would have one output from the model. I

[26:38] would have one of those spiky

[26:39] hydrographs that you saw, one peak flow

[26:42] rate, one volume.

[26:44] And so, if I have a bunch of pipes that

[26:46] are draining this and it's all coming

[26:47] down into here,

[26:49] I don't know what the flow rate is right

[26:51] there.

[26:52] And so, that's the reason why you would

[26:54] split it up is that I can go, "Okay,

[26:55] well, I want to analyze this system a

[26:57] little bit, too, as opposed to just

[26:59] worrying about only the trunk line

[27:01] that's kind of down here at the bottom."

[27:02] And so we just refined it a little bit.

[27:04] And that's common in storm water master

[27:05] planning.

[27:06] We take our first cut, maybe it's a

[27:08] little bit rough, and then as we go, we

[27:11] can kind of refine it down and and come

[27:13] up with more and more refined answers

[27:15] and solutions and we can look at more

[27:16] stuff in more detail as we go.

[27:19] Okay, this is a graphic that is

[27:23] trying to explain what I was um talking

[27:25] about earlier. There's directly

[27:27] connected impervious area and there's

[27:28] unconnected impervious area. And so,

[27:31] from this graphic, you can kind of see I

[27:33] have this driveway and it slopes down to

[27:35] the street and there's catch basin. If

[27:37] there is If there is nothing in between

[27:39] that, we call that directly connected.

[27:41] There's a straight path. That water

[27:43] falls into the driveway and goes right

[27:44] into the catch basin, right into the

[27:46] storm drain pipe, right?

[27:48] But there's also unconnected. This roof

[27:50] right here in this graphic drains down

[27:52] to this downspout and then it goes into

[27:54] the grass.

[27:56] And so the response of that in in from a

[27:59] hydrology perspective is different.

[28:02] That's that hydrograph that we showed

[28:03] earlier, that that that one that's got a

[28:05] big peak on it.

[28:07] That that would be mostly from your

[28:08] directly connected. It's going to come

[28:10] really fast. It's going to come fast and

[28:12] hard. But if it has to go over a big

[28:14] pervious surface like this, some of that

[28:16] water's going to seep down into the

[28:17] ground. We're not going to get it all,

[28:19] right?

[28:20] And so,

[28:21] distinguishing between the two of those

[28:23] is really important in storm water

[28:24] master planning because if we assume

[28:26] it's all going to just run off like

[28:28] this, we're probably going to size our

[28:29] pipes too big.

[28:30] And and vice versa. If there's

[28:33] more of this than there actually is,

[28:34] then maybe we're going to undersize

[28:36] stuff. So we have to we have to kind of

[28:38] distinguish that and and get that

[28:39] balance going.

[28:42] And so, one of the things that's really

[28:43] cool that's that's

[28:45] um um, coming with the technology that

[28:48] we have and the computing power that

[28:49] we've got and the, um,

[28:53] AI and machine learning, all these kinds

[28:55] of things, is the ability for the

[28:56] computer to process that for us.

[28:59] And so, we did this impervious surface

[29:01] delineation using those concepts where,

[29:05] essentially, you train the computer

[29:08] to be able to correctly identify

[29:11] the street or a roof or a sidewalk.

[29:16] And so, you give it you give it 30, 40,

[29:19] 50 examples where you just go into the

[29:21] map and you draw a little box around it

[29:23] and you say, "This is a pavement.

[29:26] This is a driveway. This is a green This

[29:29] is a brown roof. This is a white roof."

[29:31] So, you go through and you train it

[29:33] for certain areas of the city and then

[29:35] you and then you say, "Take all this

[29:36] information and now go out and go do the

[29:38] whole city.

[29:40] Go and do what I've just told you

[29:41] everywhere. Go and identify all the

[29:43] pavement,

[29:44] all the street, you know, all the

[29:47] driveways, all the white roofs, brown

[29:49] roofs and everything." And then it can

[29:51] come back and create this sort of data

[29:54] that can be used for lots of different

[29:56] things, um,

[29:57] and specifically for stormwater master

[29:59] planning it's really useful because the

[30:01] amount of runoff we get is it's not 100%

[30:06] just the pavement that creates all the

[30:08] runoff, but it's a lot of it. And so,

[30:10] this is really important for stormwater

[30:12] master planning and doing it this way

[30:14] allows you to have a city-specific

[30:18] Cuz there's lots of, you know, back in

[30:19] the '60s, '70s, '80s, they created these

[30:22] really nice tables that had kind of some

[30:24] typicals for this. Like, the residential

[30:26] neighborhood is 25% impervious or

[30:29] commercial is

[30:31] 85% and they were basing that off of

[30:34] just typicals where someone went into a

[30:36] map and actually hand-digitized this

[30:37] stuff.

[30:38] They said, "These are These are around

[30:40] what it is usually."

[30:41] But, this allows you to have a city

[30:44] specific

[30:45] impervious delineation and it helps us

[30:47] to again refine what we've already done

[30:49] in the past.

[30:51] And then I don't know, is there a way

[30:53] for me to

[30:53] >> I attached the maps PDFs to this.

[31:01] » I don't think

[31:02] No, that was uploaded as an item.

[31:12] » So we we took all this information and

[31:14] we we created a model where and the

[31:16] parts of that model are the hydrology

[31:18] side and then there's also the hydraulic

[31:20] side. So the hydrology is what creates

[31:22] those hydrographs or tells you what the

[31:25] runoff is from these drainage basins

[31:27] that we looked at before. And then

[31:29] they'll flow into the pipes and then

[31:31] inside the pipes we do our hydraulic

[31:34] calculations. So

[31:36] how much water can flow through that

[31:37] pipe?

[31:38] And the slope, the material of the pipe,

[31:41] all that stuff matters and it goes into

[31:44] the model

[31:45] and then we're able to estimate whether

[31:47] the pipe handle all the water that is

[31:51] anticipated to go through it, right? And

[31:53] if it can't, in the model it shows the

[31:55] water coming up out of the manhole.

[31:58] Says, "Oh, I'm flooding here." You would

[32:00] expect to see a puddle in the road right

[32:02] here because the pipe is not big enough

[32:05] for how much drainage is coming to it.

[32:07] And so that's that was the intent of

[32:09] these PDF maps and I apologize.

[32:12] >> These maps

[32:14] >> Yep.

[32:15] Yeah.

[32:17] I believe so.

[32:18] >> It was a link

[32:20] in the materials.

[32:21] >> Yeah, if you can just show that the

[32:22] first page.

[32:28] Okay, this isn't exactly but that's

[32:29] okay.

[32:31] So this this is kind of a schematic of

[32:32] the whole city. You can see

[32:35] what we have is a bunch of pipes. We

[32:37] have detention ponds, that's what these

[32:39] hatched areas are throughout the city.

[32:41] And basically we have a model that shows

[32:42] like and these are these catch basins.

[32:45] You can see these light blue lines.

[32:47] And and basically we feed that into

[32:50] these models and it tells us, okay,

[32:52] where where are we flooding?

[32:55] How bad are we flooding? That helps us

[32:57] to prioritize.

[32:58] Not only do we do that, but we also meet

[33:01] with Shane and Carlos,

[33:03] others, Scott. And we go through and we

[33:06] say, "The model says that there's

[33:07] flooding right here. Have you seen

[33:10] flooding right here?"

[33:12] And they'll say, "Yeah, we see flooding

[33:13] right there." We say, "Great. The model

[33:16] and

[33:17] the evidence from the city says there is

[33:19] a problem here.

[33:20] So, let's put that on our capital

[33:22] improvement plan."

[33:23] There's other times where you do the

[33:25] best you can with all this data,

[33:27] but we have to recognize that there's

[33:29] uncertainty in these calculations

[33:31] and the data that's behind it. You can

[33:33] say, "Okay,

[33:34] do you see flooding here?" And they

[33:35] might say, "No, haven't seen flooding

[33:37] there." So, then what we like to do is

[33:39] we put that on a watch list. We say,

[33:41] "Hey,

[33:42] we want your crews to kind of watch this

[33:43] area in big storms and see if they see

[33:46] flooding. Maybe they just hadn't noticed

[33:47] it before,

[33:49] but

[33:50] we don't want you to spend good money

[33:53] trying to fix something that's not

[33:54] actually a problem,

[33:55] right?

[33:57] And so, that that's that's the intent of

[33:59] this. And these maps kind of show like

[34:01] these are flow rates and capacities and

[34:04] stuff like that based on our hydraulic

[34:06] calculating uh not hydraulic analysis.

[34:09] And so, I think

[34:11] >> We can go back to the PowerPoint slide.

[34:14] Thank you so

[34:15] >> Can I ask you a quick question?

[34:16] >> Yeah, of course.

[34:16] >> As you went through that, did you have

[34:18] any Were you able to point out areas of

[34:20] concern where you thought, "Oh my

[34:22] goodness, we're really short here and

[34:24] there and

[34:24] >> Yes. Yes. And so the model will kind of with the

[34:29] model we you of

[34:31] identify how bad is our flooding

[34:34] per the model. And then we'd like to

[34:35] confirm that with Shane and his staff to

[34:39] say, "Yes, this definitely is an area of

[34:41] concern. Work through some of those."

[34:44] >> I think when we started doing that

[34:45] higher resolution, yeah, we started to

[34:48] see things that both of you noticed and

[34:52] things that we didn't notice. It started

[34:54] from our old plan that this would

[34:56] started to seem to have more line up

[34:58] with really what was going on. So, it it

[35:01] did change our plan a little

[35:03] >> It's great.

[35:05] >> Okay.

[35:09] » Uh it's not letting me advance here.

[35:11] >> Yeah, try to pull them out.

[35:13] If you're lucky, we can pull it up right

[35:15] now to show it does have kind of the

[35:16] areas of the city that, "Hey, this is

[35:18] where you watch out for."

[35:20] >> No, I I don't want to slow you down. Go

[35:22] ahead and do your presentation. I was

[35:23] just I was just assuming that'd be the

[35:25] case. It's good to hear.

[35:26] >> Yeah.

[35:31] » Did we get the plan up? There you go.

[35:32] >> Okay, perfect. So, here's kind of just a

[35:34] summary of what we found as we went

[35:36] through. So, we went through, we tried

[35:38] to again align our projects that we're

[35:41] going to recommend with known problems

[35:43] and issues.

[35:44] And that total price tag came out to

[35:47] 76.8 million, okay? So, don't fall out

[35:51] of your chair. You don't have to do all

[35:52] of those projects right now. Got to

[35:54] prioritize those and kind of you eat the

[35:57] elephant one bite at a time, right?

[35:59] So, that that was the summary of those

[36:00] findings. And then 25.8 of that was

[36:03] impact eligible. I mean, a lot of those

[36:05] are future projects that

[36:07] there's nothing there right now. And so,

[36:10] 25.8 million is what we um estimated for

[36:14] impact the eligibility.

[36:16] Um we again, we used detention to reduce

[36:19] the flows when feasible,

[36:21] but sometimes you're in a tight urban

[36:23] corridor and detention's not feasible.

[36:26] And so, sometimes you just have to the

[36:27] pipe or run a parallel pipe so that you

[36:30] can get all that water through there

[36:31] without flooding.

[36:34] Um

[36:35] Okay.

[36:36] Any Any questions on that modeling and

[36:38] >> Right here.

[36:40] >> Perfect.

[36:41] Um I'm going to talk just a little bit

[36:42] about impact fees. So, impact fees, just

[36:45] to simply define it, it's a one-time fee

[36:48] that's charged for new development to

[36:50] that's that's necessary to service that

[36:53] future growth.

[36:55] You can't You can't include maintenance,

[36:57] O&M, operations and maintenance in that.

[36:59] It's just to put that infrastructure in

[37:01] the ground that the develop the future

[37:03] development is going to require. Okay?

[37:06] Um and so, from a legal and planning

[37:09] framework, these master plans that we

[37:11] do, they're important because they give

[37:13] a baseline for the sizings that we

[37:16] provide. If someone comes to me and

[37:18] says, "There's no way I need a 36 right

[37:20] there." Say, "Well, our We did a master

[37:22] plan and the calculations that were done

[37:26] yielded 36-in drain pipe. And we can

[37:28] take a closer look, but that's what it was. This was the

[37:31] technical basis for that, right? That's

[37:34] really important. You don't want to have

[37:35] someone question me

[37:37] and they just say, "Well,

[37:39] you know, uh

[37:40] Scott and you know, the storm drain

[37:42] department says he thinks a 36-in is

[37:44] great." That's That's not good

[37:46] reasoning. Even though Scott's smart,

[37:48] he's a great guy, he probably does He

[37:50] probably could estimate it pretty well,

[37:52] but it doesn't have that technical basis

[37:55] right?

[37:56] So, you do that so you can have that

[37:58] um

[37:59] for these impact fees.

[38:02] Now Now I want to talk to you a little

[38:04] bit about a couple of different approach

[38:05] here. Um I want to talk to you about two

[38:08] different approaches that I've seen for

[38:10] stormwater impact fee assessments, okay?

[38:13] One of them is to use a gross acreage

[38:15] approach, and that is currently what

[38:17] Provo City does.

[38:19] Meaning, if an acre if a 5-acre

[38:21] development comes in,

[38:23] doesn't matter how much impervious area,

[38:25] it doesn't matter what they're doing,

[38:27] they will be assessed a certain impact

[38:29] fee.

[38:31] Um and then there are other cities that

[38:33] I've done work for that use a stormwater

[38:36] ERU.

[38:37] An ERU is something that you've probably

[38:40] heard of being on a city council, but

[38:41] I'll explain it. It's It's a way for you

[38:43] to take one It's It's a way for you to

[38:46] basically say, "What is an equivalent to

[38:50] a residential connection, whether it's

[38:51] commercial, industrial? How can I make

[38:53] these things equivalent to each other?"

[38:55] Stands for equivalent residential unit.

[38:58] And so on a stormwater side, a lot of

[39:00] cities will use this for assessing their

[39:03] impact fees. And so I kind of just came

[39:05] up with this simple graphic to to

[39:08] illustrate the point of the difference

[39:10] between the two. If you have developer

[39:13] A, let's say they're going to be a

[39:14] low-impact use, they've got 5 acres,

[39:17] they're going to have a small parking

[39:18] lot, maybe it's like uh strawberry stand

[39:22] or something like that, right? Small

[39:24] parking lot, they're going to use most

[39:25] of the land to grow crops.

[39:28] And they come into the city and they

[39:30] say, "Okay, we're going to do this." And

[39:31] the city says, "Okay, I'm doing gross

[39:33] acreage,

[39:35] $40,000 for your impact fee, okay?"

[39:39] Now the other one, if it's a high use,

[39:41] big commercial um development, 5 acres,

[39:45] they're 90% of it's paved, you can

[39:48] imagine how much more runoff

[39:50] um developer B is going to generate

[39:53] close to developer A.

[39:55] And so if you use the storm in the in

[39:57] the gross acreage approach, they pay the

[39:59] exact same.

[40:01] In this other approach, stormwater ERU,

[40:04] you basically take that You remember

[40:06] that uh impervious surface delineation I

[40:08] was talking about throughout the city.

[40:10] We took that and we took a bunch of

[40:12] residential

[40:14] uh

[40:15] lots.

[40:16] And we we basically

[40:19] said, "What is the average residential

[40:21] um impervious area there based on that

[40:25] data?" So, we had that data and we came

[40:27] it was like I can't remember the exact

[40:29] number. It's like 3,200 sq ft

[40:32] was was the number

[40:35] or around there.

[40:36] And so, basically, when I did the idea

[40:39] behind this stormwater ERU is that you

[40:41] take how much impervious surface they

[40:43] have,

[40:44] let's say it's three times that just for

[40:46] easy math, three times the 3,200.

[40:51] Well, then they would be three ERUs and

[40:54] they would pay that much.

[40:56] Um

[40:57] and so, you you can you can use that

[41:00] data as they're coming in cuz a lot of

[41:01] these when these developments come in,

[41:04] residential ones will fall under certain

[41:07] lot sizes and they would basically be

[41:09] the average of those lot sizes. But, if

[41:11] it's a commercial, on their plans, it's

[41:13] going to show how much impervious or

[41:15] hardscape on the plans. So, they can be

[41:17] assessed at that time based on that

[41:19] value.

[41:20] So, assessing on the gross acreage is

[41:22] way easier, right?

[41:24] It just is what it is. But, there is

[41:27] this maybe perceived unfairness

[41:31] from a stormwater perspective of having

[41:33] a gross acreage approach because of Now,

[41:36] these are showing two extremes, right?

[41:38] But,

[41:39] certainly, um developer B their their

[41:42] proposed development would generate more

[41:46] than what A does. And so, the idea

[41:48] behind

[41:49] the ERU is that it kind of uh

[41:53] levels that playing field a little.

[41:56] Any questions on that? Yeah.

[41:59] >> Have we looked at this as far as our

[42:01] system? Have we looked at this as far as

[42:03] how's this going to change revenue? And

[42:07] So, because if

[42:08] for example, our citizens can serve

[42:10] water, which is awesome, but it's

[42:11] greatly affected our water revenue. So,

[42:13] we have to raise prices because they're

[42:14] conserving water.

[42:15] >> Yeah.

[42:16] >> I mean, it How does this

[42:18] >> Yeah, it's like the laws of unintended

[42:20] consequences, right?

[42:22] That that definitely has happened. And

[42:25] with this,

[42:26] um the intent is that you would raise

[42:29] the exact same amount of money.

[42:31] However, with the um with the gross

[42:34] acreage approach,

[42:36] um

[42:38] there's probably

[42:39] I would say there's probably less um

[42:42] assumptions that go into it, if that

[42:43] makes sense. The other side, there's a

[42:45] little bit more on the assumption side

[42:48] of what do we think is going to come in.

[42:51] But, that being said, it it it it is it

[42:53] is more fair across the board.

[42:56] >> Totally.

[42:57] >> Um and you were best at those things.

[43:01] >> So, I think it's a it's fairness, I

[43:03] think. Yes, I think it puts the that

[43:06] impact or the onus more on those that

[43:08] are bringing in more.

[43:09] >> Which is great.

[43:09] >> pervious.

[43:10] >> Yeah.

[43:11] >> One of the If you If you want to call it

[43:13] a negative, when you do gross acreage,

[43:16] you bring you get a pretty consistent

[43:18] impact fee

[43:19] every year, right? Just because there's

[43:21] so much development comes in, it doesn't

[43:23] matter what it is, it comes in that.

[43:26] We can ebb and flow quite a bit if we're going cuz this is again to

[43:30] really put it more heavily on

[43:31] commercial, right? Commercial going

[43:33] because they create much more pervious.

[43:36] So, if commercial is, you know, not

[43:39] doing much or not developing much, and

[43:40] it's more residential, then yeah, we

[43:42] could bring in less impact in dollars.

[43:45] Earlier, that would then sort of be

[43:47] normal, right? We'll get the same amount

[43:49] of dollars,

[43:50] >> It's going to be the same thing here.

[43:51] >> it's going to ebb and flow pretty

[43:53] substantial.

[43:54] Um

[43:55] Whereas, this other one we do, and we've

[43:57] noticed it pretty consistent every year,

[43:59] we get kind of the same amount of money.

[44:00] >> So, the ebb and flow would be hard on

[44:02] your budget?

[44:02] >> It could be, especially if you have like

[44:04] projects. It could It's just planning's

[44:07] going to have to be a little bit

[44:09] >> More for it.

[44:09] >> more right for the bigger projects to

[44:12] make those kind of layout.

[44:15] >> Councilor Whitlock.

[44:17] >> I used to How much more into this you

[44:19] know you think we're going to get into?

[44:20] That is not a specific question but

[44:22] >> Um

[44:23] Not No, I was just going to show the

[44:25] calculation of that. So, if you have a

[44:27] specific

[44:27] >> Well, that's actually related to this.

[44:29] Maybe we can look at that balance.

[44:30] >> We have about 5 more minutes.

[44:33] >> Um the one other thing I'll say is that

[44:35] the city actually is planning on

[44:36] updating impact fees every year on an

[44:38] annual basis, which actually is super

[44:41] helpful because

[44:43] then you're not [clears throat]

[44:44] you're not making a big adjustment

[44:47] in 5 to 8 years when that's good.

[44:49] Typically cities have kind of done that

[44:51] and it and it creates a shock wave in

[44:53] the whole community of like, "Oh, we

[44:55] hadn't planned on that big of an

[44:56] increase when we were doing our

[44:58] developments." And so, if they can be

[45:00] just small little pieces at a time every

[45:02] year, you're going to be much more

[45:04] likely to collect the right amount.

[45:09] So, this is just kind of just

[45:12] boiling it down into the simplest terms

[45:14] as as we can here. Here Here was our

[45:16] total, 28 and a half 28 25.8 million.

[45:21] Um we can associate some of the planning

[45:23] from the master plan into the impact fee

[45:25] as well. You can collect for that.

[45:28] And then

[45:29] we estimated based on our data that we

[45:32] have 17,580

[45:34] storm water ERUs remaining to meet the

[45:36] balance. So, that's taking all the

[45:39] remaining areas of Provo that are

[45:40] expected to be developed. That's lining

[45:43] them up with the

[45:45] future planning and zoning data.

[45:47] And then that's estimating how much

[45:49] impervious area we think we're going to

[45:51] get

[45:52] and taking that average number and

[45:54] estimating how much more we think we

[45:55] have.

[45:57] And so, basically

[45:59] you you add all that together and you

[46:01] get this number here divided by the

[46:03] total number of remaining ERUs and then

[46:06] that's how much you collect per ERU.

[46:10] So again, if a commercial comes in and

[46:11] they're 10 ERUs, they're going to pay 10

[46:14] times they're going to pay $14,000.

[46:18] » So these are these are some of my

[46:19] questions. One one thing is that like I

[46:21] couldn't tell from this slide if this

[46:25] is actually

[46:26] because you you're basically determining

[46:28] the the ERU fee based on the amount of

[46:31] remaining

[46:33] ERUs to be developed and not normalizing

[46:35] to like current housing costs. I'm it's

[46:37] hard to tell if this is like an actual

[46:39] fee increase or not for like an average

[46:42] you know, single-family home being

[46:44] constructed. Is that that?

[46:46] >> So if you kind of you and I agree with

[46:49] you, it's it's a little bit hard to

[46:51] tell. Right now, I think I have one more

[46:53] slide that shows what we're

[46:54] The current fee is $8,000 or $8,200

[46:59] per gross acre and this one is the

[47:02] almost 1,500.

[47:04] So if you assume

[47:07] >> eighth-acre lots.

[47:09] >> Yeah.

[47:10] Then it then it is going to be slightly

[47:12] >> a slight fee increase then probably?

[47:14] >> slightly higher if you go eighth acre.

[47:17] And so it's kind of hard because there

[47:18] is a spectrum of possibilities, right?

[47:21] So

[47:22] um

[47:24] but it it does kind of all make it go

[47:27] back to the singular unit

[47:29] that kind of

[47:31] in in theory

[47:32] levels the playing field for everybody.

[47:36] >> The other question I have is um so the four this four 1,477 fee assumes

[47:42] 17,580

[47:44] more

[47:45] units? Yes. What's that number based on?

[47:49] >> So that's based on if I take all the

[47:51] remaining areas to be developed

[47:55] and I overlay my planning and zoning on

[47:57] top of that with the typicals that I

[47:59] have seen in the city already.

[48:02] It it it it basically takes that data

[48:05] and coalesces that together. So, this is the estimate that I'm going to

[48:09] give you guys.

[48:09] >> So, what happens if development's 30%

[48:11] less than expected or 30% more based on

[48:14] exogenous variable or that like things

[48:16] outside of those things you looked at?

[48:17] >> So, so it's based off the general plan

[48:19] you adopted.

[48:20] >> Yeah.

[48:21] >> And if you stick with it, we make it. If

[48:23] you change it, then we should change

[48:24] this. So,

[48:26] that's what it's based off the general

[48:27] >> So, couple of that but isn't it time

[48:29] sensitive to some degree, too?

[48:31] >> No, because if you stick with the

[48:32] general plan for eternity, our plan will

[48:35] work out great. If you decide to change

[48:37] it in 5 years, we'll update our plan to

[48:40] match that.

[48:41] >> Okay.

[48:42] >> So, I'll update impact fees every year

[48:45] also that satisfies me.

[48:46] >> And that's what I was going to say. With

[48:47] it with us doing it every year now, this

[48:50] will catch those those changes as they

[48:52] happen.

[48:53] >> So, if there's changes on

[48:56] >> We'll be able to update that 17 to

[48:58] whatever it needs to be

[49:00] at the time.

[49:01] >> So, you're a consultant that does this

[49:02] at other cities, correct? So, what last

[49:05] question I have is like as have you made

[49:07] done Have you worked with other cities

[49:09] to transition from kind of a gross acre

[49:11] approach to this um

[49:14] ERU approach?

[49:16] >> Um I have I don't know that I've done a

[49:18] specific gross to ERU. This um

[49:23] the staff asked me what I think

[49:25] percentage wise. I do a lot of these

[49:26] throughout

[49:27] >> Yeah.

[49:28] >> what percentage of ERU versus gross

[49:30] acreage. And my my gut is 70% ERU, 30%

[49:36] gross acreage.

[49:37] >> The reason why I asked is um I'm curious

[49:40] maybe either from your own experience or

[49:43] you research you've done like does this

[49:44] create any incentive changes? Like do

[49:47] you see

[49:48] actually like or is it not a big enough

[49:50] change in cost to really change behavior and

[49:53] margins.

[49:54] >> I don't know that I've like seen

[49:58] a paper that's said anything about that.

[50:00] My gut would tell me it does.

[50:03] So, one example is

[50:06] with the bench farms, they're doing 100%

[50:09] retention. So, they're under this plan

[50:11] they would pay zero

[50:13] impact fees because it was zero

[50:15] incentive from the city.

[50:16] >> So, it incentivizes retention.

[50:18] >> So, people will

[50:20] have an opportunity to reduce that

[50:21] number by reducing

[50:24] their So, now they have a

[50:27] Before there was no incentive, it

[50:28] wouldn't change what you got because you

[50:29] paid for it.

[50:30] >> So, this allows them not that they're

[50:31] going to, not that we probably would see

[50:33] a lot of it, but now they have the

[50:35] opportunity to be creative.

[50:37] >> All else being equal, does the city

[50:39] prefer retention?

[50:41] >> Um yes and no. I I'd say retention is

[50:44] generally always bad.

[50:46] >> [laughter]

[50:48] » You you want some release, but the more

[50:50] they hold, the more they get in. The

[50:53] problem with retention

[50:55] is it gets a swampy, you get cattails,

[50:58] you get things you don't like. So,

[51:01] all this is not going to be that big of

[51:03] a deal.

[51:03] >> Does it help the aquifer to right?

[51:05] >> Yeah, so

[51:07] federal and state requirements, they try to get it more back to what the

[51:11] natural state was.

[51:13] Um so, yes, some retention we want,

[51:16] right? That helps infiltrate, it keeps

[51:19] the moisture typically where it needs to

[51:21] be, but not all of it because a lot of

[51:23] that stuff typically would flow to

[51:25] rivers, lakes, etc. We do want a lot of

[51:28] that. There was recent legislation on

[51:30] trying to change the amount of

[51:33] retention, right?

[51:33] >> to the to the almost unlimited because

[51:36] we do want that stuff to flow

[51:38] to through the rivers, through the

[51:40] lakes, through the through the various

[51:41] lakes to help feed them. So,

[51:44] it it absolutely works.

[51:48] » You're saying this ERU thing is

[51:51] the consultant's recommendation.

[51:54] Right?

[51:54] >> Well,

[51:56] I'm going to say I'd vote he came in

[51:58] initially with a plan to keep it the

[52:00] same way.

[52:02] We have pushed him

[52:04] I have pushed him to do the ERU thing.

[52:06] >> You have pushed him. What about Shane?

[52:08] >> Oh,

[52:09] from my standpoint, we were looking at

[52:11] it it it

[52:13] it's about what we had to bring in. We

[52:16] have

[52:17] um

[52:18] from our last master plan, we had

[52:20] basically

[52:22] um

[52:23] finished all the impact fee eligible

[52:25] projects on our plan. That was one of

[52:27] the drivers that we needed to get this

[52:30] up big plan updated because we had

[52:32] finished all [snorts] projects that were

[52:35] impact fee eligible.

[52:36] That's not to say we still had a lot of

[52:38] capital projects that we were needing to

[52:39] do, but they were not impact fee

[52:41] eligible.

[52:42] >> Um this often times can be a big part of

[52:46] our storm water budget to help pay for

[52:48] that infrastructure. Not all of it, but

[52:50] a a substantial portion of it. Um so

[52:53] initially as far as storm water meter

[52:55] was concerned for me,

[52:57] as as our our capital project budgets,

[53:00] if we get too much of this, then it

[53:02] becomes hard for us to kind of we have

[53:04] to delay projects or how we build those.

[53:08] Because you can't just put

[53:10] a 36-in pipe in, right, and that

[53:12] developer's responsible for. He's only

[53:14] partly responsible for a small portion

[53:16] of that. So that means timing wise that impact fee plus our budget is

[53:21] sometimes can be a little bit hurting.

[53:23] But I do agree that this is more fair. I

[53:26] think this does put the onus on those

[53:29] that are creating more pervious area

[53:31] that are creating the impact fee, which

[53:33] in my opinion now is I think it is the

[53:36] right thing to do.

[53:38] Um it it does it's going to be a

[53:40] challenge just a little bit how we plan

[53:42] projects, but that's something we can

[53:44] manage.

[53:45] >> But this is just

[53:46] These are just impact the projects that

[53:48] it's going to impact, right? It's not

[53:50] going to impact

[53:52] normal wear and tear on the system that

[53:53] we're having to upgrade over there.

[53:54] >> Yeah, that's maintenance. So,

[53:56] maintenance is part of that's the fees

[53:58] that generate the storm water fees.

[53:59] >> This is just increase in development.

[54:02] >> This is yes, capital facility projects.

[54:06] These are new

[54:07] >> So, it doesn't matter if it ebbs and

[54:09] flows because

[54:11] >> It does in a sense because we still have

[54:13] a lot of the west side, like Ivory Homes

[54:16] and

[54:17] um those areas that are undeveloped or

[54:20] we have for instance that northeast area

[54:22] that got annexed in there. We have

[54:25] undersized pipes. And then it was

[54:28] because it wasn't annexed or part of the

[54:29] general plan, it was agricultural, now

[54:31] it was now residential. Now those pipes

[54:33] are too small. That through this process

[54:36] we realized we need to upsize those

[54:38] pipes.

[54:39] >> going to be getting less because it is

[54:40] residential versus commercial.

[54:42] >> Some of it, yes. Yeah, it will change

[54:44] that a bit to to do that, yeah.

[54:47] But other projects where a big

[54:49] commercial comes in,

[54:51] typically because of a bigger

[54:52] commercial, they're going to create a

[54:54] bigger impact. Um they pay that bigger

[54:56] fee, which means that we have the

[54:58] ability to upsize pipes down and they're

[55:00] typically downstream that are too small

[55:03] that they'll they'll pay for.

[55:04] >> But at the end of the day, you're okay

[55:05] with this and you guys are the ones that

[55:07] pushed it pushed him to look at it.

[55:09] >> Yeah, absolutely. And we looked at it in

[55:11] a lot of detail. We were asked to do

[55:14] that, not take one side of it, but look

[55:16] at it from all pros and cons, and we

[55:18] felt

[55:19] as far as everything kind of laying out,

[55:22] this is a much better solution.

[55:24] >> Thank you. Okay, we're about 10 minutes

[55:26] over. Is there

[55:28] any other pressing questions? Okay,

[55:31] thank you so much.

[55:34] All All next we have an ordinance

[55:35] amending the general plan to update the

[55:37] wastewater collection master plan.

[55:39] And this will be presented by Hannah

[55:41] Salzol and Lane Pierce.

[55:47] » Okay.

[55:52] » Hello. Uh Lane and other public works

[55:54] staff members are here to answer any

[55:55] questions you might have, but the more

[55:57] person leading the presentation will be

[55:59] Keith Larson, one of the consultants.

[56:02] >> Great.

[56:04] We do have a presentation, right?

[56:06] >> This is what This one was submitted to

[56:08] us.

[56:09] >> Perfect.

[56:10] Okay, and the first thing is it says

[56:12] Andrew

[56:13] on there. Yeah.

[56:15] Sorry.

[56:16] Oh, I got it.

[56:18] >> Good work.

[56:19] >> First thing it says Andrew, he gave the

[56:21] presentation at

[56:23] uh planning commission, but um

[56:25] you get me again. Sorry about that.

[56:28] Okay, so um

[56:31] I guess before we start in really quick

[56:33] just for perspective,

[56:35] what we're talking to that to about

[56:37] today is the storm water master plan,

[56:41] which is essentially the document that

[56:43] is used to plan the facilities and needs

[56:47] of the of the sewer system.

[56:50] This does not include impact fees. I saw

[56:53] you were talking about that on storm

[56:54] water. This is not including impact

[56:56] fees. Uh those have been prepared, but

[56:59] are in the process of being reviewed and

[57:00] will be back

[57:02] in a few months uh to talk about those.

[57:04] And nor does it include rates,

[57:07] uh which we're working on as well. Jimmy

[57:10] will be back uh in the fall sometime. I

[57:13] got that right? So, we're just talking

[57:14] master plan today. Okay, so if you had a

[57:17] chance to look at the packet, uh things

[57:19] are pretty good news right now. Here's

[57:22] your existing sewer system. Uh we are

[57:25] looking for problems that are either 65%

[57:29] or above uh in terms of how full your

[57:32] pipe is, that would be the yellow and

[57:35] the red pipes.

[57:36] Um, we do have this one major pipe out

[57:40] west that is

[57:41] has just right at the edge of capacity.

[57:45] Um, the rest looks pretty good. There's

[57:47] a couple little

[57:48] uh,

[57:50] scattered issues, but the existing

[57:53] system looks really good.

[57:55] Um, future model results with

[57:58] development, you can see that there

[58:00] starts to be some more problems.

[58:02] Obviously, this gets

[58:05] worse.

[58:06] Um, and then we also have as development

[58:09] occurs throughout the city, there are

[58:11] additional areas that need to be

[58:13] addressed.

[58:14] Um, really comparatively to what I've

[58:17] seen in other areas, this is in pretty

[58:19] good shape, but there are a few issues

[58:21] to address.

[58:22] Um, the other component that we looked

[58:25] at, and we're going really fast on this,

[58:27] um, we'll just answer questions as

[58:29] needed, but um, the other component that

[58:32] we looked at was the age of your system.

[58:35] And this is where there are,

[58:37] uh, just like on your water system,

[58:38] there's some challenges with aging

[58:40] infrastructure.

[58:42] Um, about 20% of your system was built

[58:45] prior to the 1950s.

[58:48] Uh, sewer pipelines typically last

[58:51] uh, 70 to 90 years,

[58:55] um,

[58:55] but, uh, sometimes they don't last quite

[58:57] that long. Sometimes they last a little

[58:59] bit longer, uh, but there is a big chunk

[59:02] uh, that's coming up towards the end of

[59:04] its life.

[59:05] Uh, we actually did a quick analysis on

[59:08] when we would expected those to need

[59:10] replacement. This takes into account the

[59:13] age of the pipeline, its material, and,

[59:17] um,

[59:18] where it's located in the system. Some

[59:20] areas are a little more prone to

[59:22] degradation than others.

[59:25] Um, and so what you can see is that the

[59:28] amount of annual rehabilitation

[59:31] replacement needs are spread out over

[59:33] the next 100 years here.

[59:36] Uh, but there is a big group about $15

[59:39] million a year

[59:40] of infrastructure that has reached the

[59:43] end of its expected life. And so there's

[59:46] some need for investment on

[59:49] rehabilitation and replacement.

[59:52] So what we do is we take those together

[59:55] and we put

[59:56] >> Quick question.

[59:57] >> Yeah.

[59:57] >> So what happens in 2040?

[59:59] >> Uh, oh, that's a great question.

[1:00:01] >> That's a big year for storm

[1:00:02] >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, uh,

[1:00:05] some of the earlier records were not

[1:00:08] very complete. They didn't tell us

[1:00:09] exactly what the year,

[1:00:12] uh, was the installation occurred. And

[1:00:15] so when we didn't know that and we knew

[1:00:17] the decade, we would just group it to,

[1:00:19] uh, the the year. So you can see it's

[1:00:22] actually 2040 and there's another one in

[1:00:24] 2060 where there's a spike.

[1:00:26] If I had to do this over again, I would

[1:00:28] have just spread that out over the 10

[1:00:30] years.

[1:00:31] Uh,

[1:00:31] >> It'll be better.

[1:00:32] >> And and we may do that in the final

[1:00:34] presentation, but, uh, that was what the

[1:00:36] data,

[1:00:37] uh, initially showed.

[1:00:39] So, uh, great question. Thank you.

[1:00:41] >> That chart is purely based off the

[1:00:44] lifetime pipe assumption.

[1:00:46] >> Uh, so

[1:00:49] um,

[1:00:50] y- yeah, it's a little more complicated

[1:00:52] than that, but primarily from the the the

[1:00:57] age of the pipe, you're correct. Um,

[1:01:00] however, we did do a statistical

[1:01:02] analysis and applied that on top of the

[1:01:05] age because we know a certain percentage

[1:01:07] of pipes will fail early, a certain

[1:01:09] percentage of pipes will last a lot

[1:01:12] longer.

[1:01:13] >> distribution that you're applying.

[1:01:14] >> That's correct.

[1:01:16] But what we don't have is we have some,

[1:01:20] uh, condition data in the system, but we

[1:01:23] don't have it for the entire system.

[1:01:25] That's something that the city continues

[1:01:27] to collect.

[1:01:30] >> All right. Any questions?

[1:01:32] >> Uh I think there's just one last slide

[1:01:34] here, which Oh, well, I guess two. This

[1:01:38] is where

[1:01:40] future projects are

[1:01:42] um specific to capacity, and this is a

[1:01:46] recommended capital facilities plan that

[1:01:49] identifies by year

[1:01:51] uh when projects would come out online,

[1:01:54] and then also identifies some uh a

[1:01:57] recommended system replacement uh

[1:01:59] budget.

[1:02:00] Um

[1:02:02] I think that's uh uh uh uh

[1:02:05] That was super rapid-fire, but that is

[1:02:08] the conclusions of the master plan.

[1:02:12] >> Councilor Gary Garrett.

[1:02:13] >> So, with the water rate increase that

[1:02:15] was recently approved for this fiscal

[1:02:17] year, does that put us in line for uh

[1:02:20] um adequate funding for some of these

[1:02:23] projects?

[1:02:24] >> So, uh that was on the water side.

[1:02:27] Um this is on the wastewater side.

[1:02:30] And I don't know, did Did you approve a

[1:02:32] wastewater increase?

[1:02:35] Not yet.

[1:02:38] So, no.

[1:02:40] >> There's no wastewater

[1:02:42] >> Yeah.

[1:02:43] >> There's no wastewater recommendation

[1:02:44] increases this budget.

[1:02:46] >> Yeah.

[1:02:47] And And your follow-up question probably

[1:02:50] is

[1:02:51] what does this translate to in terms of

[1:02:53] rate increases, and the answer is I

[1:02:55] don't know that yet. Uh that's what

[1:02:57] we'll be coming back with on Jimmy with

[1:02:59] Jimmy in the fall.

[1:03:01] Uh this does represent an increase from

[1:03:04] historic funding,

[1:03:06] uh but we haven't quite figured those

[1:03:08] numbers out yet.

[1:03:13] » Councilor Wetzel.

[1:03:14] >> Um

[1:03:17] Maybe I misread this, but we have the

[1:03:20] EVA biosolids agreement that ends

[1:03:25] this year. I'm I didn't I just was

[1:03:27] wondering if there was any

[1:03:29] uh

[1:03:30] if that'll be like automatically

[1:03:31] continued or is that something we're

[1:03:32] going to have to cover?

[1:03:32] >> That's part of the next presentation.

[1:03:35] >> Oh, it is.

[1:03:42] » Any more questions?

[1:03:44] >> No.

[1:03:45] Just a plea. Make sure you get that

[1:03:47] trunk line figured out before it backs

[1:03:50] my sewer up, please.

[1:03:53] Don't let it back my sewer up.

[1:03:57] Okay.

[1:03:58] Thank you.

[1:03:59] >> There you go. Okay.

[1:04:00] >> Thank you, Zena.

[1:04:03] » Next we have a resolution attesting to

[1:04:05] the review of the municipal wastewater

[1:04:07] planning program survey for calendar

[1:04:09] year 2025 in accordance with the Utah

[1:04:11] pollutant discharge elimination system.

[1:04:14] And this will be presented

[1:04:17] by Dave Torgerson.

[1:04:20] Haven't seen you for a while, Dave.

[1:04:21] >> I know, it has been a while.

[1:04:25] See if I can figure this out.

[1:04:28] Um

[1:04:29] So, this is this is a um

[1:04:32] a survey that we have to complete every

[1:04:34] year um when we

[1:04:37] applied for funding from the state um

[1:04:39] environmental quality, this is one of

[1:04:41] the requirements

[1:04:42] that we complete a a self-assessment of

[1:04:45] our system every year and it goes

[1:04:47] through um several categories. It goes

[1:04:50] through

[1:04:51] um financial um

[1:04:53] the health of our financial system on

[1:04:55] the wastewater side. It goes through

[1:04:57] uh the our collection system. So, some

[1:05:00] of what Keith just talked about in the

[1:05:03] um the age and condition of our pipes um

[1:05:07] to our staff um how many

[1:05:09] uh overflows we have, etc.

[1:05:13] Um, normally this the survey is um, due

[1:05:16] by April 15th.

[1:05:18] Um, this year we were a little bit late

[1:05:19] in submitting it.

[1:05:21] Uh, because the the survey was emailed

[1:05:25] out to

[1:05:26] Gary Calder who retired. And so we never got it until after

[1:05:33] um, the deadline. So we worked with um,

[1:05:36] environmental quality and extended the

[1:05:37] deadline.

[1:05:38] Um, and submitted it.

[1:05:40] >> Are Gary's emails now going to someone

[1:05:42] else?

[1:05:42] >> Yes, it is.

[1:05:44] >> Okay.

[1:05:44] >> Yep. It's going to me now. So

[1:05:49] Um, so like I said that it goes over

[1:05:51] several um, several topics. Um, the

[1:05:54] first one is uh, financial

[1:05:56] self-evaluation.

[1:05:58] And all of these bullet points are

[1:06:00] sections uh, in the survey that uh,

[1:06:03] that are answered and uh, in the packet

[1:06:05] I believe you got the entire survey. Um, it's and the

[1:06:10] answers. Um, it's it's in coordination

[1:06:13] with several other other departments. So

[1:06:16] Jimmy um, helped work on on the

[1:06:18] financial part of it.

[1:06:20] Um, we answered that. Uh, we also um,

[1:06:23] then go into the collection system.

[1:06:25] Um, where we did uh,

[1:06:27] um,

[1:06:28] you know, lots of uh, each section of

[1:06:31] the the collection system where we go over parts of the master plan that

[1:06:35] Keith talked about.

[1:06:37] Um,

[1:06:39] we I work with community development on

[1:06:42] uh, new uh, permits, new building

[1:06:45] permits that came in

[1:06:47] to the city

[1:06:48] um, every year and how that impacts our

[1:06:50] system. Um, one of the things I'd like

[1:06:52] to point out is um, one of the things

[1:06:54] we're always proud of is

[1:06:57] um, sanitary sewer sewer overflows.

[1:07:00] Um, those are our backups or where they

[1:07:04] um, overflow into the

[1:07:06] uh, out into the street.

[1:07:08] Um

[1:07:09] >> I had a question about that, actually.

[1:07:10] >> Yes.

[1:07:10] >> I love this survey, by the way. It's my

[1:07:12] favorite thing every year.

[1:07:12] >> Yes.

[1:07:13] >> But, um the the SSO, do we charge like

[1:07:16] that this one was I guess a developer

[1:07:18] was responsible for one of these. Do

[1:07:20] they get charged for these incidents?

[1:07:22] >> So, it it typically goes to the claims

[1:07:24] like if there's a a sewer overflow,

[1:07:28] um it goes through the claims process

[1:07:31] where um you know, we'll have them

[1:07:33] contact uh a restoration company as well

[1:07:36] as uh the legal department, fill out a

[1:07:39] claim, and it goes through that claims

[1:07:41] process.

[1:07:42] >> What? For them to get reimbursed?

[1:07:43] >> to get reimbursed or determine um how

[1:07:47] much of that is

[1:07:48] >> So, you're talking about two different

[1:07:49] things. So, you're talking about like

[1:07:51] happening to a citizen.

[1:07:53] I'm also talking about the person who's

[1:07:55] like the the one you said here it was a

[1:07:57] contractor that caused the issue. So,

[1:07:58] does that contractor pay for the issue

[1:08:01] for the citizen and pay for whatever the

[1:08:03] city has to spend to fix this problem?

[1:08:05] >> Yes.

[1:08:05] >> Okay.

[1:08:06] >> Yep. But, again, that goes through uh

[1:08:09] the the a claims and legal process.

[1:08:11] >> Okay.

[1:08:12] >> Yep.

[1:08:13] Um so, yeah, I'm I'm proud to to say we

[1:08:17] have very few

[1:08:18] um

[1:08:19] overflows and backups.

[1:08:21] >> I also noticed on your survey you said

[1:08:22] um the average monthly use charge is

[1:08:24] 13.51. That seemed high. Is that just

[1:08:26] because of commercials involved in your

[1:08:28] average?

[1:08:30] >> So, that number is just calculated by

[1:08:32] the total number total revenue and the

[1:08:34] total number of customers. So, it

[1:08:35] includes commercial and residential.

[1:08:37] >> Every customer in the city.

[1:08:39] >> Okay.

[1:08:40] >> Yeah, that seems really high.

[1:08:43] Um

[1:08:43] >> Oh.

[1:08:45] You have another question?

[1:08:46] >> I have a whole list.

[1:08:47] >> Okay.

[1:08:48] >> Um the sinking fund?

[1:08:50] What is that?

[1:08:52] >> Essentially a savings account.

[1:08:54] >> Okay.

[1:08:54] >> Um which I you don't

[1:08:57] >> We don't do that.

[1:08:57] >> Right. Sometimes we'll save up for

[1:08:59] projects, but we don't have a separate

[1:09:00] fund that we use just to save up money.

[1:09:02] >> Okay, because we have a general fund and

[1:09:04] we

[1:09:05] Okay.

[1:09:06] All right.

[1:09:08] Um my other question was

[1:09:10] the flushable wipes.

[1:09:13] You got me on flushable wipes when I did

[1:09:14] my little tour with you.

[1:09:15] >> Okay.

[1:09:16] >> I felt educated.

[1:09:17] >> Good.

[1:09:17] >> Um we should do like a PSA on that.

[1:09:19] >> We

[1:09:20] >> Like is it Is it still a problem and

[1:09:22] causing, you know, SSOs?

[1:09:25] >> We We don't do it as often as we would

[1:09:27] like. We probably should do better.

[1:09:29] Um we often go around and and do um door

[1:09:32] hangers where we'll we'll hang it on uh

[1:09:35] >> areas where you know it's happening.

[1:09:36] >> Mhm. Yep, we do.

[1:09:38] >> It's funny.

[1:09:38] >> Um we do that. Um we also uh

[1:09:41] not every year, but often times we'll go

[1:09:43] to the elementary schools

[1:09:45] um towards the end of the year and have

[1:09:47] a

[1:09:48] uh kind of a show and tell with the

[1:09:49] elementary kids and take They take stuff

[1:09:52] home.

[1:09:53] That's cool. That way.

[1:09:55] So, um yes, uh

[1:09:59] back to

[1:10:00] um

[1:10:01] uh Counselor Whitlock, you asked a

[1:10:02] question about

[1:10:04] Um so, part of the evaluation is on our

[1:10:07] wastewater plant. Um the wastewater

[1:10:09] plant uh treats

[1:10:12] both liquid and solids. We separate it

[1:10:14] and treat both of those.

[1:10:16] And for about the past 30 years or so,

[1:10:19] um we have treated our solids to a point

[1:10:22] where

[1:10:23] um it's able to be used as a fertilizer.

[1:10:25] And we have taken it to a farm on the

[1:10:28] other side of the lake and used it as a

[1:10:30] fertilizer over there.

[1:10:32] Um about 4 years ago, they approached us

[1:10:34] and said, "We want to to terminate our

[1:10:36] contract. We're We're done with it."

[1:10:39] So, we've been in negotiations with them

[1:10:40] for about 4 years.

[1:10:42] Um that contract um expires at the end

[1:10:45] of this year. So, 20 The end of December

[1:10:48] 31st,

[1:10:50] uh that contract expires.

[1:10:52] There is an option in there that we can

[1:10:55] request to extend that contract. Um so

[1:10:58] we're going to do that.

[1:10:59] Um there's no obligation on their part

[1:11:01] to accept that extension. I don't

[1:11:04] anticipate that they will accept it. So,

[1:11:07] I'm anticipating that that contract is

[1:11:10] going to end. So, we have been we've been

[1:11:12] searching for

[1:11:14] um a lot of locations the to try to find

[1:11:19] um a new facility, a new place to to

[1:11:22] take our our solids.

[1:11:24] Um all of the wastewater treatment

[1:11:26] plants along the Wasatch Front are in

[1:11:28] the in a similar boat.

[1:11:30] Um most of their contracts are are

[1:11:34] terminating not as quickly as ours, but

[1:11:36] they're in in uh

[1:11:38] um termination of their contracts as

[1:11:40] well. Some of the sewer districts that

[1:11:42] have a lot more funding than um us as a

[1:11:45] city have actually gone and purchased

[1:11:47] their own

[1:11:48] farms that they can then take their um

[1:11:51] biosolids to and land apply them. Um

[1:11:55] Timpanogos Special Service District

[1:11:58] tried that just a year ago

[1:12:00] and the community where they bought the

[1:12:03] land

[1:12:04] um held a public hearing, public notice,

[1:12:07] and denied them. So, they purchased land

[1:12:11] and now they uh denied them use of that

[1:12:14] land to apply biosolids.

[1:12:17] So, currently um the closest farm that

[1:12:20] we've been able to find is um clear up in Logan.

[1:12:25] Um so, hauling all the way to Logan

[1:12:28] um plus they also want a tipping fee to be able to to

[1:12:34] um dump there.

[1:12:36] Uh it's just not cost effective. So,

[1:12:38] currently our plan right now is to haul

[1:12:41] across the lake to the landfill.

[1:12:44] Um we have to pay a tipping fee for

[1:12:45] that. Um but we haven't been able to to

[1:12:48] find a another suitable location that

[1:12:51] will accept um our biosolids which is

[1:12:55] unfortunate it's

[1:12:57] in my opinion it's

[1:13:00] environmentally friendly option but it's

[1:13:03] also a controversial option as well. You

[1:13:08] using human waste fertilizer is is

[1:13:12] controversial so

[1:13:14] anyway hope that answers your question.

[1:13:16] >> that's really helpful

[1:13:18] is that going to have any substantial

[1:13:19] economic impact?

[1:13:21] Or is it simply just a environmental

[1:13:24] >> No it

[1:13:25] obviously it will have an

[1:13:27] financial impact.

[1:13:29] >> Was this farm paying us for the waste?

[1:13:32] >> They were not paying us for the waste it

[1:13:34] was it was mutual

[1:13:37] beneficial they received the benefit of

[1:13:39] the fertilizer where they wouldn't have

[1:13:41] to purchase it. It also gave us a a

[1:13:45] means to dispose of it.

[1:13:47] >> Are they not farming anymore or

[1:13:49] >> They are farming.

[1:13:50] >> This just has become not cool to do.

[1:13:51] >> Yes.

[1:13:52] >> Okay.

[1:13:52] >> Yep.

[1:13:54] They don't they don't want the publicity

[1:13:56] that

[1:13:57] comes with it.

[1:13:58] >> Interesting.

[1:13:59] >> with cow fertilizer but not human.

[1:14:01] >> Yes.

[1:14:04] that is

[1:14:05] >> Humans are interesting.

[1:14:06] >> That is true so

[1:14:09] Yeah so just to wrap up I don't want to

[1:14:11] take too much time but

[1:14:13] to wrap up

[1:14:15] the point of this is to present this

[1:14:22] to the to the council and get a

[1:14:24] resolution for the

[1:14:27] municipal wastewater

[1:14:29] um

[1:14:31] plan.

[1:14:32] Um so any any other questions?

[1:14:35] >> I have a couple more questions.

[1:14:37] We only inspect every 5 years is that

[1:14:39] industry standard or do we lack the

[1:14:41] staff to do it?

[1:14:43] >> We I

[1:14:44] >> we do the cameras?

[1:14:45] >> Oh it's

[1:14:46] um we don't like we have

[1:14:50] what, 340 miles-ish

[1:14:52] of pipe.

[1:14:53] >> So, it's just getting through

[1:14:54] >> And so, getting through all of it takes roughly about that amount of time.

[1:14:59] >> Okay.

[1:15:00] And how are we able to get rid of lifts?

[1:15:02] I don't understand. If this topography

[1:15:04] doesn't change, so how do you get rid of

[1:15:05] lifts?

[1:15:06] >> So,

[1:15:08] um

[1:15:09] that is a very good question. Uh

[1:15:12] the the way we've been able to do it is

[1:15:14] on the on the west side,

[1:15:16] um we installed a

[1:15:19] what what uh we used to we call the like

[1:15:22] the backbone, the west side trunk line.

[1:15:25] Um

[1:15:26] >> Oh, so you did all new piping that's

[1:15:29] like

[1:15:29] >> it just it goes deeper.

[1:15:31] So, we installed we actually installed

[1:15:34] the southwest lift station down by the

[1:15:35] airport.

[1:15:37] Really deep, really big, and that allows

[1:15:40] us to eliminate

[1:15:42] uh three or four up to I think five lift

[1:15:46] stations along the line.

[1:15:49] Uh so

[1:15:49] >> Okay, so you just did one whole new

[1:15:51] Okay.

[1:15:52] >> All right, thank you.

[1:15:53] Any other questions? Okay, um Counselor

[1:15:55] Whitlock.

[1:15:56] >> Uh so, this is kind of dovetailing on

[1:15:58] some of Counselor McKay's questions, but

[1:16:00] I just want to make sure I've got my

[1:16:02] head around this. So, you know, just

[1:16:03] reading the survey

[1:16:05] found it a little surprising um

[1:16:08] that we said no to some of these things,

[1:16:10] but maybe I'm just not understanding.

[1:16:11] Like we said we don't have the staff

[1:16:13] sufficient staff to provide proper

[1:16:15] operations and maintenance. Like, can

[1:16:17] you speak to that?

[1:16:18] >> Yeah, um

[1:16:20] I think through through the budget

[1:16:22] process

[1:16:23] um you know, we com- comparable to

[1:16:28] uh all a lot of other communities, most

[1:16:30] other communities of our size,

[1:16:34] um

[1:16:35] we we are understaffed. Um you know, the communities that we've compared to

[1:16:41] have uh

[1:16:43] you know, 12 14 plus employees for their

[1:16:47] collection system. So, uh to Councillor

[1:16:50] McKay's point, how come it takes us 5

[1:16:52] years to to get through and video the

[1:16:55] system, we just don't have the manpower

[1:16:59] to be able to do it

[1:17:00] any quicker than that.

[1:17:02] Um

[1:17:03] There There other places

[1:17:06] um cleaning

[1:17:08] uh the lines, doing other other parts of

[1:17:10] the project. So, we just don't have the manpower to do it quicker.

[1:17:17] >> As long as you answer no to that

[1:17:19] question, I just want to specify the

[1:17:21] main part of that that that makes me put

[1:17:23] no is it says does the sewer system have

[1:17:25] sufficient staff to provide proper

[1:17:26] operation and maintenance?

[1:17:28] I believe we do.

[1:17:29] And it says and repair and replacement.

[1:17:31] And that's where we're getting into

[1:17:33] not having sufficient staff to do the

[1:17:35] replacement of the whole system.

[1:17:37] Um we do I would mention that tonight's

[1:17:39] budget does include uh collections

[1:17:41] position, an additional position to help

[1:17:43] with with that, [clears throat] but it's not I don't want anyone to think

[1:17:46] we're not operating and maintaining the

[1:17:47] system. It's more about the replacement

[1:17:49] that we're lacking.

[1:17:51] >> And I And I think to to that point, you

[1:17:55] know, part of the the survey shows that

[1:17:58] um you know, we have very few sanitary

[1:18:01] sewer overflows. That's a an indication

[1:18:03] that we are able to get out and and

[1:18:06] maintain the system.

[1:18:08] Um we're we're doing it very very lean,

[1:18:11] um but we are able to to minimize those

[1:18:15] issues and problems.

[1:18:16] >> So, you're not personally concerned with

[1:18:18] any of these no questions or answers, or you? Like that sewer revenues are not

[1:18:25] sufficient to cover maintenance costs

[1:18:27] and repair.

[1:18:28] I'm just Anyway, I just just I'd like to

[1:18:30] speed that up cuz like if you just read

[1:18:31] this prima facie, it sounds kind of

[1:18:34] uh difficult.

[1:18:36] >> Say that again. To me, it's about the

[1:18:38] replacement.

[1:18:39] >> Okay.

[1:18:39] >> Replacement corner of that.

[1:18:41] We um you know, as part of the master

[1:18:43] plan, we are going to be getting out of

[1:18:45] these.

[1:18:46] And we have our capital facilities plan,

[1:18:47] which tells us what we would want to do,

[1:18:50] what we want to strike, what we want to

[1:18:51] replace.

[1:18:52] Once we know how much we can charge the

[1:18:54] impact fees, whether that gets approved

[1:18:55] or not, we'll know what the balance is

[1:18:57] that needs to be funded from residents

[1:19:00] and from the sewer customers.

[1:19:02] And so at that point, we'll

[1:19:04] um I think we'll come back to you and

[1:19:05] talk about rates and

[1:19:08] um issue on what's the appropriate

[1:19:09] replacement cycle, how much do you want

[1:19:11] to invest in sewer replacement. Right. I

[1:19:13] mean, the last few years, we we've we've

[1:19:15] done a lot in sewer

[1:19:17] with the new treatment plant.

[1:19:19] You know, this west side the station,

[1:19:20] all these trunk lines on the west side.

[1:19:22] We've done a lot. We have a lot of um

[1:19:27] really low interest loans we're paying

[1:19:29] off.

[1:19:30] We're it's all just needs to be factored

[1:19:32] into the how much

[1:19:34] are we wanting to to invest in

[1:19:36] replacement with all these other fees

[1:19:37] that are going on with where the impact

[1:19:39] fees land.

[1:19:41] Um but right now, we don't have enough

[1:19:42] sufficient revenues to do all of the

[1:19:44] replacement.

[1:19:45] >> Is it Is it reasonable for me to think about

[1:19:49] like the process we've been going on for

[1:19:51] water pipes over the last several years,

[1:19:53] we're going to be on a similar journey

[1:19:54] for sewer?

[1:19:55] >> Yes.

[1:19:55] >> Okay.

[1:19:56] >> So.

[1:19:58] >> Thank you.

[1:19:59] >> We're not having any fun pure rates at

[1:20:00] the same time.

[1:20:01] >> No, I I understand. I understand. I know.

[1:20:04] I was thinking the level of that sort of

[1:20:06] investigation.

[1:20:07] >> Perfect.

[1:20:08] >> What the what say more?

[1:20:11] >> [laughter]

[1:20:12] >> What say more what

[1:20:13] >> That's

[1:20:16] » So, I want to follow up on the compost

[1:20:18] thing cuz we've had the discussion.

[1:20:19] Springfield does. They take the

[1:20:21] biosolids and they do compost. So, they

[1:20:23] take the green waste and they they

[1:20:24] compost. There's an opportunity we can.

[1:20:27] Like we talked about it with Dave

[1:20:29] because Just to find solutions that

[1:20:31] would help that funding, that change

[1:20:34] that will happen by taking it out to the

[1:20:35] landfill. Landfills are now generating

[1:20:38] more biosolids and are continuing

[1:20:40] something that we're having discussions

[1:20:43] currently with what's going to Spanish

[1:20:46] Fork and all the cities now transporting

[1:20:48] that out there is starting to become

[1:20:50] some issues for the landfills.

[1:20:53] So, we have talked about composting

[1:20:55] those things that would change

[1:20:56] operations a little bit. We feel that it

[1:20:59] is safe but would require us to do

[1:21:01] things a little bit different.

[1:21:02] >> There's a lot of complications that come

[1:21:04] with

[1:21:05] >> There's a lot of there. Say there's some

[1:21:06] pros and there's some cons. Just want

[1:21:08] you to be aware of that. First like

[1:21:10] Timpanogus, they're they were doing it

[1:21:13] but the smell got so bad I-15

[1:21:16] They had to

[1:21:16] >> The The communities that contribute to

[1:21:18] the the wastewater and were benefiting

[1:21:21] from the compost actually sued

[1:21:22] Timpanogus.

[1:21:24] And now they know I'm not

[1:21:25] >> I'm not saying it's the right thing or

[1:21:26] not. I'm just saying those are things

[1:21:28] that we could

[1:21:30] >> And it And it We It's something that

[1:21:32] we're evaluating.

[1:21:35] >> Is the Is the landfill not a sustainable

[1:21:37] solution? Is it a gap fill?

[1:21:39] >> It is. It's just the cost. I can tell

[1:21:42] you right now the discussions with the

[1:21:44] landfill because the landfill that we

[1:21:46] use is owned by

[1:21:49] South Jordan. It's part of their

[1:21:51] community. They don't So,

[1:21:52] [clears throat] now they're closing

[1:21:53] their system down and we'll be moving

[1:21:55] all there. So, the usable land or the

[1:21:58] landfills which have to permit that

[1:22:01] ability to now

[1:22:03] move that into those places. The cost is

[1:22:07] going to go up.

[1:22:07] >> There's also

[1:22:09] um

[1:22:10] Right right now

[1:22:12] I don't know how many people are aware

[1:22:14] there's PFAS is in the news. PFAS is in

[1:22:19] our biosolids. It's in tiny tiny amounts

[1:22:22] but it is in our biosolids.

[1:22:24] And

[1:22:25] landfills Some of the landfills are, you

[1:22:29] know, they're under regulations as well.

[1:22:31] And so, when they accept a known

[1:22:33] quantity of of uh pollutant, um,

[1:22:38] so, they they may tighten their

[1:22:39] regulations as well. So,

[1:22:42] it it's it's a little bit unknown at

[1:22:45] this point what's what's in the future.

[1:22:49] So, anyway, I didn't mean to take so

[1:22:51] much time, but I I am I love to come and

[1:22:54] talk about

[1:22:55] >> We've missed you.

[1:22:55] >> It's It's uh well, thank you.

[1:22:57] >> So, it's the most interesting

[1:22:58] conversation I've ever had on council so

[1:23:00] far in my 6 months.

[1:23:02] >> Well,

[1:23:03] >> Always interesting.

[1:23:04] >> And Council Council McKay can probably

[1:23:06] um second that coming out to the

[1:23:08] wastewater plant, coming on a tour. We welcome you to come. It It is um it's

[1:23:13] a lot more exciting than you ever would

[1:23:16] have imagined. So,

[1:23:18] >> All right.

[1:23:18] >> Um yes, thank you.

[1:23:19] >> Thanks, Dave.

[1:23:20] All right. Um

[1:23:22] Yeah, we are a little behind.

[1:23:24] One more then we'll have a break. A

[1:23:25] presentation regarding the action plan

[1:23:28] for the 2026 Growing Water Smart

[1:23:30] Workshop.

[1:23:31] And we have Hannah Sassuh.

[1:23:39] » Wait.

[1:23:39] >> I'll try to keep this brief and still

[1:23:41] wrap up by 2:30 with this item if

[1:23:43] possible. For context for the council,

[1:23:45] this is an update on a workshop where

[1:23:48] staff and other representatives for the

[1:23:50] city, mayor was there, Councilwoman was

[1:23:52] there from council, were able to

[1:23:53] collaborate and communicate on what our

[1:23:55] next steps might be. We're still

[1:23:56] figuring out how to do that. Those are

[1:23:59] all administrative actions. If they

[1:24:00] require legislative action, we'll bring

[1:24:02] it to you at that time. But, don't feel

[1:24:05] like you need to weigh in and shift to

[1:24:08] developing long-term water policy right

[1:24:10] now. Um this is just keeping you abreast

[1:24:12] of those discussions that are happening.

[1:24:15] So, the Growing Water Smart team uh

[1:24:18] consists of lots of different partners

[1:24:20] in Utah, the Utah League of Cities and

[1:24:22] Towns, but this team also works with

[1:24:24] communities across the western region.

[1:24:28] They

[1:24:29] uh put together information, they put

[1:24:31] out resources, their data center water

[1:24:33] analysis were very useful in looking at

[1:24:35] our data center code.

[1:24:37] Uh and in addition to all of their

[1:24:38] policy and information research and

[1:24:41] research, they also host workshops for

[1:24:43] communities where they will invite five

[1:24:45] to 10 communities with different reps to

[1:24:48] have a larger conference where they get

[1:24:50] to talk about new developments and

[1:24:52] policies and state updates and what

[1:24:54] resort researchers uh up at the U are

[1:24:56] learning more as we're exploring drought

[1:24:58] tolerant plants. And then those

[1:25:00] communities get facilitated breakout

[1:25:01] sessions just within their community and

[1:25:04] someone from uh one of these

[1:25:06] organizations In our organization, we

[1:25:08] had a rep or in our team breakout

[1:25:10] sessions, we had a representative from

[1:25:13] the Growing Water Smart team who's

[1:25:15] worked with Provo for several years,

[1:25:16] done some analytical work for us. She

[1:25:18] knows Provo's water just about as well

[1:25:20] as anyone at this point. But she also

[1:25:22] could connect us with the better

[1:25:23] regional network of information and

[1:25:25] resources. We also had someone from the

[1:25:27] Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

[1:25:29] So as we were talking about our needs

[1:25:30] and our priorities, he could connect us

[1:25:32] with existing resources we might not

[1:25:34] have known about. He can also take those

[1:25:35] needs back to the water district and as

[1:25:38] we're communicating back and forth going

[1:25:39] forward on policy, he knows where we

[1:25:41] are, we know where they are. We were all

[1:25:42] able to to work around the table

[1:25:43] together. So these are incredible

[1:25:45] communication opportunities.

[1:25:48] We participated in a Growing Water Smart

[1:25:51] workshop in 2023 as well, the first time

[1:25:53] they were done in Utah and we are still

[1:25:55] seeing benefits from those relationships

[1:25:58] and communication networks that were

[1:25:59] opened up. Uh

[1:26:00] Provo is the first city in Utah to do

[1:26:04] the workshop twice and come back. They

[1:26:06] brought us in partly as a peer model for

[1:26:08] other cities as we're talking and

[1:26:09] showing them what we've done, but also

[1:26:11] partly to help explore what next steps

[1:26:13] might look like for communities. So keep

[1:26:15] that in mind as we're looking at goals

[1:26:16] later that a lot of the early first

[1:26:19] steps of developing programs, assessing

[1:26:21] data, that was done in 2023. As we were

[1:26:23] in this new phase in 2026, we were able

[1:26:26] to start taking the next longer-term,

[1:26:28] you know, perspective kind of

[1:26:30] approaches.

[1:26:32] From This is in the packet, so I won't

[1:26:34] spend a lot of time, but these are the

[1:26:36] list of everyone who This is the list of

[1:26:37] everyone who attended from Provo.

[1:26:39] Underlined means they were there in the

[1:26:40] 2023 workshop. You can see a good

[1:26:42] portion were.

[1:26:43] Uh there were a few who were unable to

[1:26:44] attend, but will be working with this

[1:26:47] group moving forward. Just so you can

[1:26:48] see, it's very interdepartmental, very

[1:26:49] collaborative. We didn't have anyone

[1:26:51] from Parks, but we will definitely

[1:26:53] continue working with them. They've

[1:26:54] always been a good partner in all of our

[1:26:56] water

[1:26:57] policies and programs.

[1:27:00] Oh, there's everyone.

[1:27:01] >> Yay.

[1:27:02] You can see there's a whiteboards

[1:27:05] and sticky notes. It was very intense

[1:27:07] collaboration over 2 and 1/2 days.

[1:27:09] All right. So, our goals and strategies,

[1:27:11] all of that boiled down to

[1:27:14] five long-term goals.

[1:27:17] And then with our strategies, these are

[1:27:18] kind of paradigm frameworks for how we

[1:27:21] were going to approach meeting these

[1:27:23] goals.

[1:27:26] Oh, and there was one question that

[1:27:28] drove these goals and discussions, what

[1:27:30] we were trying to resolve and plan for.

[1:27:33] How can we maintain adequate water and

[1:27:34] deliver it as well as Provo continues to

[1:27:37] grow?

[1:27:39] So, step one in our action plan was

[1:27:41] regional collaboration, including

[1:27:43] centralized reuse and graywater,

[1:27:44] protecting water rights, water use

[1:27:46] efficiency, continuing to work with our

[1:27:49] aquifer councils, and including a state

[1:27:51] presence at the legislature. This is

[1:27:52] looking more at securing long-term water

[1:27:55] resources,

[1:27:57] making sure You can see the list here. I

[1:27:59] won't go into it cuz it's in your packet

[1:28:00] as well. But, multipronged approach to

[1:28:02] make sure that we are addressing our

[1:28:03] water sources adequately.

[1:28:06] And it including graywater where

[1:28:07] possible. That's held up a little bit at

[1:28:09] the county now, but we're going to try

[1:28:11] to work with the county to incorporate

[1:28:12] more of that.

[1:28:15] Uh sustainable funding for our aging

[1:28:17] infrastructure looks like ongoing impact

[1:28:19] fee assessments as we've talked about um

[1:28:21] and opening up education for candidates

[1:28:23] about water use. So as they're coming

[1:28:25] into office or debating about this, they

[1:28:26] can be informed.

[1:28:29] Community members are water stewards.

[1:28:31] This is looking at uh those water-wise

[1:28:33] programs we have, seeing what works,

[1:28:34] what's getting the most um engagement,

[1:28:37] and what is also most effective,

[1:28:38] refining those. Also exploring different

[1:28:41] opportunities like the uh water-wise

[1:28:42] garden opportunity at the water

[1:28:45] treatment plant, the wastewater

[1:28:46] treatment plant. Uh Central Utah Water

[1:28:48] Conservancy is also very interested in

[1:28:50] maybe giving us a grant for that so they

[1:28:51] can use it and refer people there as

[1:28:52] well. So this is where those having

[1:28:54] everyone at the table really really came

[1:28:56] together well.

[1:28:58] All right. Thriving community green

[1:29:00] space, really straightforward, just

[1:29:01] working with the new parks director to

[1:29:03] see what we can do with the parks as

[1:29:06] thriving green spaces that can also

[1:29:07] educate and conserve water.

[1:29:11] All right.

[1:29:12] And the last one, this is number five,

[1:29:15] looking at water-wise new development.

[1:29:16] So we've looked at sources, we've looked

[1:29:18] at our infrastructure for deployment,

[1:29:19] we've looked at educating residents on

[1:29:21] reducing waste, we've looked at reducing

[1:29:22] waste on municipal sites. Now as we're

[1:29:24] looking at new developments, how can we

[1:29:26] build in those waste reductions from the

[1:29:29] beginning? So we're exploring these

[1:29:31] options. We want to keep any code

[1:29:32] updates pretty minimal and uh

[1:29:35] reduce any sort of burden of cost for

[1:29:37] developers and residents. But it could

[1:29:39] reduce costs going forward for residents

[1:29:41] as we're looking at increased water

[1:29:42] rates as we as this come up. Um

[1:29:47] All right. Our ongoing steps, we are

[1:29:49] continuing to meet after the conference,

[1:29:51] we're checking in, we are scheduling our

[1:29:53] next meeting now.

[1:29:54] Uh we will continue to collaborate and

[1:29:56] we'll continue to be part of the ongoing

[1:29:57] discussions with our partners,

[1:29:58] especially now that we've reinforced

[1:30:00] these ties at this workshop and

[1:30:01] networking event.

[1:30:03] Any questions?

[1:30:05] from you?

[1:30:06] >> Any questions? There we go.

[1:30:07] >> Um nice work.

[1:30:10] >> I was going to ask Elaine a question

[1:30:11] just because I told him he put me on the

[1:30:13] spot.

[1:30:14] Anybody got a good question for Elaine?

[1:30:17] What is Yappify? And Yappify?

[1:30:19] >> Oh.

[1:30:20] >> What is what?

[1:30:20] >> Yappify.

[1:30:21] It's I I can answer that

[1:30:24] actually. Um

[1:30:28] Yappify is an additional software that

[1:30:30] we could integrate with our billing and

[1:30:32] metering system so that if someone has

[1:30:34] an abnormally high water bill relative

[1:30:37] to others in their neighborhood or

[1:30:39] compared to their last month's, it sends

[1:30:41] a message to them directly. Rather than

[1:30:43] them being able to just watch it on the

[1:30:44] my usage portal, it proactively notifies

[1:30:46] them that there might be something going

[1:30:48] on with your system check for leaks.

[1:30:49] >> Well, my my feedback on that

[1:30:52] is it doesn't necessarily

[1:30:56] when you look at your usage and it

[1:30:58] compares you to other people, we haven't

[1:30:59] really gotten a great answer of who it

[1:31:01] compared you to.

[1:31:01] >> Mhm.

[1:31:02] >> So, like as long as it can compare you

[1:31:05] to like maybe average a lot so if you're

[1:31:07] the same size, that would be more

[1:31:09] beneficial than just whatever

[1:31:11] information's out there.

[1:31:13] >> We'll make sure if this is an option we

[1:31:14] choose, it is expensive and it would

[1:31:16] take staff time to integrate it with our

[1:31:17] existing Cayenta systems, but if that's

[1:31:19] an option we choose, then that's that's

[1:31:21] definitely something we'll keep in mind.

[1:31:22] >> Cuz I can see people needing that and it

[1:31:24] just have to be a useful comparison is

[1:31:25] my point.

[1:31:26] >> Mhm.

[1:31:28] >> Cuz I don't feel like the way that the

[1:31:29] system runs now is a useful comparison.

[1:31:32] I'm not even sure who they're comparing

[1:31:34] me to,

[1:31:35] but I do know that

[1:31:38] I'm not using the top tier of my water,

[1:31:41] which is what it says that I do. You

[1:31:42] know what I mean?

[1:31:43] >> Yeah.

[1:31:44] I can't speak to the intricacies of that

[1:31:46] system, that's run by customer service,

[1:31:47] but I know it has identified some leaks, but

[1:31:50] probably could be better about providing

[1:31:52] context.

[1:31:55] Right. Well, thank you so much

[1:31:57] >> One more question. See, I won't you said

[1:31:59] don't think about, you know, the future of this, but I am curious

[1:32:03] like when does this process manifest in

[1:32:06] some

[1:32:08] kind of package of proposed updates that

[1:32:10] you think the council will see?

[1:32:12] >> It will certainly come with any sort of

[1:32:14] impact fee updates. Largely, these are

[1:32:16] administrative as we're looking at what

[1:32:18] pipes to up update, what systems to

[1:32:20] locate, being in conversations with

[1:32:22] legislature with the legislature about

[1:32:25] our water rights, as we're looking at

[1:32:27] updating residents for programs, those

[1:32:29] are all administrative, those wouldn't

[1:32:30] come to council. We can present

[1:32:32] information on whatever the council

[1:32:35] would like whenever, but this is something that staff has well in

[1:32:39] hand.

[1:32:40] >> Do we feel like

[1:32:42] um

[1:32:43] I get

[1:32:44] Do we feel like there's any

[1:32:46] um

[1:32:48] opportunity for code

[1:32:50] updates around water?

[1:32:51] >> Code updates will absolutely come.

[1:32:53] >> Yeah, so okay, that's kind of what I'm

[1:32:54] wondering, like what would be the

[1:32:54] timeline for that? That's kind of what

[1:32:55] I'm getting at, for sure.

[1:32:57] >> Uh in our action plan goal, this was

[1:32:59] scoped as um depends [clears throat] on what we're

[1:33:03] looking at.

[1:33:05] We could see some early updates in the

[1:33:07] next 3 to 6 months, but if we're looking

[1:33:10] at anything longer, like the idea of a a

[1:33:13] stretch code for water wise development

[1:33:15] was pitched, I don't know if that's

[1:33:16] something we're going to want to do, but

[1:33:18] we're going to explore the feasibility.

[1:33:20] >> Okay.

[1:33:20] >> So that might or might not come. But

[1:33:22] yeah, for the other short-term updates,

[1:33:24] 3 to 6 months.

[1:33:25] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:33:27] >> Thanks. Thanks.

[1:33:27] >> Thank you very much.

[1:33:29] >> All right, we'll take a break now

[1:33:33] until 2:40.

[1:33:38] » Recording stopped.

[1:33:41] Recording in progress.

[1:33:44] >> All right, we are back.

[1:33:46] Next we're going to order some new

[1:33:47] property code regarding the requirements

[1:33:49] of an agricultural protection area. This

[1:33:52] will be presented by Jessica Dinny

[1:33:54] Danicky.

[1:33:59] Thank you. Um yes, so this is an

[1:34:01] ordinance text amendment to amend the

[1:34:03] area requirement for agricultural

[1:34:05] protection area from 5 acres to 1.

[1:34:09] Um and it also removes the requirement

[1:34:11] for the properties to be receiving

[1:34:14] the green belt tax.

[1:34:18] Uh and apparently it's very suspicious.

[1:34:20] So, never mind.

[1:34:32] » Apparently, AI doesn't want this to go

[1:34:34] through.

[1:34:36] >> Well, we got to trust AI.

[1:34:40] Okay.

[1:34:44] Um

[1:34:44] >> [clears throat]

[1:34:45] >> So, the these are the the changes that

[1:34:47] we're proposing to be made.

[1:34:49] Um

[1:34:49] Nope, it really does not want me to go

[1:34:51] to the next slide.

[1:34:53] Um the next slide, when it is available

[1:34:55] to be seen, is going to show the

[1:34:58] requirements that an agricultural

[1:35:00] protection area has to meet to be

[1:35:03] approved.

[1:35:04] Um we are, as I said, proposing to

[1:35:07] remove that requirement for green belt

[1:35:08] tax. Um

[1:35:10] mostly because green belt does require

[1:35:12] that there's 5 acres of land, where our

[1:35:14] agricultural zones allow a lot size of 1

[1:35:17] acre.

[1:35:18] Here's the second slide. Um

[1:35:22] So,

[1:35:23] as part of planning commission, there

[1:35:24] was a lot of discussion about the 5-acre

[1:35:27] requirement or bringing it down to 1

[1:35:29] acre, if that was too small.

[1:35:31] Um

[1:35:33] and there was confusion over the green

[1:35:35] belt requirement. Um my understanding,

[1:35:39] and I had some help from Becky here, she

[1:35:40] gave me some wonderful contact

[1:35:41] information. There is green belt and

[1:35:44] there's urban farming. Green belt

[1:35:46] requires 5 acres, urban farming is

[1:35:49] almost exact same tax benefit, but it

[1:35:51] requires only one acre of land.

[1:35:53] >> Now?

[1:35:54] >> Mhm.

[1:35:54] >> Uh yes, and those are both handled

[1:35:56] through the county. They're 100%

[1:35:58] [clears throat] county applications. Um

[1:36:00] >> And that's why they want us to why we

[1:36:02] would change this to benefit that one

[1:36:05] acre of county situation to like the

[1:36:07] >> To make it more available to people.

[1:36:08] >> Yeah.

[1:36:09] >> Are the Didn't the farming agricultural

[1:36:12] commission

[1:36:13] ask for something like this?

[1:36:15] >> Yes.

[1:36:15] >> And the reason why I don't have

[1:36:16] heartburn with it is because the county

[1:36:18] already has things that

[1:36:20] >> Right. So

[1:36:21] And from what I understand from one to

[1:36:23] five acres that have irrigation.

[1:36:25] So

[1:36:26] to me it doesn't give me any heartburn.

[1:36:30] >> So we are removing that requirement that

[1:36:32] they are receiving the tax benefits. Um

[1:36:35] so they they don't have to

[1:36:38] apply for those and get reviewed for

[1:36:40] those. These are the only criteria that

[1:36:42] they'll have to meet.

[1:36:43] Um

[1:36:44] this application gets reviewed three

[1:36:46] times, once by planning commission, once

[1:36:48] by the county agricultural advisory

[1:36:50] board, and then US City Council.

[1:36:52] >> anybody coming wanting to come in an

[1:36:54] agricultural protection area?

[1:36:55] >> Correct. Yes.

[1:36:56] And US City Council would make the final

[1:36:59] recommendation.

[1:37:01] Um

[1:37:03] and then lastly it's just kidding.

[1:37:07] Um

[1:37:08] there are several benefits of being in

[1:37:10] an agricultural protection area, which

[1:37:11] is why the agricultural committee is is

[1:37:14] excited about having this opportunity.

[1:37:16] Um so these are just the benefits that

[1:37:19] come when a property owner uh is

[1:37:20] approved to be in an agricultural

[1:37:22] protection area.

[1:37:24] >> Okay.

[1:37:25] >> Uh is there any questions?

[1:37:26] >> Thank you. Any Counselor Whitlock?

[1:37:27] >> I just

[1:37:29] I I can't recall this from the packet if

[1:37:31] it was there. Does

[1:37:33] So

[1:37:34] um

[1:37:34] each individual property owner applies,

[1:37:36] correct?

[1:37:37] >> There can be There can be

[1:37:39] >> it be like a group? It can be either

[1:37:40] one.

[1:37:40] >> Yeah.

[1:37:41] >> Yes.

[1:37:41] >> It can go either way.

[1:37:42] >> So I can either apply with several other

[1:37:44] adjacent Do they have to be adjacent or

[1:37:45] can it be like any all

[1:37:47] >> The area requirement is is contiguous.

[1:37:50] Um so if we bring our requirement down

[1:37:52] to 1 acre, there would have to be a

[1:37:54] total of 1 acre of land. It could be

[1:37:56] technically half acre and half acre, but

[1:37:59] >> our agricultural zone requires a minimum

[1:38:01] lot size of 1 acre. So the likelihood is

[1:38:03] it would be at minimum one property

[1:38:06] owner, but it could be 20 acres.

[1:38:08] >> be 20 contiguous acres all together.

[1:38:11] >> four owners, yeah.

[1:38:12] >> Okay. All right, thank you.

[1:38:15] >> Okay, any other questions for Jessica?

[1:38:17] >> I have one more question, sorry.

[1:38:19] >> Is there any like Okay, so if the A if

[1:38:21] this APA gets approved, are there any um

[1:38:26] is there any

[1:38:28] uh what's the right word? Um

[1:38:30] if there is a legitimate nuisance

[1:38:31] concern right adjacent to

[1:38:34] uh residential, like is there any uh

[1:38:38] thing that the residential can do or

[1:38:40] that's just like fully protected? Is

[1:38:41] there any buffer space? Is just I'm just

[1:38:43] curious how that works in practice.

[1:38:44] >> In the code, there's not a buffer space.

[1:38:47] This is more intending to protect

[1:38:49] existing agricultural uses from

[1:38:51] encroaching development.

[1:38:53] >> Yeah.

[1:38:53] >> So the likelihood of someone

[1:38:55] buying up a bunch of land that's zoned

[1:38:57] residential, getting it rezoned to

[1:38:59] agriculture, and then starting something

[1:39:00] in the middle of a subdivision.

[1:39:02] >> I'm kind of asking the other. I'm saying

[1:39:03] like let's say for example, there is an

[1:39:05] existing agricultural parcel right next

[1:39:07] to a land that is slated to be developed

[1:39:10] as uh residential.

[1:39:12] >> Yeah.

[1:39:14] So anything that any like odor, no noise

[1:39:18] like it says, odor, noise, dust,

[1:39:21] anything that's related to agricultural

[1:39:22] activity,

[1:39:23] >> if that is that is protected.

[1:39:25] >> That is what you get for moving there.

[1:39:26] >> That's you moved next to a farm, you

[1:39:28] should expect farm-related activities.

[1:39:30] >> Woah.

[1:39:31] >> Councilor Whitlock, with with the with

[1:39:33] the caveat that it's

[1:39:34] normal, reasonable agricultural

[1:39:37] practices. We had one several years ago

[1:39:39] where we had a farmer who was

[1:39:41] going up to uh

[1:39:43] What was the name of the dairy in Orm?

[1:39:46] >> Yeah.

[1:39:47] >> And he was he was filling uh large like,

[1:39:50] you know, large containers full of

[1:39:52] spoiled ice cream

[1:39:54] hauling them down to his farm without a

[1:39:57] lid on the on the trailer, spilling it

[1:40:00] all over the road, dumping it into a

[1:40:02] trough that his cows were drinking out

[1:40:05] of while they stood in it. It was

[1:40:07] attracting raccoons, rats, for anyway.

[1:40:11] They in that particular case

[1:40:14] we we could argue we Now, the the

[1:40:17] neighborhood the neighbors would have to

[1:40:19] go hire an attorney, they'd have to find

[1:40:21] an expert, but if you could find a an

[1:40:23] agricultural expert who said that's not

[1:40:25] a standard practice

[1:40:27] a nuisance claim could still uh give

[1:40:30] rise to that.

[1:40:31] >> What about these like damage? Like if I

[1:40:34] don't know. This is

[1:40:35] maybe a silly example, but a bull

[1:40:37] charges the fence

[1:40:39] and it breaks the fence.

[1:40:41] >> Um

[1:40:42] well, yeah, again there's an I mean,

[1:40:45] that's different than nuisance, right?

[1:40:47] Um

[1:40:47] >> That's property damage.

[1:40:48] >> Yeah, so that there you've got a

[1:40:50] different cause of action and then it's

[1:40:51] going to become your standard legal

[1:40:54] theories of was there a duty?

[1:40:56] Did was there was the duty not

[1:40:58] reasonably upheld? Did that reasonable

[1:41:01] fail unreasonable failure cause the

[1:41:03] damage, right? So, then you're just in

[1:41:05] regular tort law.

[1:41:06] >> So, I can tell you

[1:41:07] for fact

[1:41:09] that normally the problem that we have

[1:41:12] is the other way around.

[1:41:13] You have people's dogs that come and

[1:41:16] kill the chickens.

[1:41:17] >> Yeah.

[1:41:17] >> Dogs that come and harass the cattle.

[1:41:20] Kids that trespass on property that

[1:41:22] shouldn't be there or even adults. Those

[1:41:24] are more of the problems that my farmers

[1:41:26] have rather than

[1:41:28] the other way around.

[1:41:29] >> Yeah, it makes sense. I grew up in

[1:41:30] Gilbert, Arizona on an acre and a half

[1:41:32] in a farming community and that's

[1:41:33] clearly what we experienced. We'd always

[1:41:35] get annoyed when the town the the homes

[1:41:37] would come in and they'd complain and

[1:41:39] try and create all sorts of nuisances

[1:41:40] for the farm. So, I totally totally get

[1:41:42] that. I was just curious about the other

[1:41:43] way.

[1:41:45] >> So, we have had like the pig farmer

[1:41:46] incident in the That was by my house,

[1:41:49] the cream stuff.

[1:41:51] The smell is awful.

[1:41:52] But, you know, those those things are

[1:41:54] realer. But, but it's more the dog

[1:41:57] killing the chickens and stuff like

[1:41:59] >> The cow tipping, do we get to cow

[1:42:01] tipping in Provo ever?

[1:42:02] >> It's more like the kids go south of the

[1:42:05] parkway and get stuck and then they have

[1:42:07] to

[1:42:08] beg some farmer and pay him 50 bucks to

[1:42:12] get him out of the bog.

[1:42:15] » All right. Any other questions for

[1:42:17] Jessica?

[1:42:19] Okay, thanks, Jessica.

[1:42:21] All right, next we have an ordinance

[1:42:23] amending Provo City parking standards

[1:42:24] for specific uses and locations.

[1:42:27] This will be presented by Aaron Ardmore,

[1:42:29] our planning manager.

[1:42:35] » Oh.

[1:42:36] >> I'm just going to give some background

[1:42:37] and context and then Aaron will

[1:42:39] walk you through the actual amendments.

[1:42:41] Um, so as you know, the amendments have

[1:42:43] to do with

[1:42:44] the ratio of student housing in

[1:42:46] proximity to uh BYU campus, the ratio of

[1:42:49] parking for

[1:42:50] housing in proximity to um mass transit,

[1:42:53] and then

[1:42:54] the ability to count off-site parking

[1:42:55] for residential uses.

[1:42:58] For the student [clears throat] housing

[1:42:59] issue or topic,

[1:43:01] we've all sat through

[1:43:04] many meetings over the years, last two

[1:43:06] years, where our council members have

[1:43:07] expressed a desire

[1:43:09] for redevelopment around BYU campus, for

[1:43:12] more BYU housing, student housing, and

[1:43:15] higher density student housing.

[1:43:18] Um

[1:43:20] Staff is aware of four projects right

[1:43:21] now that are on the drawing board.

[1:43:23] Um

[1:43:25] that

[1:43:26] um are waiting to see what happens with

[1:43:28] this amendment. Um

[1:43:31] One project would relate to the um

[1:43:36] proximity to transit. That's the Bill

[1:43:38] Harris block.

[1:43:39] Um we'd all like to see that redevelop.

[1:43:41] One of those projects is Park Plaza,

[1:43:43] which again we would all like to see

[1:43:45] redevelop.

[1:43:46] Um

[1:43:48] the two biggest factors holding back

[1:43:50] these projects are our parking ratio,

[1:43:53] current parking ratio, and simply the

[1:43:55] high cost of providing what has to be

[1:43:57] structured parking when you're talking

[1:43:58] about higher densities.

[1:44:01] Colwest, which is the company that owns

[1:44:03] the Park Plaza building, they're

[1:44:06] partners in ownership of buildings at

[1:44:09] the University of Oregon, the University

[1:44:11] of Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, and the

[1:44:14] U of U.

[1:44:16] Of all of those universities, the

[1:44:18] highest parking ratio is Clemson at .51.

[1:44:21] So, .51

[1:44:23] parking spaces per student or bed.

[1:44:26] Utah's .24.

[1:44:29] In terms of proximity to the UVU state

[1:44:32] to UVX stations,

[1:44:34] as you know, we've already adopted the

[1:44:36] station area plans.

[1:44:38] And

[1:44:39] um

[1:44:41] best practices in city planning across

[1:44:43] the country

[1:44:45] calls for reduced parking in proximity

[1:44:46] to transit. That's not the exception to

[1:44:48] the rule anymore.

[1:44:49] These days that is the rule.

[1:44:52] Uh Salt Lake City has no minimums in

[1:44:54] their transit-oriented areas. They allow

[1:44:57] the developer to decide what that is. In

[1:44:59] Orem, it's a 50% reduction.

[1:45:01] Uh Orem doesn't have transit running

[1:45:03] right through their community like we

[1:45:04] do, but where they do have transit, they

[1:45:06] allow for the 50% reduction.

[1:45:09] Um staff has asked several developers to

[1:45:11] come to tonight's meeting and to address

[1:45:14] what can be done, what they intend to

[1:45:16] do, or what they have done already to

[1:45:18] reduce parking demand on site, and to

[1:45:20] guarantee proper management so the city

[1:45:22] doesn't have to deal with impacts of

[1:45:24] spillover parking.

[1:45:26] Um

[1:45:27] we're all anxious to hear what they have

[1:45:28] to say and I think um, hopefully they

[1:45:31] have they have some good ideas that we

[1:45:33] can adopt.

[1:45:38] You all are aware of the um,

[1:45:41] blank lot, vacant lot across the street

[1:45:43] from Park Plaza, right? That's the Brick

[1:45:46] Yard project. That went all the way to

[1:45:48] the point of getting it being ready to

[1:45:50] have a building permit issued.

[1:45:52] So, they spent tens of thousands of

[1:45:54] dollars just on the building plans, much

[1:45:56] less getting through all the stuff

[1:45:58] before you even get to go to plans.

[1:46:00] It hasn't been built. That is a project

[1:46:02] where

[1:46:03] it provided full parking.

[1:46:06] And now the economics don't work once

[1:46:07] you actually design the building that

[1:46:09] way and try to go get financing on it.

[1:46:12] Uh, Dave Cabanell who's built many

[1:46:14] projects in Provo

[1:46:16] had the property just east of the old

[1:46:19] women's gym. You were you old women's

[1:46:21] gym. Just west, sorry, thank you.

[1:46:24] Along Fifth 500 North and 100 West.

[1:46:27] Um,

[1:46:29] that was 86 units, apartment units.

[1:46:33] Again, structured parking glued the

[1:46:34] project and so now we're getting 24 town

[1:46:36] homes there. Now, town homes are great.

[1:46:38] I'm glad we're getting town homes.

[1:46:40] They're going to be for sale. So, when

[1:46:42] but we lost 60 units. We lost 60

[1:46:44] dwelling units in area that we had

[1:46:46] previously decided we'd really like to

[1:46:48] get more housing, more density.

[1:46:51] So, this is having real impacts on

[1:46:53] projects and at um, people now again,

[1:46:56] it's not just an economic issue, it's a

[1:46:58] manage it's an issue of management.

[1:47:00] And those who are going those projects

[1:47:02] need to explain to us how they're going

[1:47:03] to manage lower parking ratios. So, I'll

[1:47:06] just now turn over to Aaron and I can

[1:47:08] answer any questions you have about the

[1:47:10] ordinance itself and walk you through

[1:47:11] that.

[1:47:11] >> Thanks, Bill.

[1:47:12] >> Bill, do you happen to know um, the

[1:47:14] project

[1:47:16] south of the coal park on the um,

[1:47:19] west side of Main Street

[1:47:22] and it's right on the sidewalk. It's six

[1:47:23] stories. They have underground parking.

[1:47:26] What's that address you know?

[1:47:27] Do you know that project? It was built

[1:47:29] 10 years ago.

[1:47:30] >> They don't have enough parking by far. I

[1:47:32] know a couple people who live there.

[1:47:35] I don't know what the ratio is.

[1:47:37] >> I'd have to look it up. I don't

[1:47:38] remember. I used to keep tallies on all

[1:47:39] the projects I received, but I just

[1:47:41] haven't looked at that in years. I'm

[1:47:44] sorry.

[1:47:45] I can find that out for you though.

[1:47:49] » Let me

[1:47:50] >> political nuance.

[1:47:51] >> Um yeah, that'd be great. So, I guess

[1:47:53] with that, are there any questions that

[1:47:55] you'd like staff to answer now or

[1:47:57] prepare to answer later tonight?

[1:48:02] » Um

[1:48:04] >> Go ahead.

[1:48:06] >> Let's speak about the situation where

[1:48:08] they can park different places than on

[1:48:10] the premises. Can we go over that

[1:48:12] statute?

[1:48:12] >> Yeah, so currently

[1:48:14] uh

[1:48:15] only commercial uses, industrial and

[1:48:17] commercial uses can use off-site parking

[1:48:20] within distance.

[1:48:22] In downtown, it's a larger distance.

[1:48:25] Outside of downtown, it's it's 200 ft.

[1:48:28] The idea [clears throat] here is to open

[1:48:30] that up a little bit more, kind of take

[1:48:32] a baby step to allow multi-family to

[1:48:34] come into that. Uh still allow or still

[1:48:39] have single-family, duplex,

[1:48:40] multi-family, townhouses

[1:48:42] have to park on their actual property

[1:48:44] on-site.

[1:48:45] Um but pulling in multi-family allows us

[1:48:48] to get these apartment projects another

[1:48:50] option. If they're able to find a

[1:48:52] property that's has extra space or it's

[1:48:55] not being used, there's vacant, they can

[1:48:57] improve that parking lot

[1:49:00] um

[1:49:01] to to kind of sub in for space limits

[1:49:04] that they have on their site.

[1:49:06] Um there's criteria with that. You have

[1:49:08] to do a traffic report on it. You have

[1:49:10] to be responsible financially

[1:49:12] and liable for anything that happens on

[1:49:13] the on that adjacent parking lot. You

[1:49:16] have to record

[1:49:17] things at the county if you don't own

[1:49:19] both of them.

[1:49:19] >> Okay. Okay, so that's what he So, how do

[1:49:22] you connect the two together that they

[1:49:24] just don't develop the parking lot in a

[1:49:25] year or something?

[1:49:27] >> Right. Right. So,

[1:49:28] >> set up legally.

[1:49:28] >> So, that if if it's the same owner,

[1:49:33] it's it's through that that approval

[1:49:35] agreement. And if it's a different

[1:49:37] owner, it's through a lease. It's

[1:49:38] recorded at the at the Uintah County

[1:49:40] Recorder's Office.

[1:49:41] >> Okay. So, is that something Brian you've

[1:49:44] worked on to make sure that's tight?

[1:49:47] >> Say that again. The

[1:49:49] >> Just making sure that if it's parking

[1:49:51] off-site that

[1:49:53] the off-site parking can't be sold in a

[1:49:55] year and developed, that that parking uh

[1:49:58] goes with the housing in perpetuity.

[1:50:01] >> Yeah. Can you scroll up? Yeah, so we're

[1:50:04] Kevin.

[1:50:05] >> Or in 080

[1:50:08] Well, actually the the last page. Keep

[1:50:11] >> Keep going.

[1:50:13] >> Okay.

[1:50:17] look a little bit farther.

[1:50:20] So, uh

[1:50:22] in two

[1:50:25] That should be a C instead of a We're

[1:50:27] going to renumber that. Okay, in two C

[1:50:30] uh an applicant for an exception has to

[1:50:32] record their lease with the county

[1:50:34] recorder demonstrating that they have

[1:50:35] lawful use of the lot.

[1:50:37] So, now that doesn't mean that

[1:50:40] >> It's not restrictive.

[1:50:41] >> Yeah.

[1:50:42] >> I mean, they have to do that in order in

[1:50:44] order to apply.

[1:50:46] Um that doesn't mean that the situation

[1:50:49] can't change later, but if they if they

[1:50:52] if it changes, then they're not eligible

[1:50:54] for the permit anymore. I mean, they've

[1:50:55] got to get a permit from the Planning

[1:50:57] Commission. So, we'll just revoke that

[1:50:59] permit.

[1:51:00] >> But what if [clears throat] they're the

[1:51:01] house is already the multi-units already

[1:51:02] built, it's done, and

[1:51:04] 2 years later they develop it into

[1:51:06] another apartment complex?

[1:51:08] >> In in my opinion, I'll think about that.

[1:51:11] Um

[1:51:12] that has to go through at least project

[1:51:14] plan, building permits, all of those

[1:51:16] processes with the city, right?

[1:51:18] We know that that is being used for

[1:51:20] parking for this building over here.

[1:51:23] We're going to have to say, well, this

[1:51:24] can't move forward until you help this

[1:51:26] guy find more parking, right? So, you're not going to be able to reduce

[1:51:30] and that's in code 1437 as well. You

[1:51:33] can't reduce your existing parking. Um

[1:51:36] haphazardly like that. You have to go

[1:51:38] through the processes.

[1:51:39] >> Okay.

[1:51:40] >> Is there Is there a related risk where

[1:51:43] cuz I assume you

[1:51:44] there'd be some kind of lease agreement

[1:51:46] between the apartment and

[1:51:48] >> Well, they could own it. If they If they

[1:51:50] But if they didn't own it, they could

[1:51:51] >> Yeah, they didn't own

[1:51:52] >> If they don't own it, they have to have

[1:51:53] a lease agreement.

[1:51:54] >> So, like I guess maybe that would be an alternative problem is like if they

[1:51:58] had a lease agreement and they're not

[1:51:59] the owner and then they lease agreement

[1:52:01] gets terminated.

[1:52:05] » Yeah, that's an interesting question. I

[1:52:07] mean, the right now this just says and

[1:52:10] this is

[1:52:11] Now, the interesting thing here is this

[1:52:12] looks like it's new, but it's actually

[1:52:15] just getting moved from elsewhere in the

[1:52:17] code.

[1:52:18] Um

[1:52:20] Is that right or is it

[1:52:21] >> Some of Some of it is Some of it is new,

[1:52:23] some of it is not.

[1:52:24] >> rewrite?

[1:52:26] >> Uh this this specific section is new.

[1:52:29] Like this uh 2C.

[1:52:31] >> Okay, but we had worked on it in the

[1:52:33] rewrite. So, so it was going in

[1:52:35] somewhere in the rewrite anyway.

[1:52:37] So, um

[1:52:39] yeah, it's a good question cuz we're

[1:52:41] suggesting that they have to record a

[1:52:42] lease, but even then, I mean

[1:52:45] >> So, what if we just

[1:52:46] >> maximum period for the lease is going to

[1:52:48] be 99 years anyway and probably won't be

[1:52:50] that long. So,

[1:52:52] we're granting them that permanent

[1:52:53] exception.

[1:52:54] >> We'll have flying cars or self-driving

[1:52:56] cars in 99 years. This is a 20-year

[1:52:58] problem, 25-year problem.

[1:53:00] >> Could we Could we just make it that they

[1:53:02] had to own it and leases aren't

[1:53:03] acceptable?

[1:53:06] » Well, we would like to use existing

[1:53:08] parking facilities more efficiently.

[1:53:11] There is a parking lot that's vacant a

[1:53:13] lot of the time. We'd like to be able to

[1:53:16] double up and use those if we could.

[1:53:19] >> I I have a real life example of this if

[1:53:22] that

[1:53:22] >> I'm sure Travis has a question.

[1:53:30] » Uh, sorry. Can you guys hear me?

[1:53:32] >> Yes.

[1:53:33] >> Yeah, I was just echoing what Jeff was

[1:53:35] saying. I guess can we require like a 10

[1:53:37] or a 20 year lease on these? Is maybe

[1:53:40] that's not practical, I don't know, but

[1:53:42] I do have the concern that all of a

[1:53:44] sudden there's a conflict between

[1:53:46] whoever owns the lot and you know, the

[1:53:48] building and all of a sudden the lease

[1:53:50] gets canceled or somebody wants to

[1:53:52] develop their property. I I don't know.

[1:53:54] I can just see these leases getting

[1:53:56] terminated and then all of a sudden

[1:53:57] somebody built a building under the

[1:53:59] assumption that they were going to be

[1:54:00] able to use offsite parking and then

[1:54:01] that offsite parking is gone and now we

[1:54:03] have a problem on our hands. So, I would

[1:54:05] like to mitigate that risk and address

[1:54:07] that somehow in advance

[1:54:09] um, as part of this this approval

[1:54:12] process that we're

[1:54:13] you know, what we're going to address

[1:54:14] tonight. So, I don't know if we pick a

[1:54:17] number of years, 10 years, 20 years,

[1:54:18] something like that.

[1:54:20] Um,

[1:54:21] I prefer we figure out something

[1:54:23] rather than just assume it's going to go

[1:54:25] okay. Kind of plan for the worst.

[1:54:30] » Yeah.

[1:54:31] >> Good reason. [snorts]

[1:54:32] >> Yeah, Brian, what do you think?

[1:54:36] » [laughter]

[1:54:38] >> Uh, I mean it's first time I've thought

[1:54:40] about that question and so I guess the

[1:54:42] What is it What's the objective? Cuz

[1:54:45] are you trying to get the risk to zero?

[1:54:46] Cuz a 10 20 year lease is not getting

[1:54:48] the risk to zero. So, I don't know what

[1:54:50] the objective is.

[1:54:52] >> No, if they own it, it's zero.

[1:54:54] >> The

[1:54:55] you know, I mean the other thing that

[1:54:57] occurs to me is I suppose you could say

[1:54:59] that they must

[1:55:00] but I don't know how feasible this is.

[1:55:01] The The thought that's popping in my

[1:55:03] head is they must record a lease and

[1:55:06] they must uh submit a written plan for

[1:55:09] how they will replace it when the lease

[1:55:10] expires or terminates.

[1:55:12] But I don't know how feasible that

[1:55:14] actually is. Cuz I don't know what the

[1:55:15] plan would be.

[1:55:16] >> I I mean, for me it wouldn't be to get

[1:55:18] it to zero, but to get it to manageable.

[1:55:20] I think 1 year is not manageable. Like

[1:55:22] if if you build a new park apartment

[1:55:24] complex with the assumption you're going

[1:55:25] to use an empty lot under 1 year of

[1:55:27] grace lease agreement and then it's gone

[1:55:29] in 1 year. You're like, that's not a

[1:55:30] manageable risk. 20 years absolutely is

[1:55:32] manageable because

[1:55:34] problems change, societies change

[1:55:36] drastically in generations.

[1:55:38] >> Well, we can certainly add a time period

[1:55:40] if that's sufficient.

[1:55:42] >> Yeah, I I don't know that we can assume it

[1:55:45] goes away in 20 years.

[1:55:47] We can look back 20 years, same problem

[1:55:50] uh previous to that.

[1:55:51] >> Yeah, I agree.

[1:55:52] >> And and so that's that's not a magical

[1:55:54] we will have

[1:55:56] uh flying cars by then and maybe we'll

[1:55:57] have that at the top.

[1:55:59] Um and if we have self-driving cars,

[1:56:01] that makes a difference. So, all those

[1:56:02] things I think make sense. I think we

[1:56:04] would need to

[1:56:05] create this

[1:56:07] to address Travis's issue of No, I think

[1:56:10] we do need to think through

[1:56:12] be- because we're we're taking the we're

[1:56:13] taking the approach of focusing on how

[1:56:16] do we help the developer? I like that

[1:56:17] idea.

[1:56:19] And the flip side of that same coin is what's the impact on the

[1:56:22] neighborhoods?

[1:56:24] And I hear a lot more from neighbors

[1:56:27] than I do from developers.

[1:56:29] So, you guys are hearing a lot from

[1:56:30] developers, I get that.

[1:56:32] Um I'm hearing from neighbors who are

[1:56:35] saying it denigrates when there isn't

[1:56:37] sufficient parking, it denigrates

[1:56:38] quality of the neighborhood. Now, this

[1:56:40] is one of those glass half full, glass

[1:56:42] half empty, do you want to look at heads

[1:56:43] or tails?

[1:56:44] So, I don't know that we're going to

[1:56:45] wrestle that to the ground and decide

[1:56:46] and come to a consensus.

[1:56:49] But I I'm very concerned that someone

[1:56:51] will say, "Yes, we got adequate parking

[1:56:53] in this parking lot and it's 5 years,

[1:56:54] pick a number." And then that goes away

[1:56:56] and boom, who is it that then pays the price for

[1:56:59] that? And it's that local neighborhood.

[1:57:02] And so, I think we do need to have a

[1:57:04] solution for that before that becomes

[1:57:07] an option. I I I Ryan, I think we need

[1:57:10] to we need to come up with something I

[1:57:13] Of course, if it was owned, deed

[1:57:15] restricted. Yeah, perfect. But, a lot of

[1:57:17] this is I I like the idea of how do we

[1:57:20] utilize existing parking structures,

[1:57:22] parking lots, and BYU's got all these

[1:57:24] parking lots. And is there some way to I

[1:57:26] like all of that.

[1:57:29] And all that could be temporary, and I

[1:57:32] think we then are just pushing the

[1:57:33] problem onto the neighborhoods, and I

[1:57:36] wouldn't want to see that happen.

[1:57:40] » Yeah.

[1:57:43] » Okay, Councilwoman Lock.

[1:57:44] >> Um is it okay if I change topics to

[1:57:46] these questions?

[1:57:48] >> Sure.

[1:57:48] >> I Yeah. So, you asked if what questions

[1:57:50] would maybe we'd like have answered

[1:57:51] either now or tonight.

[1:57:53] One of the questions that I would be

[1:57:55] really curious to know, it's similar to

[1:57:58] uh Councilman Garrett's question, but a

[1:58:00] little bit broader, is like or

[1:58:03] for the area

[1:58:05] in [clears throat] question, let's say

[1:58:06] call it like the stop south of BYU

[1:58:07] campus, do we know what the current

[1:58:10] parking ratio is today? Because a lot of

[1:58:12] the a lot of the

[1:58:14] uh existing development are small homes

[1:58:16] that are being occupied by students that

[1:58:18] were not parked under any kind of

[1:58:20] multi-family ratio. So, I'm just curious

[1:58:21] if we know the exact actually the

[1:58:23] existing ratio is.

[1:58:25] >> [clears throat]

[1:58:25] >> For Joaquin specifically, we do because

[1:58:27] we did that through that neighborhood

[1:58:28] plan.

[1:58:29] Um that's not going to be true

[1:58:31] everywhere, and things have changed over

[1:58:33] the years since that Joaquin plan was

[1:58:34] done. So, we won't know exact from

[1:58:36] parcel to parcel. Um new development new

[1:58:39] development is easy. We can average We

[1:58:40] can probably average it out to

[1:58:43] do a number for it. Yeah.

[1:58:44] >> Yeah, cuz like I guess the thing that

[1:58:45] I'm curious about is I'm curious if you

[1:58:47] take the whole area kind of immediately

[1:58:49] south of campus, and you understood

[1:58:51] parking ratio. And then and then a under

[1:58:55] today we kind of have like mixed like

[1:58:56] older older developments that were

[1:58:58] parked under different ratios, newer

[1:59:00] ones that are parked in the more recent

[1:59:01] ones, and then houses that were not

[1:59:03] parked at all for multi-family. Like

[1:59:04] what is that average and does And then

[1:59:06] if you assumed that entire area being

[1:59:08] redeveloped, which is not going to

[1:59:09] happen overnight, but I'm just saying if

[1:59:10] you assumed it getting redeveloped under

[1:59:12] this new ratio, would it actually be

[1:59:14] more or less? That's the question I'm

[1:59:15] getting at.

[1:59:16] >> I can come back with those average

[1:59:18] ratios to you.

[1:59:20] >> And then the a couple other questions I

[1:59:21] have is like

[1:59:23] >> [clears throat]

[1:59:24] >> So

[1:59:25] um

[1:59:26] do we know do we have we done any study

[1:59:28] to suggest how

[1:59:30] much this savings gets passed on to

[1:59:33] renters?

[1:59:34] So for example, uh

[1:59:36] you take an average 100 unit uh with two

[1:59:40] bedrooms each, that translates into some

[1:59:42] direct savings cuz we can just do the

[1:59:44] math based on the assumption per stall

[1:59:46] cost, right? I'm curious like do we know

[1:59:49] like for every dollar saved to in the

[1:59:50] construction it gets passed on to be

[1:59:52] like 5 cents per year in rent? Do we

[1:59:54] have any ratio like that?

[1:59:55] >> I think that's probably going to be

[1:59:57] different from developer to developer,

[1:59:58] but I think that's a great question for

[1:59:59] those that come tonight um to have their

[2:00:02] We can ask that. I think examples

[2:00:03] address it and it it just might be

[2:00:04] different between each one of them.

[2:00:07] >> Great. And then sorry.

[2:00:09] >> I was just curious so who is coming

[2:00:10] tonight?

[2:00:11] >> Um we've talked to Nite and Architecture

[2:00:14] about this. We've talked to Cole West.

[2:00:17] We've talked to

[2:00:18] >> The owners of um

[2:00:21] Campus Plaza.

[2:00:23] And uh

[2:00:23] >> Isn't that Cole West?

[2:00:24] >> Cole West.

[2:00:25] >> Isn't that Cole West?

[2:00:26] >> That's Park Plaza. Campus Plaza is the

[2:00:28] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:00:30] >> And then um the people that did 400

[2:00:32] Element um

[2:00:35] >> Uh Billy Construction.

[2:00:36] >> Billy Construction.

[2:00:37] >> Yeah.

[2:00:37] So we've asked them for some input

[2:00:40] from a lot of these groups and and

[2:00:42] hopefully some of them come tonight to

[2:00:43] address some of this.

[2:00:44] >> Yeah.

[2:00:45] >> Now Mike Mike's you like experience in

[2:00:47] economics and

[2:00:49] I know when we were looking at the road

[2:00:50] width thing,

[2:00:51] you know, the roads, it saves the

[2:00:53] develop a lot of money to do it narrower

[2:00:55] road.

[2:00:56] And so I asked one of the developers who

[2:00:57] did it, "Hey, did you do your Did you

[2:00:59] sell the houses a little cheaper?" Like

[2:01:01] they abs- they said, "Absolutely not.

[2:01:03] We're going to sell the max for whatever

[2:01:04] we can sell the market will do."

[2:01:06] And it'll be the same thing for the rent

[2:01:07] or sale of a home without or with

[2:01:11] parking. And the market may make it a

[2:01:13] little different cuz it doesn't parking.

[2:01:16] And it might not because they'll just

[2:01:17] know they'll park on the street and they

[2:01:18] want new

[2:01:19] We knew We do want South of Campus

[2:01:22] redeveloped. New development would be

[2:01:23] awesome, clean, without black mold,

[2:01:27] modern. It'd be lovely.

[2:01:29] I'm excited that we did apply for that

[2:01:30] opportunity zone for South of Campus and

[2:01:32] I really, really hope that that

[2:01:34] motivates some developers to build South

[2:01:37] of Campus. Um I've talked to a few

[2:01:39] developers and asked them, "Why won't

[2:01:41] Why Why don't people redevelop South of

[2:01:43] Campus?" And it was interesting to me.

[2:01:45] Um a developer told me Two developers

[2:01:47] told me that

[2:01:48] our um rent is too cheap in in BYU. The

[2:01:51] South of Campus rent is too cheap. It's

[2:01:53] not worth redeveloping.

[2:01:55] Because the rent is so cheap, you don't

[2:01:57] get you know you know the payback takes

[2:01:59] too long. They re- They build student

[2:02:01] housing in Tennessee, Montana, Idaho,

[2:02:04] Kentucky. Those are the ones I can

[2:02:06] remember.

[2:02:07] And they're like, "These places are just

[2:02:08] way better to build. Their The rent's

[2:02:10] way more expensive. Provo's too cheap."

[2:02:11] And I thought that was so interesting

[2:02:13] cuz I'd never heard that before and like

[2:02:14] that was an interesting perspective I

[2:02:15] hadn't heard.

[2:02:16] >> I mean to say it's too cheap. Rent here

[2:02:18] is like 400, 500 a month.

[2:02:20] >> They're just saying they didn't give me

[2:02:21] any numbers. They just said the rent's

[2:02:22] too cheap in Provo. It's not worth

[2:02:23] redoing. People are just making money on

[2:02:25] it as it is. It's all paid for. It's

[2:02:28] like It's not worth redoing.

[2:02:30] >> so why don't fix it?

[2:02:31] >> Um

[2:02:33] So it's it's just there's a lot going

[2:02:34] on.

[2:02:36] And I

[2:02:39] I've never talked to anyone

[2:02:42] that doesn't acknowledge that there is a

[2:02:44] problem. Now, they may not care about

[2:02:46] the problem.

[2:02:47] And they may want to um

[2:02:53] you know, that they think that problem's

[2:02:54] okay cuz they don't want people to drive

[2:02:56] and they think it's like they do think

[2:02:57] it'll lower housing or so but all we get

[2:03:00] is complaints about parking from

[2:03:01] students, from families that live there,

[2:03:05] from people that

[2:03:08] live in neighboring areas. It's tricky.

[2:03:11] And our And we can make choices to push things in a

[2:03:19] certain direction cuz we want to get rid

[2:03:21] of cars or we want to just increase

[2:03:23] housing as much as we can possible. Like

[2:03:26] we can make those choices.

[2:03:27] But they all have consequences and I

[2:03:29] don't want to live in a city that only

[2:03:31] cares about getting as much density as

[2:03:32] possible or that wants to just get rid

[2:03:34] of cars that are

[2:03:36] no matter the cost. That's not where I

[2:03:38] want to live. I don't think our citizens

[2:03:40] want to live like that.

[2:03:42] But

[2:03:45] Councilwoman Lock.

[2:03:46] >> Um

[2:03:48] Is it okay if I ask you more questions?

[2:03:50] So, one of the thing is I In the

[2:03:51] planning commission, they they asked for

[2:03:53] right if I recall correctly a map of the

[2:03:55] actual parcels that would be

[2:03:58] affected by this. Have we created that

[2:03:59] map?

[2:04:00] >> No, they they recommended that if the

[2:04:01] council does move forward with any of

[2:04:03] this that we should include maps or

[2:04:05] figures within the code.

[2:04:07] >> Okay.

[2:04:07] >> To to include

[2:04:08] >> me that for me having that map would

[2:04:09] help me understand sort of like what

[2:04:11] actually would be influenced by this

[2:04:13] because I think it's hard

[2:04:15] to conceptualize cuz you have the

[2:04:16] half-mile radius and then

[2:04:19] >> quarter mile

[2:04:20] >> Yeah, and then and then if not on-street

[2:04:22] parking. And so anyway, there's a bunch

[2:04:23] of criteria and so it'd be nice just to

[2:04:25] see those plats or like this or the

[2:04:26] plats that actually meet the criteria.

[2:04:31] » Councilwoman Lock.

[2:04:31] >> Keith Christensen.

[2:04:33] >> Yeah, Christensen.

[2:04:34] >> The uh

[2:04:35] the challenge I have with this

[2:04:37] uh

[2:04:38] proposed ordinance

[2:04:40] is the one-size-fits-all.

[2:04:42] Um I I think we do need to think though

[2:04:46] about

[2:04:47] uh projects and areas

[2:04:50] um anchoring this to the transit areas

[2:04:53] throughout the city. Again, I I think

[2:04:55] it's one-size-fits-all.

[2:04:57] So, I I'm not supportive of it at all.

[2:05:00] Um I and I I applaud the intent and I

[2:05:03] think there's probably different ways to

[2:05:05] get to the same the right outcome.

[2:05:07] I think that this one just over-corrects

[2:05:11] to the developers. In fact, that's what

[2:05:13] we hear about is this is what developers

[2:05:15] need.

[2:05:17] And I think more important than the

[2:05:18] developers is the neighbors. So, that's

[2:05:20] my that's my bias. It's the people

[2:05:22] living here. It's people like me who own

[2:05:24] a home

[2:05:25] and want and want places that, you know,

[2:05:28] aren't choked with traffic and and and

[2:05:30] have enough parking. So,

[2:05:32] um I acknowledge I'm taking a very

[2:05:34] specific approach uh to this.

[2:05:37] Um and you could take another approach

[2:05:39] and say, "No, we need more housing no

[2:05:40] matter what."

[2:05:42] I too

[2:05:44] um

[2:05:45] do not want to see Provo

[2:05:48] uh just let's let's if we've got empty

[2:05:50] space, let's fill it up.

[2:05:51] Um you can move to Manhattan for that.

[2:05:54] It's like or you can move to downtown

[2:05:55] Salt Lake City. You can move to or you

[2:05:57] can move to downtown Provo.

[2:05:59] Um

[2:06:00] we we need to preserve these places and

[2:06:02] even around these transit places

[2:06:05] um

[2:06:06] using transit does not mean you don't

[2:06:08] have a car.

[2:06:09] Because our transit is not that good.

[2:06:11] Now, you could say, "Well, we just get

[2:06:13] rid of the cars. You'll have to use

[2:06:15] transit." That is a strategy. It's not

[2:06:17] one I'm willing to support, but there's

[2:06:20] a there's that's an uh

[2:06:22] a viable argument. I'm just not in that

[2:06:24] place.

[2:06:25] I'm in the place for

[2:06:28] um let's make sure that we preserve the

[2:06:29] character of neighborhoods. Parking is a

[2:06:31] big part of that quality of life. And

[2:06:33] so, to me this

[2:06:36] uh is just one-size-fits-all. Am I open

[2:06:39] to a discussion about individual uh

[2:06:41] projects? Let's take the one on 90th.

[2:06:43] And should Do we need to do something?

[2:06:45] Absolutely. Uh because I want to see

[2:06:48] that developed.

[2:06:49] Um this to me goes it it's just it's the

[2:06:52] wrong vehicle to do that.

[2:06:57] » Travis has a comment. Go ahead, Travis.

[2:07:08] » Hey. Can you hear me?

[2:07:10] >> Yep.

[2:07:11] >> All right. Sorry, guys.

[2:07:13] Um yeah, I just wanted to share my

[2:07:14] thoughts generally since

[2:07:17] you know, there's no surprises tonight

[2:07:18] kind of where I'm at. Um

[2:07:21] so, I'm supportive of trying to figure

[2:07:23] out something

[2:07:25] for Park Plaza.

[2:07:27] Um I'm also supportive of using the

[2:07:30] off-site parking. Um I would like a

[2:07:32] long-term lease requirement. Um but I

[2:07:36] think with the rest I prefer to be

[2:07:39] more surgical about things because some

[2:07:42] like there might be a development that

[2:07:44] might make sense at one spot per bedroom

[2:07:47] and another might make sense at half a

[2:07:48] spot per bedroom. Um and so, I'm just

[2:07:51] uncomfortable with just kind of painting

[2:07:52] broad strokes and saying like, "Okay,

[2:07:55] anywhere in these areas it can be you

[2:07:58] know, it's going to be this amount." I

[2:07:59] just feel like we should just look you

[2:08:01] know, if there's four developments,

[2:08:02] let's look at those individually and

[2:08:04] make a recommendation based on the

[2:08:06] specific need of that development. So,

[2:08:08] that would be my preference. Um but I

[2:08:11] also wanted to say that I appreciate the

[2:08:14] time and effort that development

[2:08:16] services have put into coming up with a

[2:08:18] plan.

[2:08:19] Um I think I think there's a lot of good

[2:08:21] points to it. So, I definitely

[2:08:22] appreciate that. Would just like to um

[2:08:26] yeah, be a little more surgical in how

[2:08:27] we approach it.

[2:08:30] >> Councilor Councilor Whitlock.

[2:08:32] >> Councilor Bogden.

[2:08:34] So,

[2:08:36] Bill,

[2:08:37] >> Yes.

[2:08:37] >> Startup,

[2:08:39] that was one that we expected to have

[2:08:42] transit and it ended up filling up with

[2:08:45] BYU kids that had more cars than we

[2:08:48] allotted for.

[2:08:50] Right?

[2:08:51] >> Yes.

[2:08:52] >> Okay, so so that is my concern is is

[2:08:56] it's not just college kids that are

[2:09:00] bringing cars closer to BYU. We're also

[2:09:02] looking at these transit corridors.

[2:09:04] And when we have experimented with that

[2:09:06] in the past, we've ended up really burnt

[2:09:09] because I remember complaints from the

[2:09:12] surrounding neighborhoods where the

[2:09:14] parking was so bad because they filled

[2:09:16] up with married college, so it was two

[2:09:18] cars per unit, not a half of a

[2:09:22] parking stall per unit, and people

[2:09:24] couldn't get out to get to medical

[2:09:25] appointments because

[2:09:27] kids were blocking driveways. And a lot

[2:09:29] of times when we get this overcrowding

[2:09:30] of parking,

[2:09:32] the kids don't care. They just park

[2:09:34] where they can park. I mean, we've

[2:09:35] gotten all those emails from students

[2:09:37] and and others that are upset because

[2:09:40] they have to park in a crosswalk and

[2:09:41] they don't understand why they're

[2:09:42] getting a ticket or,

[2:09:44] you know, because there's no parking and

[2:09:46] please help us.

[2:09:47] So, I I

[2:09:49] to be surgical,

[2:09:51] I can understand that and I can

[2:09:53] appreciate that, but I also think we

[2:09:55] need to look at the realities of our

[2:09:56] situation.

[2:09:57] And I don't think just because it's in a

[2:09:59] transit corridor,

[2:10:01] that's a good idea to go ahead and

[2:10:04] not have the parking.

[2:10:09] » Councilor Whitlock.

[2:10:10] >> Um, so I

[2:10:13] would uh concur very strongly with what

[2:10:16] uh

[2:10:17] Councilor Holben said about um and all

[2:10:19] about Park Plaza. That's it's a very

[2:10:22] blighted property. I went there on

[2:10:24] Saturday just to go check it out and I

[2:10:27] walked around and

[2:10:29] I mean, if there is a place where that

[2:10:30] could potentially this theory could

[2:10:32] potentially work, I think it'd be there

[2:10:33] because it's right across the street

[2:10:34] from BYU. It's right across the street

[2:10:35] from the Creamery. There is no really

[2:10:37] adjacent resident parking that it would

[2:10:40] spill out into because there's no

[2:10:41] parking on 9th. There's no immediate

[2:10:43] street within a block next to a

[2:10:45] neighborhood. Um

[2:10:47] and if the developers are telling us

[2:10:48] like that's the like they can't get this

[2:10:50] project done, but they're willing to do

[2:10:51] it with that. Like to me, I'd much

[2:10:52] rather see a nice student housing go

[2:10:54] there than it continue to be a blighted

[2:10:57] place with, you know, all sorts of

[2:10:59] safety hazards. Also, the gate was open.

[2:11:00] So, I know there's the place is a mess

[2:11:02] and it's something I constantly was

[2:11:03] asked about during the campaign about

[2:11:04] like we can we see this redeveloped. Um

[2:11:07] I do agree with you that potentially the

[2:11:09] impact here is

[2:11:10] too broad and we might want to learn.

[2:11:13] One one thing I'll say though because a

[2:11:14] lot of my area kind of is really close

[2:11:16] to BYU. I and again, I'd like to

[2:11:19] [clears throat] see the numbers if we

[2:11:20] could actually do an analysis, but my my

[2:11:21] kind of understanding is

[2:11:24] uh

[2:11:24] we're actually under-parked in the area

[2:11:27] around BYU as it stands and it kind of

[2:11:29] work like this is that like

[2:11:31] student student population has gone up a

[2:11:34] lot more than we've increased the supply

[2:11:35] of student housing near BYU. Because

[2:11:38] there's not enough supply near BYU,

[2:11:40] students then go live in neighborhoods

[2:11:42] near BYU as much as possible. Those

[2:11:45] neighborhoods are parked as

[2:11:46] single-family residential and not as

[2:11:49] multi-family. And so, they you know, you

[2:11:51] put four students in there and there's

[2:11:54] three to four cars. And so, I think

[2:11:56] we're actually in the area around BYU

[2:11:58] dramatically under-parked and what I'd

[2:11:59] like to understand is if we actually had

[2:12:01] a redevelopment even at a lower parking

[2:12:03] rate closer to BYU, would we actually

[2:12:04] have more student parking for students

[2:12:07] next to campus? Does that make sense,

[2:12:08] that argument?

[2:12:09] So, that's what I would like to

[2:12:10] understand. And if we could that if that

[2:12:12] is true, then we could look at just

[2:12:13] scoping this down to like just a few

[2:12:15] blocks south of BYU.

[2:12:17] Um

[2:12:18] and kind of take some of that pressure

[2:12:19] cuz we all hear it's a constant

[2:12:21] complaint from neighbors that uh

[2:12:23] zoning enforcement and zoning

[2:12:25] enforcement primarily is over parking,

[2:12:27] which is primarily student housing.

[2:12:29] So, that's my that's like my demand

[2:12:31] about it.

[2:12:31] >> Oh, sweet kings. Uh hello Jason. So,

[2:12:34] there are places in Provo where it's not just

[2:12:38] >> No, and I'm not saying it is just near.

[2:12:39] I'm just saying they because there is

[2:12:41] not housing near, they then students

[2:12:43] then live as close as they can find a

[2:12:45] place reasonable that they can afford.

[2:12:51] » I I agree that we need to um

[2:12:55] we need to look at things individually.

[2:12:57] That that works for me. Um I I remember

[2:13:00] it was over a year ago

[2:13:02] that I talked to Bill about this, but

[2:13:05] right now parking reductions go through

[2:13:07] the planning commission. And I do think

[2:13:09] they should come through the council

[2:13:10] surgically.

[2:13:11] Like Park Plaza or other ones that so

[2:13:14] that we do know the bigger picture of

[2:13:16] what's going on and um

[2:13:19] so because it is such an issue. So, do

[2:13:21] we want to accommodate where we can, but

[2:13:22] we have to acknowledge it's a huge

[2:13:23] issue.

[2:13:25] And it makes me think too about like our

[2:13:27] land when you upzone land, it just

[2:13:29] becomes more expensive. And these

[2:13:30] developers are saying things don't

[2:13:32] pencil.

[2:13:33] But then that's also the reality that

[2:13:34] they're paying too much for the land.

[2:13:38] They're paying for a zone it isn't or

[2:13:40] they're paying for

[2:13:42] what can't be done on it. Like if it

[2:13:43] doesn't pencil, they shouldn't have

[2:13:44] bought the land at that price.

[2:13:46] Like the code is in place. They know

[2:13:48] what the code is when they buy the land.

[2:13:50] So, we somebody sent a message that

[2:13:53] people can't ask more for what their

[2:13:56] land that it's worth and for developers

[2:13:57] need to be smarter about what they're

[2:13:59] spending on it.

[2:14:00] Cuz I don't think it's our

[2:14:02] responsibility

[2:14:04] to fix their poor financial decision,

[2:14:07] too. Like there's a there's a situation

[2:14:10] there that is not the citizens'

[2:14:11] responsibility to take the burden of

[2:14:13] their poor financial decision on to

[2:14:15] them.

[2:14:16] >> And at the same time, Patrice, you could

[2:14:18] imagine developers saying

[2:14:21] again, if we strive to have got more

[2:14:23] surgical,

[2:14:24] here's what I'd be willing to do.

[2:14:26] >> Mhm.

[2:14:26] >> And the

[2:14:28] giving them greater distance to have an

[2:14:31] parking. So, 200 ft seems pretty tight.

[2:14:35] Uh if it was two blocks away, if it I

[2:14:37] think we could be creative in terms of

[2:14:39] how we help. So, I I don't think it's not a black You're not saying a

[2:14:42] black and white.

[2:14:43] >> Right.

[2:14:43] >> But I think that speaks to if we had a

[2:14:45] more surgical approach,

[2:14:47] uh I don't feel like this is a surgical

[2:14:50] at all.

[2:14:51] That's my sense. I I I appreciate the

[2:14:55] intent. And I don't think that this is

[2:14:57] the answer, and we must find an answer.

[2:15:00] >> Is that something that So, we tried to

[2:15:02] if you look in

[2:15:04] uh

[2:15:04] 370504, we tried to

[2:15:08] put some criteria in there.

[2:15:09] >> Where they can park elsewhere?

[2:15:11] >> Um yeah, there's yeah, there's you know,

[2:15:12] no on-street parking, no single-family

[2:15:13] residential zones adjacent to you.

[2:15:16] The the rent

[2:15:16] >> Oh, you're saying the 50% reduction

[2:15:19] stuff.

[2:15:19] >> Yeah, so

[2:15:20] is is the idea something like that where

[2:15:22] we can have if we have concerns and

[2:15:24] worries

[2:15:26] that we can address those with specific

[2:15:27] criteria to make this work? Are is that

[2:15:30] not going far enough in your guys'

[2:15:31] minds? I'm just trying to get a good

[2:15:34] feel for it.

[2:15:34] >> In my opinion, needs to be looked at

[2:15:36] individually.

[2:15:37] >> Like you're saying the property by by

[2:15:39] either area

[2:15:40] >> it up by by park plaza individually.

[2:15:43] >> Do you know what I'm saying?

[2:15:44] Individually.

[2:15:45] >> Yeah.

[2:15:49] » And I I would share this concern. Again,

[2:15:52] this is such And you might say, "Well,

[2:15:54] who in District 1 is worried about

[2:15:56] parking?"

[2:15:57] I I don't hear from District 1. I hear

[2:15:59] from everyone in the city.

[2:16:01] You know, I So, I'm hearing from the

[2:16:03] people say Canyon are all best friends

[2:16:06] because I heard from them so much. So,

[2:16:08] I'm I'm hearing from everyone.

[2:16:10] Um

[2:16:12] my and I this is such a key issue. I

[2:16:16] don't I wouldn't support the idea of

[2:16:18] this being an administrative issue. I

[2:16:20] think this council should decide this,

[2:16:22] and we should come up with solutions for

[2:16:24] this. Um because

[2:16:27] uh

[2:16:28] I'm that's what I'm accountable for is

[2:16:29] everyone in the city.

[2:16:31] And this is this is one of the top, you

[2:16:33] know, three.

[2:16:37] » Councilor I mean, sorry. Councilor Wood.

[2:16:40] I would like to acknowledge that

[2:16:41] Councilor Wood has joined us.

[2:16:42] >> Yes, thank you. I'm sorry that I was

[2:16:45] detained. Um happy to be here now.

[2:16:48] Um I also apologize for entering this

[2:16:52] conversation partway through.

[2:16:54] Did you guys have a discussion about the

[2:16:57] 1/8 mile boundary of the main BYU

[2:16:59] campus? Like how far into the

[2:17:01] neighborhoods that goes? Cuz 1/8 of a

[2:17:04] mile is what, like maybe a block?

[2:17:07] Um I'm just trying to determine because

[2:17:09] it seems like this is already very, very

[2:17:11] limited in the geographic area that

[2:17:14] would be affected based on the way this

[2:17:18] proximity to BYU portion is written.

[2:17:23] Yeah.

[2:17:24] >> We're pulling up a map.

[2:17:25] >> Cuz I think that that might be a helpful

[2:17:29] thing to recognize that this is already

[2:17:33] very, very constrained and that

[2:17:37] we are not looking at

[2:17:40] anything near Slate Canyon with this.

[2:17:43] Did we also have a discussion on the

[2:17:45] previous parking studies that were done

[2:17:47] in Joaquin that found that there is

[2:17:49] enough parking there by looking at

[2:17:52] overnight numbers that there were still

[2:17:54] on-street parking spaces available?

[2:17:57] >> We did talk about that. There was a

[2:17:58] study done. That was a long time ago,

[2:17:59] and things could have changed.

[2:18:01] >> Okay. That's that's good to know. I also

[2:18:03] really like to in this proposal that

[2:18:07] the parking would be rolled in with the

[2:18:10] rent. You know, like it seemed like

[2:18:12] there were some really good things to

[2:18:14] avoid the particular problems that we've

[2:18:16] already seen. Students not wanting to

[2:18:18] pay additional amount for the parking,

[2:18:21] so they're not using those lots. Like

[2:18:22] this solves for that.

[2:18:24] It seems that this solves for the

[2:18:26] current parking issues that we have in

[2:18:29] this area of the city, and certainly the

[2:18:31] area south of campus is in my district.

[2:18:35] And I'm

[2:18:36] on my bike right there every day seeing

[2:18:39] it. I was riding through it today.

[2:18:41] Um

[2:18:43] I also recognize that by making this

[2:18:46] change

[2:18:48] preemptively

[2:18:50] we lose that um

[2:18:56] kind of nitpicky oversight control over

[2:18:58] every little project, but we also make

[2:19:00] it easier to accomplish our goals of

[2:19:02] getting this area redeveloped, which we

[2:19:06] very, very much want.

[2:19:08] Because insisting that we review every

[2:19:11] single project that comes in

[2:19:14] is making it cost a lot more.

[2:19:17] It's creating barriers to the

[2:19:19] redevelopment that we say we want.

[2:19:23] And

[2:19:24] I'm really appreciative that this is a

[2:19:27] proposal that has been developed

[2:19:30] by the staff and administration looking

[2:19:33] at the actual problems that they have

[2:19:35] encountered and is their thoughtful

[2:19:37] solution to it. And I think that it

[2:19:40] behooves us to take the advice of the

[2:19:43] people who are expert in our city on

[2:19:46] these problems and listen to them. And

[2:19:49] then our job is to

[2:19:51] as counselors both to represent and to

[2:19:54] educate our constituencies to help them

[2:19:57] understand why our staff is supporting

[2:20:00] this and why they believe it will make

[2:20:02] things better.

[2:20:05] Do we have our minutes?

[2:20:05] >> Each block is about a quarter mile.

[2:20:07] Each block is about 400 ft.

[2:20:09] So, that that quarter mile is about a

[2:20:12] little over two blocks away from

[2:20:14] >> Two blocks. So, this is still within

[2:20:16] that 500 North line that we've got.

[2:20:19] >> Yeah, go down to almost 600 North about

[2:20:22] >> Not even all the way to 600.

[2:20:23] >> Yeah.

[2:20:25] >> It's It's what I'm thinking in my head.

[2:20:26] Just trying to do the math.

[2:20:28] >> Yeah.

[2:20:32] It says an eighth of a mile in the

[2:20:35] proposed ordinance.

[2:20:36] >> So, an eighth of a mile would be half of

[2:20:38] that. Yeah.

[2:20:40] >> Well, 600.

[2:20:44] » So, that would be

[2:20:46] >> Yeah, it means it's

[2:20:47] very narrow band around the main campus.

[2:20:52] And if if what we're concerned is about

[2:20:55] is neighborhoods other than Joaquin,

[2:20:58] then I suppose we could change it to

[2:21:01] the span for just the south campus area.

[2:21:05] If And how are we defining main campus?

[2:21:08] Like, does does this include the stadium

[2:21:11] or their public facilities where they do

[2:21:14] their sales for surplus or

[2:21:16] >> That's another question that came up in

[2:21:18] planning commission. So, I think a map

[2:21:20] is going to be helpful if any of this

[2:21:21] does pass that we we'd want to

[2:21:23] incorporate a map.

[2:21:24] >> Especially since campus seems to be

[2:21:26] expanding. So, we've got the campus east

[2:21:29] and campus west and everything.

[2:21:32] >> We were thinking of the main parcel. So,

[2:21:33] this this is all one parcel up through

[2:21:36] here.

[2:21:37] That's what we were thinking when we

[2:21:38] wrote it, but that's not clear in the

[2:21:40] code. So, I think we a map would be

[2:21:42] a life saver.

[2:21:43] >> For years we've been anticipating

[2:21:44] redevelopment north of 500 North. This

[2:21:47] amendment doesn't take you down that

[2:21:49] far.

[2:21:49] >> Right.

[2:21:50] >> Yeah, no. This is much more modest than that whole zone that needs to be

[2:21:55] redeveloped.

[2:21:56] >> Is that one block?

[2:21:57] >> Yeah, it's two blocks.

[2:21:58] >> Is there

[2:21:59] >> Uh 8th mile is essentially one block and a quarter mile would be about two

[2:22:03] blocks.

[2:22:03] >> So there's there's two parts, yeah. So

[2:22:05] it's two blocks.

[2:22:06] >> That's almost the baby.

[2:22:08] >> Yeah, so really just that 700 to 800

[2:22:11] block

[2:22:13] that's south of campus.

[2:22:15] I mean, well there's also the other

[2:22:17] >> Oh, Provo High and

[2:22:19] >> Right, and that's why I think it might

[2:22:21] be useful to constrain it, but

[2:22:24] >> There's really nothing.

[2:22:28] » Yeah, cuz you've got the hospital and

[2:22:29] everything, yeah.

[2:22:31] So it may be a moot point over there. I

[2:22:33] guess the other part that we need to

[2:22:35] consider is on 900 East, right?

[2:22:38] And so

[2:22:40] I think it would make more sense to have

[2:22:42] this line at 900 East and not include

[2:22:45] the new

[2:22:46] >> Yeah, the

[2:22:46] >> Wasatch campus area. Like absolutely

[2:22:50] not. We're not going into the tree

[2:22:53] streets or that neighborhood with this

[2:22:54] change.

[2:22:56] >> Aaron, did you say that that that what we

[2:22:59] consider the main campus is just one

[2:23:01] parcel?

[2:23:02] >> Yes.

[2:23:03] >> So we could actually split the

[2:23:04] >> We could we could define parcel number

[2:23:06] in the

[2:23:07] ordinance and say

[2:23:07] >> But then but then the boundary

[2:23:10] if it's expanding to the east, which

[2:23:11] would be a problem, so we want to kind

[2:23:13] of rework that.

[2:23:14] >> If

[2:23:15] >> Because they could combine parcels.

[2:23:17] >> Right, so

[2:23:18] >> the parcel is all the way to 900 East,

[2:23:19] so then you've got that 8th mile and

[2:23:21] quarter mile up there going that way.

[2:23:23] >> Oh.

[2:23:23] >> Into the some of these these

[2:23:25] neighborhoods, too.

[2:23:26] If those were to get rezoned and

[2:23:28] redevelop and all these

[2:23:30] things happen first.

[2:23:33] >> So what I'm looking at is I think this

[2:23:34] would be really, really useful for that

[2:23:36] block south of campus.

[2:23:38] And that's an area where we really want

[2:23:41] to have these more new higher density

[2:23:44] student housing. And this looks like a

[2:23:46] really good way to accomplish it. And

[2:23:49] it's not

[2:23:52] It's It's a good way to see if this

[2:23:54] actually works in that very constrained

[2:23:56] area without

[2:23:59] completely throwing off the balance of

[2:24:01] all of Joaquin or you know, affecting

[2:24:03] the rest of the city.

[2:24:05] Um

[2:24:08] So, that that's why I like it, but I

[2:24:11] also want it to define BYU campus a

[2:24:13] little bit better for this.

[2:24:29] » In case our closet, you will be able to

[2:24:30] see that individual light because it's

[2:24:31] going to have to tell me first to

[2:24:32] change.

[2:24:33] >> Okay.

[2:24:34] >> Yeah.

[2:24:36] I did.

[2:24:39] Because it's an RC.

[2:24:50] So,

[2:24:50] >> Right.

[2:24:52] Any more comments?

[2:24:55] >> So, Rachel, what about that half a block base 1/4

[2:24:58] mile of any

[2:25:00] um transit

[2:25:02] mixed use?

[2:25:04] >> A couple blocks.

[2:25:06] So, that does make it a lot larger.

[2:25:09] I think that's useful, but I would

[2:25:11] rather

[2:25:13] us as a council do something to try this

[2:25:16] out. And so, my compromise would be just

[2:25:19] to do that 8th mile south of campus

[2:25:21] and perhaps strip out

[2:25:24] just at that one area to see if if we

[2:25:27] get any traction with it. I think it

[2:25:29] would be incredibly useful to do this

[2:25:30] along the transit line.

[2:25:33] And I recognize that there's discomfort

[2:25:36] with the council for doing that. I don't

[2:25:38] know if the council would be more

[2:25:39] comfortable changing all of that to an

[2:25:41] eighth of a mile.

[2:25:43] Or the Okay, sounds like at least

[2:25:45] there's one though. Um

[2:25:50] But

[2:25:51] like we we really have gotten stuck

[2:25:55] south of campus.

[2:25:57] Councilor McKain and I have for years

[2:25:59] been saying we want this area

[2:26:01] redeveloped and

[2:26:04] trying to anytime we talk to realtors or

[2:26:08] developers and we say, "Please do this."

[2:26:10] And nobody has taken us up on it.

[2:26:13] >> Having an opportunity zone in our

[2:26:14] future, I hope it does something. Cuz

[2:26:16] the developers I talked to who said they

[2:26:17] wouldn't develop now would develop with

[2:26:21] an opportunity zone. So, I'm hoping that is the trigger we need to move

[2:26:27] things in that direction.

[2:26:28] >> Yeah. We still can't do

[2:26:31] Like I I

[2:26:32] The reason it doesn't work for me to do

[2:26:33] something that hurts people's quality of

[2:26:35] life

[2:26:37] just to try and get something we want to

[2:26:39] that is a good thing. So, that it has to

[2:26:41] be a whole picture. It has to be

[2:26:42] holistically a good thing.

[2:26:44] >> I I don't see how this would hurt the

[2:26:46] quality of life of our students living

[2:26:47] south of campus. Having been a student

[2:26:49] who lived immediately south of campus,

[2:26:52] anything we do to change that housing

[2:26:54] stock will only improve their quality of

[2:26:56] life.

[2:26:57] >> Well, people are still miserable about

[2:26:59] the parking. It's still a huge issue.

[2:27:00] >> I think we've all lived south of campus.

[2:27:02] >> Yes.

[2:27:03] >> It's it's all spillover issues to the

[2:27:05] council.

[2:27:06] >> [laughter]

[2:27:08] >> Well, uh again, we we go over this. I'm

[2:27:11] I I again, I appreciate the creative

[2:27:13] thought that went into it. I I I think

[2:27:15] it's too large, too expensive.

[2:27:18] Am I open to uh something different

[2:27:20] where it might be more targeted?

[2:27:23] Um I also share the concern that may be

[2:27:25] a better way to do it. It may be an

[2:27:26] opportunity zone.

[2:27:28] I'm not sure that changing the parking

[2:27:29] cuz we also have families living there,

[2:27:32] not just students. If we actually

[2:27:33] blocked it out and said, "This is

[2:27:34] students only. You'll only be a student

[2:27:36] living here?

[2:27:37] But, I think that more housing stock

[2:27:39] will exacerbate the parking issue.

[2:27:42] >> Are there any non-student families

[2:27:44] living in that one block south of

[2:27:46] campus?

[2:27:47] >> I think it's on one street.

[2:27:48] >> Your turn over one block?

[2:27:49] >> Yeah, that 1/8 of a mile south of

[2:27:52] campus.

[2:27:53] >> that's what I'm saying.

[2:27:54] Maybe there is a slice that we could

[2:27:55] take a look at. This proposal, I think

[2:27:58] is

[2:27:59] it's it's just far too broad. And so, is

[2:28:04] there something uh

[2:28:06] Could be. Could be.

[2:28:09] Um

[2:28:10] but I I'm not uh in favor of the

[2:28:12] proposal.

[2:28:13] >> So

[2:28:14] but what what would be? What what narrow

[2:28:17] enough thing would you be supportive of?

[2:28:20] >> I would be supportive of actually

[2:28:21] talking to individual developers. I So,

[2:28:24] let's take the ones that you're going to

[2:28:25] build. Let's let's work with them and

[2:28:27] see if we can come up with a template

[2:28:28] that would work.

[2:28:32] >> Purdue development.

[2:28:35] >> Would you be supportive of block Park

[2:28:36] Plaza?

[2:28:38] >> Well, we need to talk about the

[2:28:39] particulars of it, right?

[2:28:39] >> Yeah. I again, I think that that makes

[2:28:42] sense. Here's Here's what I don't want

[2:28:43] to do. I don't want to swing the

[2:28:44] pendulum so far the other side and we

[2:28:45] have the other unintended consequences.

[2:28:48] Because the parking is a big deal. We

[2:28:49] can say, "No, it's not a big

[2:28:52] It's what I hear about the most or one

[2:28:54] of the things.

[2:28:55] Um

[2:28:56] so I I would be much more in favor of a much more focused and modest approach

[2:29:03] so we don't

[2:29:04] uh swing the pendulum over and knock the

[2:29:06] plaster off that wall of sheds and ruin

[2:29:07] it.

[2:29:08] >> [laughter]

[2:29:08] >> Like we have people that promised things

[2:29:10] that didn't work out. We have the Men

[2:29:11] and Night Hall has huge parking issues.

[2:29:13] We have the Village that promised they

[2:29:14] wouldn't rent to people who didn't have

[2:29:16] a car once their spots were gone. They

[2:29:17] didn't do that. Huge issues over there.

[2:29:20] We have the tall one by 90 East.

[2:29:23] I can't remember the name of it.

[2:29:24] >> remember the name either.

[2:29:25] >> Yeah. But, that one has huge issues.

[2:29:26] I've had a number of babysitters who

[2:29:28] lived there. They parked just drove

[2:29:29] around at night for a couple hours

[2:29:30] waiting for a spot to open.

[2:29:31] Like there's these places are quality of

[2:29:34] life issue for people and it's they're

[2:29:36] miserable. The dorms are an issue at

[2:29:38] BYU. They don't take any responsibility

[2:29:39] there.

[2:29:41] They think that that kids with dorms

[2:29:43] wouldn't bring cars, they bring cars.

[2:29:45] So they're parking in the streets.

[2:29:47] >> I have a question. Yeah, how long is it

[2:29:49] going to take for the opportunity zone

[2:29:51] to for us to know whether we're granted

[2:29:53] it or not?

[2:29:54] >> Do you know, Marsha, when we find out?

[2:29:57] The deadline's passed when we had to

[2:29:59] turn in our request. And so the governor

[2:30:02] picks which I think it's

[2:30:05] I heard it's 35-ish

[2:30:07] maybe for the whole state.

[2:30:10] And so we picked a bunch of spots, but

[2:30:13] our first picks were south of campus. I

[2:30:15] think we picked like four or five spots.

[2:30:18] and then the first

[2:30:20] >> prioritize

[2:30:21] >> Okay, so we prioritize south of campus

[2:30:24] and so we're just waiting to see.

[2:30:26] >> But I think that's a great point. We

[2:30:27] probably should see what that does

[2:30:29] first, right?

[2:30:31] Before we get to surgically removing a

[2:30:33] whole block.

[2:30:35] Because that would give us our parking

[2:30:37] and

[2:30:39] the other right now I'm I'm kind of

[2:30:41] jumping ahead before we see what that'll

[2:30:43] actually do.

[2:30:44] >> I just asked for the yield.

[2:30:46] >> He's the project manager and now I just

[2:30:47] asked him.

[2:30:48] >> Oh, okay.

[2:30:49] >> What the deadline is?

[2:30:50] >> Um

[2:30:52] I I hear from citizens and I have like

[2:30:53] my lived experience. Like I lived in San

[2:30:55] Francisco. I had awesome public

[2:30:56] transportation, the BART, the Caltrain.

[2:30:58] Everyone still had a car.

[2:31:00] What was fascinating is rent was not

[2:31:02] cheap, housing was not cheap, they had

[2:31:03] no parking.

[2:31:05] But it was even more expensive because

[2:31:07] they just paid a thousand to two

[2:31:09] thousand a month in parking fines or

[2:31:10] parking paid parking. That's what people

[2:31:13] It was just an expense on top of their

[2:31:14] rent or on top of their mortgage.

[2:31:18] Like these big cities don't have cheaper

[2:31:20] housing than us. These big cities don't

[2:31:22] have

[2:31:24] things aren't cheaper.

[2:31:25] So this idea that we keep building

[2:31:27] denser and denser and with less parking

[2:31:28] it's going to get cheaper. It doesn't

[2:31:29] get cheaper.

[2:31:32] I don't see it. There's not examples of

[2:31:34] it getting cheaper.

[2:31:37] » Uh there are like Austin's gone down,

[2:31:40] Indianapolis has gone down.

[2:31:42] >> And Indianapolis is still going down,

[2:31:44] yeah.

[2:31:44] >> It's in rents. I'm saying that I think

[2:31:47] the issue is I mean

[2:31:49] macro supply and demand

[2:31:52] factors just exist. They're reality. The

[2:31:54] issue is like with some of these cities

[2:31:56] you mentioned that they actually have

[2:31:58] extremely restrictive housing policies

[2:32:00] and demand has gone way faster than

[2:32:02] supply. And that's the situation I think

[2:32:04] we're in now. It's like

[2:32:06] uh UVU dramatically increased their

[2:32:08] housing their student population.

[2:32:10] BYU has a little bit More and more

[2:32:12] students keep coming to live here and we

[2:32:13] just haven't increased our housing stock

[2:32:15] for students relative to that. And that

[2:32:17] to me is the frame that I see when I

[2:32:19] hear people complaining a lot. It's like

[2:32:22] we can do better with zoning

[2:32:23] enforcement, but as long as

[2:32:25] fundamentally we don't have enough

[2:32:26] housing stock for students, we're going

[2:32:27] to continually fighting a losing battle

[2:32:29] because the root cause is off.

[2:32:31] That's

[2:32:32] And so

[2:32:34] I agree. I I agree with everything

[2:32:35] that's been said about, you know, this

[2:32:37] particularly too broad of a brush, but

[2:32:39] um

[2:32:41] And maybe the opportunity zone is the

[2:32:42] trigger, but I I I I feel like

[2:32:46] if we're able to get more student

[2:32:47] housing closer to campus, a lot of the

[2:32:49] parking problems actually will be less.

[2:32:52] Not because people are bringing

[2:32:54] less cars cuz they People are still

[2:32:55] going to bring cars. It's that we're

[2:32:56] actually under-parked. And that's the

[2:32:58] analysis I really would love to see done

[2:32:59] cuz that's the data we need. It's like

[2:33:01] we really look at the area around BYU

[2:33:04] and we say, "Okay, what is our best

[2:33:06] estimate on how much parking is relative

[2:33:07] to students living in this area?" And

[2:33:09] would that actually change if we

[2:33:10] redevelop south of campus with the new

[2:33:12] parking ratio?

[2:33:13] >> So, on that same line of thinking, I I

[2:33:15] agree with you. I don't think we should

[2:33:16] depend on

[2:33:17] these great strains on it to cheaper

[2:33:19] rent for the students. But just bringing

[2:33:21] more product to market

[2:33:23] helps the marketplace, right?

[2:33:25] >> Yeah.

[2:33:28] » Well, I I would be in favor I'm sorry.

[2:33:31] You going to say something?

[2:33:31] >> You go ahead and then go on.

[2:33:33] >> Uh I would I would be in favor of trying

[2:33:36] some creative things. And hopefully the

[2:33:38] opportunity zones do provide something

[2:33:40] like that. I like the idea of saying,

[2:33:42] let's take something very specific

[2:33:45] and let's see if we can get a develop

[2:33:46] work with a developer and let's actually

[2:33:47] try something. Now, the ones we've tried

[2:33:50] in the past

[2:33:51] uh we don't have success stories.

[2:33:53] Uh there's a number of these that you've

[2:33:55] stated where it was said this and that, but again, maybe we could be

[2:33:59] clever enough to figure out a way to put

[2:34:00] guardrails around that.

[2:34:02] Um

[2:34:03] because if we could come up with a

[2:34:04] formula that works, uh again, I I love

[2:34:06] that idea as long as it doesn't have the

[2:34:09] unintended consequences of affecting

[2:34:11] neighborhoods.

[2:34:12] Um

[2:34:13] and I'd love to think we're clever

[2:34:14] enough to do that. Um I don't think this

[2:34:17] does that. Uh so my my vote would be,

[2:34:19] let's repeal this

[2:34:21] and let's let's let's take a different

[2:34:22] approach to it.

[2:34:24] Let's let's actually hope that we get an

[2:34:26] opportunity zone and let's put that

[2:34:28] together and let's let's actually try

[2:34:29] something very creative. I I don't think

[2:34:32] that this is the creative solution that

[2:34:34] we that we need and there could be one.

[2:34:36] >> What do you think about the concept if we have like the

[2:34:41] long-term lease agreement in place or

[2:34:42] some solution for that, what do you

[2:34:43] think about that idea?

[2:34:45] >> Well, I like that I the lease is

[2:34:46] problematic because it's not fee simple.

[2:34:49] It's a it's a leasehold is there for

[2:34:51] some period of time and it goes away

[2:34:54] so we could we could do a lot of things

[2:34:56] and then it creates enforcement issues

[2:34:58] and that may be the best we can do. We

[2:35:00] talked about the

[2:35:01] uh parking lot.

[2:35:02] >> Yeah, the that that one is

[2:35:04] >> Yeah, please.

[2:35:05] >> So, um I appreciate all the discussion

[2:35:07] and I know that you've raised really

[2:35:08] valid concerns. Um

[2:35:11] one of the things that opportunity zones

[2:35:13] might address some of the financing part

[2:35:15] of it, but it doesn't address what it

[2:35:17] looks like in these areas if we insist

[2:35:20] on

[2:35:22] the parking for every bed that we have

[2:35:24] now because that's just a big huge

[2:35:26] parking lot. They'll have to cut back on

[2:35:28] any amenities. They aren't going to have

[2:35:29] as many um rooms [clears throat]

[2:35:31] available. Like it's So, I just think

[2:35:33] that

[2:35:35] it was interesting when there were uh three or four

[2:35:39] developers that when they saw this was

[2:35:40] going to be on the agenda, they

[2:35:41] immediately came and saw me and said,

[2:35:43] "We have had these plans waiting and

[2:35:45] look at this and this is how we want to

[2:35:48] um

[2:35:49] to encourage students to not have cars."

[2:35:51] Because I said, "That's you can't just

[2:35:53] say we're not going to have cars." And

[2:35:54] then not have cars because that hasn't

[2:35:56] worked in the past, but it I mean um

[2:35:58] Campus Plaza was able to to do it and uh

[2:36:02] they have ideas. I just hope that you

[2:36:04] keep your minds open uh to listen to

[2:36:07] what they have to say. Uh the development where

[2:36:11] Park Plaza is, if they have to do the

[2:36:14] parking

[2:36:15] with under code the way it is now, they

[2:36:17] will have like four stories of parking

[2:36:19] and then two small store two stories of

[2:36:22] housing on top of that.

[2:36:24] And is that what we want? Just big

[2:36:26] parking garages everywhere or a lot of

[2:36:28] asphalt everywhere? So, I think that

[2:36:29] there's more at play. I understand

[2:36:32] the concerns of the over parking. I

[2:36:34] think that that Jeff has

[2:36:37] really made a good point that it's

[2:36:38] already

[2:36:39] where where are they going to be

[2:36:41] additional cars on it? Like it's already

[2:36:42] over parked because we

[2:36:44] because there are so many places that

[2:36:46] don't have parking standards at all. And

[2:36:48] so, at least getting additional parking

[2:36:51] spaces in there and they do have some

[2:36:53] creative solutions that I think you

[2:36:55] might find interesting. Um I think that

[2:36:57] an eighth

[2:36:58] of a mile uh

[2:37:00] from campus, I

[2:37:02] if we even

[2:37:04] I think that's a pretty surgical

[2:37:05] targeted approach. I mean, if you think

[2:37:07] it you want it to be less than that, I

[2:37:09] mean, that's just

[2:37:10] a street width and and a block, right?

[2:37:13] Um

[2:37:14] but I will respect whatever you figure

[2:37:17] out. I just am asking you to please

[2:37:18] listen to these developers that come in

[2:37:21] and uh

[2:37:22] hear what they have to say. They were

[2:37:23] pretty excited.

[2:37:25] >> Do you know, Mayor, what uh worked at

[2:37:27] Camp- Campus Plaza

[2:37:29] >> Um

[2:37:30] >> in terms of what they were able to

[2:37:31] restrict the number of

[2:37:33] >> I'm sure that's I don't I don't know.

[2:37:34] There wasn't anything we did.

[2:37:36] >> And their ratio is 0.5.

[2:37:38] >> And

[2:37:39] >> We've never had a complaint on the

[2:37:40] budget cuz they're vigilant about their

[2:37:41] management.

[2:37:42] >> Yeah, it's all the people spending time

[2:37:44] to speak to them.

[2:37:45] >> Do they do they require in the lease to

[2:37:47] say that they're going to not bring a

[2:37:49] car if there's an assigned spot so for

[2:37:51] them?

[2:37:52] >> That's my understanding, but I've asked

[2:37:53] them to address that specifically.

[2:37:55] >> Yes.

[2:37:59] » And I've also asked them, "What do you

[2:38:00] do with the

[2:38:01] tenant if she just doesn't tell the

[2:38:03] truth?"

[2:38:04] >> Yeah.

[2:38:05] >> How do you deal with that?

[2:38:06] >> That's what I'm waiting from them.

[2:38:09] » What do you do?

[2:38:11] >> [clears throat and cough]

[2:38:11] >> That's true.

[2:38:12] >> Bill, do we have much information about

[2:38:14] the Heritage Halls project since that

[2:38:16] was a BYU project that basically has no

[2:38:19] parking for what? 1,000 students that

[2:38:22] live there. I know they park at the

[2:38:23] Marriott Center or the stadium.

[2:38:26] Do you know um

[2:38:28] what um

[2:38:29] what went into that and do their

[2:38:32] students sign a lease or an agreement

[2:38:34] that they won't bring a car?

[2:38:37] >> So you mean the housing on 100 East?

[2:38:39] >> Yes. Uh-huh.

[2:38:41] >> So um

[2:38:43] Yes, they do have their people park at

[2:38:45] those remote lots like you've said. And

[2:38:48] BYU has done a much better job managing

[2:38:50] that and managing expectations the last

[2:38:52] few years because every September I used

[2:38:55] to get phone calls from very angry

[2:38:57] mothers of coeds

[2:38:59] whose daughters didn't feel safe walking

[2:39:01] home from those remote lots in the late

[2:39:03] evening hours or night hours. So BYU has

[2:39:06] addressed that issue because I've gotten

[2:39:08] a complaint on that from a parent in the

[2:39:10] last several years. Exactly what those

[2:39:12] methods are, I I don't know, but BYU has

[2:39:15] been more engaged with us on parking

[2:39:16] issues recently than they ever have

[2:39:18] before. So, I'm sure we can get that

[2:39:20] from them.

[2:39:23] » Hey, does anyone have a

[2:39:25] >> I have one more question.

[2:39:26] >> What's the other

[2:39:27] >> So, I think I think this has already

[2:39:28] been raised, but just to put a point on

[2:39:30] it is I think the two classic examples that you hear

[2:39:35] when about when it's said we granted a

[2:39:37] variance and it was poorly received

[2:39:39] because a lot of extra parking came and

[2:39:41] spilled onto the street is um

[2:39:43] Amanda Knight Building and then

[2:39:46] uh University Village. Yeah.

[2:39:49] >> Startup as well.

[2:39:51] >> Yeah.

[2:39:52] >> The Village?

[2:39:53] >> Yeah, the Village. The Village, yeah.

[2:39:54] And maybe Startup, too. Is it

[2:39:56] possible Like, do we have any way to

[2:39:58] actually know what

[2:40:00] like how many car cars per resident

[2:40:03] Like, do we do you have any way to

[2:40:04] estimate that at all?

[2:40:06] >> No, we we don't.

[2:40:07] >> I mean, we don't have that information.

[2:40:08] We don't know what the information is

[2:40:09] where the information is. We don't We

[2:40:10] don't know what they're managing with

[2:40:12] their with their tenants.

[2:40:14] >> Yeah.

[2:40:16] cuz that'd be I mean, cuz it's

[2:40:17] like the thing the thing that I think a

[2:40:19] lot about this conversation and I don't

[2:40:20] mean in any way to

[2:40:22] uh you know, to dis- discount what is

[2:40:25] what people's experiences are, but um

[2:40:27] a lot of it feels anecdotically anecdotally driven

[2:40:32] um rather than data-driven, and I feel

[2:40:34] like just more data would help because

[2:40:36] the thing is like it it it's it's easy

[2:40:38] to be annoyed about a parking situation

[2:40:40] once and send an email that almost costs

[2:40:42] nothing, and but we what's harder to see

[2:40:44] is the people who, you know, um are

[2:40:46] trying to find a place to live that

[2:40:48] works for their circumstances and can't

[2:40:49] find it because the housing's not

[2:40:50] available, or the people who decide to

[2:40:52] live in Payson because that's the only

[2:40:54] place they can get affordable rent, and

[2:40:55] then they drive in every single day and,

[2:40:57] you know, create traffic for us. And

[2:40:58] like, those things to me are like I

[2:41:00] think there's this big like kind of um

[2:41:03] it's just a very complex interconnected

[2:41:04] problem and so I think

[2:41:06] in general I like us to push us to try

[2:41:07] to get more data to understand some of

[2:41:10] these things about like actual

[2:41:12] car- cars actual parking the cost the

[2:41:15] sort of the passing on of the supply

[2:41:18] demand effects cuz I think what Council

[2:41:20] Mckay said is true is like when you have

[2:41:23] a very like a if you have like an

[2:41:25] undersupplied market you basically can

[2:41:27] just charge whatever the mark- market

[2:41:30] has like if you have way more marginal

[2:41:31] buyers than you have supply like the

[2:41:33] marginal buyers always going to just

[2:41:34] take what the market wants but if you

[2:41:36] have a market closer to equilibrium

[2:41:38] that's when you actually start to see

[2:41:39] declining prices with the marginal

[2:41:42] supply. So I just like

[2:41:44] I I feel like anyway that's my econ 101

[2:41:47] talking but I'd like us to understand

[2:41:49] the the the numbers behind a lot of

[2:41:51] these kind of anecdotes and theories so

[2:41:53] that's a general push but we should have

[2:41:55] a conversation about how we do that.

[2:41:57] >> I'm going to push back a little bit and

[2:41:58] say

[2:42:00] we don't just house UVU kids we also

[2:42:02] house UVU kids and I think we need to be

[2:42:04] very very conscious of that.

[2:42:06] >> Totally I agree with you.

[2:42:07] >> And we cannot be the only city that

[2:42:10] houses them.

[2:42:11] Other cities also have to take on that

[2:42:13] responsibility.

[2:42:14] And we also have to understand a lot of

[2:42:17] those UVU kids

[2:42:18] you know even my kids attend UVU and

[2:42:20] they have a lot of online classes and

[2:42:22] they do do UVX because I'm close enough

[2:42:24] to that.

[2:42:26] But a lot of them just don't and a lot

[2:42:28] of them they don't work along UVX line

[2:42:30] they don't work where the train's going

[2:42:32] to take them.

[2:42:33] Cars are coming and we're going to have

[2:42:36] kids if they don't live in Payson then

[2:42:38] they're going to go to UVU and they're

[2:42:39] still going to have a car and they're

[2:42:40] still going to create a traffic problem

[2:42:42] for us. So I don't I don't think that's

[2:42:44] the

[2:42:45] end all solution is my point.

[2:42:47] >> No.

[2:42:48] My question would be and how bad do you

[2:42:50] want data?

[2:42:52] Because we could talk more about it.

[2:42:53] You're right much of this is anecdotal

[2:42:55] because we have such a little data

[2:42:58] about.

[2:42:59] >> Yeah,

[2:42:59] >> well like for example, we did that we

[2:43:00] said we're going to do the housing stock

[2:43:01] audit. We haven't we should follow up on

[2:43:03] that. Like that's a place where we said

[2:43:04] it was a priority and I think we're kind

[2:43:06] of stuck on that. So we should

[2:43:07] make a note to say to council office

[2:43:10] when we get the new director, Justin,

[2:43:12] that we really would like to start

[2:43:13] seeing that data and then that I think

[2:43:14] that lays a bad baseline.

[2:43:16] Um

[2:43:17] But yeah.

[2:43:18] That's that's one thing that comes to

[2:43:19] mind.

[2:43:20] >> Yeah, so I think we're going to have to

[2:43:21] we're going to invest in the data.

[2:43:23] >> Yeah.

[2:43:24] >> Uh and until then

[2:43:25] we got what we know.

[2:43:27] Yeah.

[2:43:28] So again, I would go ahead and make a motion.

[2:43:34] Um

[2:43:35] I would like to see us come back to

[2:43:37] this. I think this is a discussion worth

[2:43:39] having.

[2:43:40] Uh and if we could bring some data and

[2:43:41] some opportunity zones to it and

[2:43:43] actually talk to some developers, I

[2:43:44] think that could be really helpful.

[2:43:46] Um

[2:43:47] I don't want to move forward with this ordinance.

[2:43:50] So I would make a motion that we repeal

[2:43:53] point is it point 50 and point 60?

[2:43:56] Um did I get that right?

[2:43:59] >> Is it is it 14

[2:44:00] >> 14 14.37.050

[2:44:04] and 14.37.060?

[2:44:06] >> Well, 0

[2:44:07] 060 is all of the parking requirements

[2:44:10] for the entire city.

[2:44:12] >> Well, let's not let's not let's not do

[2:44:13] that.

[2:44:14] >> Are you saying you don't want to move

[2:44:17] this forward the changes?

[2:44:19] You're not saying repeal a current code.

[2:44:21] >> Sorry sorry if this is late at night.

[2:44:22] >> Um I hear you. I understand what you're

[2:44:26] » Yeah. What I what I suggest is that we I don't want to move forward with this.

[2:44:31] That's important. I would like to I

[2:44:32] would like to take a fresh look at this

[2:44:34] in terms of a very surgical area. I'd

[2:44:36] like to consider whether opportunity

[2:44:38] zones might be a part of that and do

[2:44:40] that.

[2:44:40] >> Do you want to

[2:44:41] We have developers coming tonight. Well,

[2:44:43] Bill has asked developers. Do you want

[2:44:44] to hear them?

[2:44:45] >> Oh, absolutely.

[2:44:46] >> Okay, then you don't have to say

[2:44:47] anything tonight.

[2:44:48] >> I I think this is a the right discussion

[2:44:50] to be having.

[2:44:52] And right now, again, I've got a lot of

[2:44:55] people in my ear saying this is the kind

[2:44:57] of problems creating. I appreciate that

[2:44:59] you're saying no, that's actually not a

[2:45:00] problem in that in that neighborhood.

[2:45:02] I think it deserves some discussion and

[2:45:04] some creative solutions. I don't think

[2:45:06] this is it,

[2:45:07] but I'll bet we could come up with one.

[2:45:09] I and I love the idea of trying

[2:45:11] something very surgical. Love the idea

[2:45:13] of hearing from the developers. Um I I

[2:45:16] just don't see moving forward with this.

[2:45:19] >> So for tonight

[2:45:20] >> I'm I'm happy to come back with the data

[2:45:21] that we have compiled over the the last

[2:45:23] several years. Hopefully the developers

[2:45:25] come with some data and some anecdotal

[2:45:27] information. Um we can come back with

[2:45:30] that tonight and for the night meeting.

[2:45:32] >> Yeah, we can

[2:45:33] >> I know I've taken a lot of

[2:45:34] >> Yeah, no, we definitely talk. We want to

[2:45:36] talk to the developers.

[2:45:37] >> Absolutely.

[2:45:38] >> another point of doing this surgically

[2:45:40] is that we don't want the reductions

[2:45:41] going to the planning commission

[2:45:42] anymore. So we want to So I would put in

[2:45:46] with

[2:45:47] Craig's just going to do substitute

[2:45:49] motion.

[2:45:50] >> Yeah.

[2:45:50] >> That um

[2:45:52] we repeal the

[2:45:54] Can you go back a thing, please, Kevin?

[2:45:58] >> More.

[2:45:59] Keep going.

[2:46:00] >> We just repeal 1437050

[2:46:03] and that we do not adopt these new the new

[2:46:06] >> Well, I there's there's subsections

[2:46:08] through there. Um so

[2:46:11] not maybe not the whole

[2:46:13] >> When you

[2:46:13] >> Yeah, so we want to delete the reduction

[2:46:16] and the off-street parking.

[2:46:17] >> Yeah, I was going to say

[2:46:18] clarifying just the same thing that

[2:46:19] Aaron's asked him to The motion is not

[2:46:22] just not go forward with the proposed

[2:46:24] changes, but to actually proactively

[2:46:26] repeal

[2:46:28] the reduction program that is in code

[2:46:31] right now. There is no reduction in

[2:46:33] >> we can surgically look at it and do

[2:46:35] special programs for these ones that

[2:46:36] were in question of and that we want to

[2:46:38] get developed.

[2:46:43] Yeah. Heavens.

[2:46:46] I sorry, I'm like pulling up the whole

[2:46:47] code to read it so I can see what it is

[2:46:49] that you're trying to change.

[2:46:52] >> Well, that's only

[2:46:52] >> No, there's dot dot dot.

[2:46:54] >> We've got it just got missing from that.

[2:46:55] That's what they're

[2:46:56] Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

[2:46:57] >> The The part of The part of this that

[2:46:59] I'm I think that I think that that makes

[2:47:02] sense. The part of this that I I'd like

[2:47:04] to understand the council's view a

[2:47:05] little bit better on is

[2:47:07] the

[2:47:09] parking in a unused lots item.

[2:47:12] >> I wanted I wanted to discuss that one

[2:47:13] out. I think we need to I I'm I'd love

[2:47:16] to do that.

[2:47:16] >> figure that out. Absolutely.

[2:47:18] >> We want to

[2:47:18] >> But this is going to take some time.

[2:47:20] It's not going to

[2:47:20] >> Yeah, yeah, I I get what you're saying.

[2:47:21] >> Because I think

[2:47:22] >> So we like that idea, but we just not

[2:47:24] fully comfortable with the

[2:47:25] implementation.

[2:47:26] >> Okay.

[2:47:27] >> I I I think it's the leasing thing and

[2:47:29] then not having it permanent thing that

[2:47:31] is

[2:47:32] what I'm gathering. Thanks.

[2:47:34] >> Yeah, it's like a vote right now on the

[2:47:36] owning thing. If they owned the two lots

[2:47:38] Right? And maybe

[2:47:39] >> As long as it was deed restricted.

[2:47:40] >> And maybe 15 years is enough.

[2:47:43] We I I I don't know.

[2:47:44] Um [clears throat]

[2:47:45] So um I think uh we're headed the I

[2:47:50] think we're headed the right direction.

[2:47:51] Um so well, I guess you I guess you had

[2:47:54] the substitute motion.

[2:47:55] >> Only one a second.

[2:47:56] >> And then can I can I just ask a simple

[2:47:58] like an

[2:47:59] So if we do remove this and the sort of

[2:48:01] the current what Brian said happens how

[2:48:04] would for example the Park Plaza

[2:48:06] developer if they want to come in and

[2:48:08] put something before the

[2:48:10] council, how would that process work?

[2:48:12] >> So

[2:48:13] I'm going to say the final word on it.

[2:48:15] >> Um

[2:48:17] Yeah, it it I'm trying to think through

[2:48:20] your your options cuz again, this kind

[2:48:23] of decision we and we've talked about

[2:48:24] this before. This kind of decision

[2:48:26] Well, let me back up. And now that Kevin's got this on the screen,

[2:48:29] I think I want to talk about this first.

[2:48:31] So

[2:48:32] this section governs um

[2:48:36] re- reduction in Austria This this is

[2:48:38] what's already in code already. Nothing

[2:48:41] to do with what's proposed.

[2:48:42] >> Yep.

[2:48:43] >> And it allows the planning commission to

[2:48:45] do parking reductions if there's a

[2:48:48] transportation demand demand management

[2:48:50] program and a parking count study. And

[2:48:52] then there's a bunch of sections

[2:48:54] down below here that talk about what

[2:48:56] needs to be in that study and and what

[2:48:59] the criteria for them

[2:49:02] uh planning commission granting one of

[2:49:05] those reductions are. The The proposal

[2:49:07] that you saw

[2:49:09] doesn't show you any of that. It's the

[2:49:11] proposal to add a new section to that

[2:49:13] creating an automatic reduction near the ITOD, right? So,

[2:49:18] the motion is to do two things. It's to

[2:49:21] not just not vote on the on the TOD,

[2:49:25] it's to delete the entire program that

[2:49:27] exists right now for the planning

[2:49:29] commission.

[2:49:30] So, if you delete it entirely, then

[2:49:33] there is no administrative methods for

[2:49:36] parking reductions at all. There's no

[2:49:38] the administ- the administrative side

[2:49:40] just can't do parking reductions.

[2:49:42] They're just in code and they're flat

[2:49:43] numbers.

[2:49:45] So, the methods for

[2:49:47] someone coming in and proposing to have

[2:49:50] a parking reduction would be

[2:49:52] somebody comes in with an ordinance text

[2:49:54] amendment proposing to somehow change

[2:49:57] the code so that

[2:49:59] but then that ordinance text amendment

[2:50:01] is going to apply to everybody else

[2:50:03] that's likely situated, so it's going to

[2:50:05] be broad brush.

[2:50:06] Uh you could

[2:50:08] do

[2:50:10] parking overlay zones where you create

[2:50:13] certain overlays that have certain

[2:50:16] Uh now this is a long-term solution.

[2:50:18] >> take this concept and make it an overlay

[2:50:20] zone?

[2:50:22] >> Uh

[2:50:24] yes. I mean, that you probably don't

[2:50:25] even

[2:50:26] it

[2:50:27] I would think my personal opinion is

[2:50:31] this concept is probably overblown for

[2:50:33] an overlay zone because this is delegation of authority from the

[2:50:39] council to the administration by giving

[2:50:42] them a whole bunch of criteria, right?

[2:50:45] >> Right.

[2:50:45] >> Application of an overlay zone doesn't

[2:50:47] need that many criteria because it's you

[2:50:49] deciding whether you're going to apply

[2:50:51] it or not, right? So, what you really

[2:50:52] end up doing is you say, "What are the

[2:50:55] parking ratios that we would be willing

[2:50:57] to consider?" And you create a different

[2:50:59] overlay for each

[2:51:01] ratio, and then people come in and ask

[2:51:04] for the overlay that you want. They want

[2:51:05] you to decide whether to do it or not.

[2:51:07] Again, I'm not advocating for that idea.

[2:51:08] I'm trying to

[2:51:09] >> You're just saying that's an option.

[2:51:09] >> I'm trying to brainstorm ideas.

[2:51:12] The other

[2:51:13] option would be through development

[2:51:15] agreements because you can, under state

[2:51:18] code,

[2:51:19] grant exceptions to code to zoning code

[2:51:22] through a development agreement if the

[2:51:25] development agreement is reviewed by the

[2:51:27] planning commission before it comes to

[2:51:28] the council.

[2:51:30] Um we have not historically done that

[2:51:32] very often.

[2:51:34] Uh right. I can only think of once,

[2:51:35] although we've got a couple coming up

[2:51:37] where we're

[2:51:38] >> We've been using them a lot lately, and

[2:51:40] they seem to be legally tighter and

[2:51:43] >> Yeah.

[2:51:43] >> more enforceable.

[2:51:44] >> That's what fixed the park plaza

[2:51:45] situation since that's got to be a zone

[2:51:47] change.

[2:51:48] >> The downside to that particular

[2:51:52] uh methodology is development agreements

[2:51:56] end

[2:51:57] when the

[2:51:59] >> Hold the overlay.

[2:51:59] >> when the certificate of occupancy is

[2:52:01] issued. So, they only govern how the

[2:52:04] property is constructed.

[2:52:05] >> Not how it's

[2:52:06] >> do anything after how it's managed

[2:52:08] afterwards unless we put something into

[2:52:10] the development agreement that somehow

[2:52:11] creates a deed restriction or CCNRs or I

[2:52:15] mean,

[2:52:16] it gets complicated, but there's

[2:52:18] those are the ideas that occur to me

[2:52:21] about how it

[2:52:22] >> So, Brian, and the current code has

[2:52:24] these TDM agreements. Do we know how

[2:52:27] many properties have TDM agreements?

[2:52:29] Because if we strip this whole thing, we

[2:52:31] lose the ability to enforce on

[2:52:33] violations of those.

[2:52:35] >> Yeah, that's an That's actually an

[2:52:38] interesting question.

[2:52:41] I would have to I would have I would

[2:52:42] want to actually take some time and read

[2:52:44] through this again cuz I think that you

[2:52:46] raise a valid concern that

[2:52:49] the idea of deleting it is so that new

[2:52:52] ones can't be entered into, but it might

[2:52:54] have an unintended consequence of

[2:52:56] undermining existing ones.

[2:52:59] >> Cuz this subsection two F says that, you

[2:53:03] know, where one of these agreement

[2:53:05] exists, if the owner fails to abide by

[2:53:07] it,

[2:53:08] then

[2:53:10] it's you you can get them on it, and the

[2:53:13] they no longer get to be part of the

[2:53:14] program, they no longer have the

[2:53:15] reduction, and they have to meet the

[2:53:17] parking requirements that were otherwise

[2:53:19] required at the time their project was

[2:53:21] approved. So, they would have to

[2:53:24] increase their parking, but we lose the

[2:53:26] ability to enforce that if we delete

[2:53:29] this entire section of code.

[2:53:30] >> so how do How if we did this? Uh

[2:53:33] this is We've got a lot more discussion

[2:53:35] on this.

[2:53:36] Here Here's the the thing I think that

[2:53:38] we could all agree on. We want to figure

[2:53:39] something out. Love the idea of maybe

[2:53:42] it's a pro zone approach, and maybe we

[2:53:43] take a we take a a specific section and

[2:53:46] say that's going to be our pro zone, and

[2:53:48] we figure out a way to make that work in

[2:53:50] a way that we don't risk uh it's not

[2:53:54] high risk at all, and it's very focused.

[2:53:57] Um let's work with some developers and

[2:53:58] see if we can get something done.

[2:54:01] And now I'm I'm not sure that

[2:54:04] I'm not sure what the motion is there

[2:54:06] um

[2:54:07] in terms of what we do with the current

[2:54:09] thing that's being proposed here.

[2:54:11] Well, um

[2:54:13] let me before I go on, let me just point

[2:54:15] out that I think Bill had a comment, so

[2:54:18] I don't want to lose that.

[2:54:18] >> Also, Travis says he has a comment.

[2:54:20] >> want to I don't want to lose that before

[2:54:22] we finish.

[2:54:23] Uh

[2:54:23] if

[2:54:25] based on

[2:54:26] I

[2:54:27] My My counsel would be even if you want

[2:54:31] to get rid of the current planning

[2:54:33] commission

[2:54:34] uh

[2:54:35] methodologies,

[2:54:36] I would still not act immediately. Give

[2:54:39] us some time to think about how we

[2:54:40] address the question that Rachel just

[2:54:42] raised.

[2:54:43] >> Yeah.

[2:54:43] >> And so in that instance, I think

[2:54:45] probably the right solution if if if

[2:54:48] your intent is we don't want to do this,

[2:54:51] but we want to do something, I think the

[2:54:52] motion is really simple. It's just a

[2:54:54] motion to table it indefinitely. And

[2:54:56] then you work on other solutions until

[2:54:58] something's ready to come back.

[2:55:00] >> I'm going to table it for tonight

[2:55:02] because we want to hear from the

[2:55:03] developers.

[2:55:03] >> Exactly. So there may be no motion

[2:55:05] necessary at this point in time. I was

[2:55:07] just going to say that. I wouldn't make

[2:55:08] that motion till after the evening

[2:55:09] meeting. Let's take check.

[2:55:11] >> Uh let me also Oh, wait. Let me just say

[2:55:13] that. Substantially the opportunities on

[2:55:15] question, Cody Hill says there's will be

[2:55:17] effective January 1st, 2027.

[2:55:21] >> When do we find out?

[2:55:24] >> That's a good question.

[2:55:25] >> That was before that. That's any of the

[2:55:27] above there.

[2:55:28] >> Let Let me also just interject that part

[2:55:30] of the making sure that it comes to the

[2:55:33] council is we need to learn about what

[2:55:35] works on this. I'm not suggesting that's

[2:55:37] a long-term strategy, but it would be

[2:55:40] really helpful to actually be involved

[2:55:41] in So if we do have that,

[2:55:44] how does it work? How do we enforce it?

[2:55:46] What Yeah.

[2:55:48] Anyway.

[2:55:51] And then we have Travis.

[2:55:52] >> Travis, do you have something else you

[2:55:53] want to say?

[2:55:56] >> No, cuz I'd say I do.

[2:55:58] Sorry.

[2:55:59] >> No.

[2:56:00] >> I don't

[2:56:00] >> Maybe I missed Maybe I missed it

[2:56:02] earlier. Sorry, my bad.

[2:56:04] >> Now, Travis, are you going to be on

[2:56:06] tonight?

[2:56:07] >> Yes.

[2:56:08] >> Okay. Awesome.

[2:56:11] All right. So

[2:56:13] >> Okay.

[2:56:14] >> Given that discussion, do you just want

[2:56:15] to withdraw the motion and just

[2:56:17] >> Yeah, I'll I'll withdraw I'll withdraw

[2:56:19] the motion. Cuz again, I think I think

[2:56:21] there's energy about let's get let's

[2:56:23] find something let's get it done. Let's

[2:56:25] do it in a way that we all feel

[2:56:26] comfortable with the risk involved.

[2:56:27] Yeah.

[2:56:30] » Right.

[2:56:31] Well, we went way over.

[2:56:33] >> Sorry. Sorry. Thank you.

[2:56:39] » Who didn't say one word?

[2:56:43] Okay, an ordinance rezoning property at

[2:56:45] 5450 North Canyon Road

[2:56:48] from A15CH and A11CPD

[2:56:52] and

[2:56:54] zones in the North Temple neighborhood.

[2:56:55] And Jessica, we can be Let's just see if

[2:56:57] we've seen this a lot.

[2:56:59] So, any questions for this one, guys?

[2:57:03] All right.

[2:57:04] Thanks, Jessica.

[2:57:07] >> I I should work.

[2:57:08] >> Okay, that's the best one.

[2:57:11] All right, do you guys need a break?

[2:57:13] >> No.

[2:57:14] >> Okay, let's just finish this one item. A

[2:57:16] discussion on picking up Standard,

[2:57:19] you've been very patient. Picking up

[2:57:20] required URS member contributions on

[2:57:22] behalf of Tier 2 public safety officers

[2:57:25] or firefighters.

[2:57:28] Presented by Daniel Softly. And just for

[2:57:30] staff in the future, anytime it's a

[2:57:31] parking discussion, give more than 15

[2:57:34] minutes.

[2:57:36] Always.

[2:57:37] >> [laughter]

[2:57:39] >> Yes.

[2:57:40] Uh

[2:57:40] >> Yeah, we've seen this before, too. Any

[2:57:42] questions on this one? Anything you want

[2:57:43] to tell us?

[2:57:44] >> Yeah, um uh just that the we have the

[2:57:47] last time we did this was in 2024.

[2:57:49] Uh the rates have gone up by 1.25%. The

[2:57:53] mayor has signed the document. Uh it's

[2:57:55] included in the budget. Um and so, what

[2:57:58] uh the state requires is just a

[2:58:01] some sort of formal statement um from

[2:58:03] the governing bodies.

[2:58:05] >> Oh, like a vote?

[2:58:06] >> Yeah, so So, the different This one is

[2:58:08] not actually intended for the evening

[2:58:09] meeting. This is on for you to make a

[2:58:11] motion supporting doing the pickup, and

[2:58:14] then we will give URS the minutes

[2:58:16] showing that the motion passed.

[2:58:18] >> Okay, got it. This is easy. All right.

[2:58:20] Um

[2:58:21] >> All right.

[2:58:22] I would make a motion that we support

[2:58:23] it.

[2:58:23] >> I second that.

[2:58:25] >> All right, great. Any discussion on the

[2:58:26] motion?

[2:58:28] All right, we'll do a vote on the

[2:58:29] motion. Council Garrett.

[2:58:31] >> Yes.

[2:58:31] >> Council Mckay, yes. Council Christensen.

[2:58:33] >> Yes.

[2:58:34] >> Council Whitlock.

[2:58:35] >> Yes.

[2:58:35] >> Council Bogden.

[2:58:36] >> Yes.

[2:58:36] >> Council Koban.

[2:58:38] >> Yes.

[2:58:39] >> And Council Wiffle.

[2:58:40] >> Yes.

[2:58:41] >> I I love So that passed a 7-0. I love

[2:58:44] that the last item was 25 minutes and we

[2:58:46] did it in like 30 seconds.

[2:58:48] >> Yeah.

[2:58:48] >> Okay, thanks Daniel.

[2:58:49] >> Scheduling everything after parliament.

[2:58:51] >> [laughter]

[2:58:52] >> Thank you.

[2:58:53] >> Thanks.

[2:58:55] All right, so we have a closed session,

[2:58:57] Brian.

[2:58:59] >> Yes, there are two items for the special

[2:59:02] closed session.

[2:59:03] One regarding character and competence

[2:59:04] of individuals and another one regarding

[2:59:07] potential sale of property. Both of

[2:59:09] those are approved reasons, so it would

[2:59:11] be appropriate to move to close the

[2:59:12] meeting.

[2:59:13] >> All right, I'll make a motion for closed

[2:59:14] meeting.

[2:59:15] >> I move that we close the meeting.

[2:59:16] >> Thank you. Second from Mayor

[2:59:18] Christensen.

[2:59:20] We will do a vote on the motion. Council

[2:59:23] Mckay, yes. Council Christensen.

[2:59:25] >> Yes.

[2:59:25] >> Council Whitlock.

[2:59:26] >> Yes.

[2:59:27] >> Council Bogden.

[2:59:28] >> Yes.

[2:59:28] >> Council Koban.

[2:59:29] >> Yes.

[2:59:30] >> Council Wiffle.

[2:59:31] >> Yes. And Council Garrett.

[2:59:33] >> Yes.

[2:59:33] >> That's 7-0. We will move to a closed

[2:59:35] motion. We will now recess the Provo

[2:59:37] Municipal Council work meeting and

[2:59:39] reconvene in a pre-function room for the

[2:59:41] closed meeting.

[2:59:42] >> Record

Provo City Council Work Meeting | June 23, 2026

Transcript