[0:10] Kevin

[0:11] >> almost

[0:12] started.

[0:14] >> Recording in progress.

[0:16] >> All right. We like to welcome everyone

[0:17] to the Provo Municipal Council work

[0:19] meeting. It is July 14th, 2026. It is

[0:22] 1:00 p.m. Do we have Gary on Zoom,

[0:25] Kevin?

[0:27] >> We not yet.

[0:28] >> Not yet.

[0:29] >> Okay. I really hope

[0:33] » more people in the back.

[0:39] » All right, we are we'll have a roll call

[0:41] of elected officials. We have councelor

[0:43] Jeff Whitlock. We have councelor Becky

[0:44] Fogden, myself, Katrice Mccay, we have

[0:46] councelor Rachel Whipple and um we

[0:50] expect others eminently.

[0:53] Um all this is a public meeting. Only

[0:54] the presenters and those invited by the

[0:56] council may speak as questions unless

[0:57] otherwise invited by the chair. Please

[0:59] wait to speak until called on by the

[1:00] council chair. When speaking, please be

[1:02] sure to use your microphone so the

[1:03] record is clear and those attending

[1:05] virtually can hear you. Please also be

[1:07] sure to limit side conversations as they

[1:08] interfere with the audio recording. And

[1:10] if you need to have side conversations,

[1:12] please set up step out of the work

[1:14] meeting. Is proposed that we approve the

[1:16] following minutes September 23rd, 2025

[1:19] council meeting and December 16th, 2025

[1:21] council meeting. May 26, 2026 council

[1:25] meeting and May 23rd,

[1:27] 2026 work meeting. Are there any

[1:29] objections or requesting changes?

[1:34] Seeing none, I will declare them as

[1:37] approved by unanimous consent.

[1:44] All right. Our first presentation is

[1:45] regarding the Mountainland Association

[1:47] of Governments or MAG as we always call

[1:49] it. So we are lucky to have like the

[1:51] three heavy hitters here today. We have

[1:52] Lenise Davenport, the NO director of

[1:54] MAG, Kevin Felt, the transportation

[1:56] planning manager, and Bob Allen, the

[1:58] transportation programming manager. Um,

[2:01] we had them come. I've been going to the

[2:02] NO meetings and they volunteered that

[2:07] they've been going to a lot of the

[2:08] council meetings. And so, one thing I

[2:10] realized when I started going to the NO

[2:11] meetings is that we just knew nothing

[2:12] about that. And whereas in our form of

[2:15] government, the council is over

[2:19] 100% the master transportation plan and

[2:22] the um the budget that um you know these

[2:25] are things that are good for us to be

[2:26] aware of and the coordination that we

[2:29] have with MAG as far as funding and the

[2:31] big projects that we could never do on

[2:33] our own. So um go ahead. We're starting

[2:38] with awesome. Thank you chair.

[2:42] Do you want me here or there?

[2:44] >> The podium is great.

[2:45] >> But if anyone stands up to comment while

[2:47] you're going, they'll use this one.

[2:49] >> Okay. Okay. [laughter] Thank you so

[2:50] much.

[2:52] >> All right. So, thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:54] As um noted, my name is Lenny

[2:56] Stavenport. I'm the no director for the

[2:58] Mountainland Association of Governments.

[3:01] Um we um provided a presentation that

[3:04] we'll run through, but importantly like

[3:07] um Chair McCay noted, we're really here

[3:11] to share the work that we do with you

[3:13] all in partnership with you um and

[3:16] invite you to to to ask questions and

[3:19] participate in the dialogue moving

[3:20] forward. We do have a chunk of time on

[3:22] the time on the agenda today. Um I don't

[3:25] know that we'll need all of that time

[3:26] unless we get into a heavy Q&A session.

[3:29] Um, but we do have a heart stop at 150.

[3:31] Just wanted to put that out um up front.

[3:33] So, let's see. So, I'll kick us off if

[3:36] we can go to the neck. Do you want me to

[3:37] do the Am I?

[3:38] >> You're good.

[3:39] >> Got it. Thank you, sir. All right.

[3:42] Before we get into the MO or the

[3:44] Metropolitan Planning Organization.

[3:46] We're going to start with what MAG is as

[3:48] an organization. So, um the Mountainland

[3:51] Association of Governments or MAG is one

[3:54] of Utah's seven association of

[3:56] governments. And really all that means

[3:58] is Utah is broken up into these regions

[4:01] that have regional organizations that

[4:04] represent regions. So for the MAG

[4:06] region, we represent Utah Summit and

[4:08] Wasach counties. Um we have a sister AOG

[4:12] and NO to the north of us, the Wasatch

[4:14] Front Regional Council. They represent

[4:16] five counties. And then you can see all

[4:18] 29 counties in the state of Utah are

[4:20] represented by these AOGs. We were

[4:22] created in the early 70s. Um, and you

[4:25] can see on here why we were created

[4:27] essentially to collaborate regionally.

[4:30] So, our biggest strength as an

[4:31] organization is working with all of the

[4:33] cities and counties within our region.

[4:35] Um, and working across jurisdictional

[4:38] boundaries. We also connect communities

[4:40] to resources. Um, that's a really

[4:42] important element of what we do.

[4:44] Essentially all of the programs that we

[4:46] administer, the the grants, the funding,

[4:49] the technical assistance, it is all um

[4:53] essentially meant to help local

[4:55] governments or assist local governments

[4:57] in some way. Um yes. Yes, please.

[5:01] >> Go ahead.

[5:02] >> So, sorry.

[5:02] >> So, this isn't that this isn't critical,

[5:04] but I was [clears throat] just curious

[5:06] what criteria did they utilize use to

[5:09] create these associations? you know,

[5:11] geographic, I would assume. Was it based

[5:13] on transportation corridors? Was it

[5:15] based on growing demographics? Just high

[5:18] level. How did they decide?

[5:20] >> They were created in the early 70s by

[5:22] the governor then. Um, and it was really

[5:24] based I see Bob wants to add to this,

[5:26] but hold on. And it was really based on

[5:28] um just working together. Um, but okay,

[5:30] Bob, go ahead. Yes. Actually, my

[5:33] understanding is if you look at the map

[5:35] and you think watersheds,

[5:37] that's a lot of what the AOGs were based

[5:39] off of in the beginning was water

[5:42] planning. And so, if you kind of think

[5:43] of the Pearl River watershed, that's how

[5:46] MAG got S County, Wasach County.

[5:50] >> If you think about um are you um cogs,

[5:55] is there do we have cogs? Is there a cog

[5:57] that represents? Okay. Some um counties

[6:02] have what they call councils of

[6:03] governments where they bring together

[6:06] all of the cities and sometimes school

[6:07] districts and other entities within

[6:10] their their county or multicounty region

[6:13] um as a way to basically create that conversation. And so they thought

[6:17] let's just take it to that even bigger

[6:19] level at the regional level and get

[6:20] people coordinating.

[6:23] >> Um but thank you for the question. I

[6:25] invite I invite lots more as we continue

[6:27] here. Um in terms of the work that we

[6:31] do, we are kind of divided into

[6:33] departments. We have an aging

[6:34] department. We used to have a community

[6:36] economic development department. A lot

[6:38] of that work has actually been um

[6:40] assumed within my department which is

[6:42] the planning for growth or the planning

[6:43] department. Um and we'll get into more

[6:45] about the work that we do within the

[6:47] planning department here in just a

[6:48] moment.

[6:50] So, oh well here and here we are the

[6:52] planning department. Okay. So, we're

[6:55] essentially a bunch of little mini

[6:57] organizations within the Mountainland

[6:59] Association of Governments organization

[7:00] as a whole. A lot of the work that we do

[7:03] is designated um by either the federal

[7:07] government or the state government and

[7:09] in some cases even local government. Um

[7:11] so for example as the Metropolitan

[7:13] Planning Organization or MOO we received

[7:16] the a federal designation from the US

[7:18] Department of Transportation um and the

[7:20] US DOT through FHWA, Federal Highway

[7:23] Administration and FTA, Federal Transit

[7:25] Administration help govern the work that

[7:27] we do in terms of the MO or or

[7:30] Metropolitan Organization planning which

[7:31] is essentially transportation planning.

[7:34] We're also we also administer a rural

[7:36] planning organization or RPO. That work

[7:39] is very similar to the work we do for

[7:41] Utah County through the NO, but it's for

[7:42] Summit and Wasatch counties with with no

[7:46] federal assistance and then also

[7:48] therefore no federal sort of guidelines

[7:50] that we have to fall within for Summit

[7:51] and Wasach counties. Our main product or

[7:54] deliverable that we create as an NO is

[7:57] the regional transportation plan. Our

[7:59] regional transportation plan is long

[8:02] range meaning we look to the future. We

[8:04] look to the year 2055. We consider all

[8:07] modes of transportation, road, active

[8:09] transportation and transit. Um and we

[8:11] phase it based on or or assume um a

[8:15] timeline of of transportation projects

[8:18] based on what we call fiscal constraint.

[8:20] So estimated funding sources. Um Kevin

[8:23] is going to talk more about the RTP when

[8:25] he comes up for his turn later in the

[8:28] presentation. The other major program

[8:30] that we administer is the transportation

[8:32] improvement program or the tip program.

[8:35] This is what Bob is going to talk about

[8:36] a little bit later in the presentation.

[8:38] And really what that means is okay, we as an organization, we look to the

[8:43] future. We put all of our future hats

[8:44] on. We're we're crossing jurisdictional

[8:46] boundaries, thinking regionally. These

[8:48] are the transportation needs. Those are

[8:50] identified in our plan. Then we say, how

[8:52] do we think can we fund the projects

[8:54] that are identified in the plan? We as

[8:56] an organization have a smallish funding

[8:59] pot to do that. That's the tip. So that

[9:01] can fund some smaller capital projects,

[9:04] regional capital projects within our you our county. We we

[9:09] administer a handful of other programs

[9:11] and we'll get into these later too and

[9:13] happy to talk through more of this, but

[9:16] um it's important for you to know that

[9:18] we administer a community development

[9:19] block grant program whose objective is

[9:21] to benefit low and moderate income

[9:23] communities. We administer a technical

[9:25] advisory grant, technical assistance to

[9:27] governments, excuse me, tag, technical

[9:29] assistance to governments program that

[9:32] implements uh transportation and land

[9:34] use visions, plans, and studies. Um we

[9:38] coordinate economic development

[9:39] regionally. Um and importantly, I'm

[9:42] going to finish with this one, the

[9:44] strategic vision bullet point here. Um a

[9:47] couple of years ago we worked with all

[9:49] of our member cities and counties

[9:51] including of course Provo City to

[9:53] identify um what should our region look

[9:56] like? What's our regional vision for the

[9:58] future? Not just transportation but

[10:00] transportation and some land use. So

[10:04] this is called the Wasatch Choice

[10:05] Vision. We have some handouts that just

[10:08] a little like a little pamphlet thing

[10:10] we'll hand out at the end of our

[10:11] presentation that has a QR code that you

[10:13] can scan and learn more about the

[10:15] Wasatch Choice Vision. But essentially

[10:17] we um

[10:20] we're growing we're growing very rapidly

[10:23] and um and we have a plan for our future

[10:26] and that plan is the Wasatch Choice

[10:28] Vision and that plan is the regional

[10:29] transportation plan and both of those

[10:31] have been created in partnership with

[10:33] you and and all of the other cities in

[10:34] Utah County.

[10:36] All right. So, so what exactly is an or

[10:40] metropolitan planning organization? Like

[10:42] I said, we're federally designated um

[10:44] and we're responsible for creating an

[10:46] RTP and administering a TIP. We're

[10:48] governed importantly by the local

[10:50] elected officials that make up um Utah

[10:53] County. So, every mayor, every mayor um

[10:57] within Utah County is on our board. Um

[11:00] we also have all three county

[11:01] commissioners as a member of our board.

[11:03] And importantly, because we're creating

[11:05] transportation plans um and and working

[11:09] towards implementing those plans, we

[11:11] have to have our transportation

[11:12] partners. So, UDOT, UTA, the Department

[11:15] of Air Quality as well as FHWA are also

[11:19] members of our board, the MO board. Um

[11:22] yes, please.

[11:24] >> The FHWA, that's the Federal Highway

[11:27] Administration. Yep. There's and there's

[11:29] the Federal Transit Administration, too.

[11:31] So it's really important that we are

[11:33] getting that those those that you know

[11:35] because they provide a lot of the

[11:37] funding that we do for the work that we

[11:38] do. So they set the parameters and then

[11:40] they want to make sure that they have

[11:42] you know a a regular check-in on how

[11:44] well we're we're meeting those those

[11:46] goals and objectives that we identify.

[11:49] Um, also importantly is the last bullet

[11:51] on this what we do list, which is all of

[11:55] the planners and engineers within the

[11:57] communities within Utah County are are

[11:59] part of what we call a technical

[12:00] advisory committee or a TAC. That TAC um

[12:04] they're the first persons that see the

[12:06] work that we do. We vet all of the work

[12:08] that we do through that TAC body and

[12:11] then the TAC um essentially it's like a

[12:13] planning commission to a city council.

[12:15] The TAC is like our planning commission.

[12:17] They vet it, they look at it, they

[12:18] review it, and they say, "Yes, we think

[12:20] this should go to the board, or it's

[12:22] maybe not ready to go to the board yet."

[12:24] Um, so that's our technical experts, our

[12:26] staff. Um, they're the TAC, and then

[12:29] they report to the governing body, which

[12:30] is the MO board.

[12:32] >> Yes.

[12:34] >> Give us an example.

[12:36] Is it like members from different cities

[12:37] like

[12:39] >> Yeah.

[12:40] >> works department?

[12:41] >> Yeah. So Vern Keiesler from Provo is is

[12:43] our is your representative on our TAC on

[12:46] our board. Um and then does um Gordon I

[12:50] think you've attended a few of our TAC

[12:51] meetings as well? We'd love to have

[12:53] Gordon. Gordon's amazing. Um Bob, are

[12:55] there any other folks that you can think

[12:57] of that have come that participate in

[12:59] the TAC from Provo?

[13:01] >> Not from Provo. Typically it's either

[13:03] like the city engineer or the public

[13:05] works director or the planning director,

[13:08] [clears throat] someone of that level.

[13:10] And for the last probably two years

[13:19] been very active

[13:22] too. [laughter]

[13:27] Well,

[13:28] what I'm kind of wondering to is from

[13:31] what I've heard

[13:34] the funding is allocated in a certain

[13:36] way where this and tell me if I'm wrong,

[13:40] this T team will go out and like look at

[13:43] all of these projects and then they'll

[13:45] come back and they'll say this one

[13:47] should be a high priority, this should

[13:49] be the next priority, this should be the

[13:50] next priority and then it's on.

[13:53] >> Do you Yeah. And basically that's the

[13:55] tip pri priorization process and

[13:58] essentially we'll get into this in a

[14:00] minute but

[14:00] >> and maybe high level yes there is a

[14:04] technical score that MAG staff looks at

[14:07] and then there is the technical advisory

[14:10] committee that's made up of all those

[14:12] folks and they score it and those two

[14:14] scores come together to become like

[14:17] 50/50 become one score and then

[14:20] important to know this it's a decision

[14:22] informing tool not a decision decision

[14:24] making tool, i.e. one through 25 isn't

[14:27] the final, it's the starting point.

[14:30] >> Yeah.

[14:30] >> Thank you.

[14:32] >> Excellent.

[14:33] All right. And with that, actually, my

[14:36] portion is done and I'll turn the time

[14:37] over to Kevin Phelp who's going to

[14:39] unpack the RTP for you even more and

[14:41] then I'll come back up later. Thanks.

[14:45] >> Thank you for having us today. This is a good a good opportunity for us

[14:48] to hopefully impart upon you what we do

[14:51] and how we can coord Yes. know the ear

[14:55] is now online and that we've had

[14:58] and pray join us.

[15:02] >> Thank you. [clears throat] So,

[15:06] like what Bob was saying, there's two things here. There's the

[15:09] regional transportation plan, which is

[15:11] the long-term view, and Bob's part is

[15:15] the transportation improvement program,

[15:17] which is the short-term view. And I'll

[15:18] kind of get to that in a little bit,

[15:20] too. So what we do in the regional

[15:22] transportation plan is we're looking at

[15:24] roads, transit, active transportation,

[15:27] all forms of mobility within the

[15:30] urbanized area of Utah County.

[15:33] What we're trying to do is ensure the

[15:34] safe and efficient movement of all

[15:37] mobility such that um goods and services

[15:41] and and other things can can get moved

[15:44] around.

[15:46] So when we develop this, we do it across

[15:48] all city boundaries. You guys develop

[15:50] your your local plans. We take that

[15:53] plan, incorporate it into ours and then

[15:56] incorporate ORMS and Spanish Fork and

[15:58] Salem and Eagle Mountain and all these

[16:01] other cities within the urbanized area.

[16:04] We compile those and then we start to

[16:06] look at the regionally significant

[16:08] projects. A lot of your plans are going

[16:10] to have local streets and things. We're

[16:13] looking at the regionally significant

[16:15] projects.

[16:16] um um roadway facilities for instance

[16:20] such as Center Street or State Street,

[16:23] I-15, the real big projects, big big

[16:26] roads. And on the transit side, we're

[16:29] looking at projects that are like UVX

[16:32] and Front Runner and those kind of

[16:34] things, the the more not the local bus

[16:36] that goes kind of everywhere. We're just

[16:39] looking at the regionally significant

[16:41] ones, ones that kind of really impact

[16:43] everybody.

[16:45] And then on the active transportation

[16:47] side, we're looking at those projects

[16:49] that connect to the Utah trail network

[16:50] primarily.

[16:52] Um, so again, we go across city

[16:55] boundaries. We look at all of the all of

[16:57] the different jurisdictions within the

[16:59] urbanized area of Utah County, which is

[17:00] pretty much all of Utah County. Um, we

[17:03] use a qualitative and a quantitative

[17:05] data analysis. Um, as Bob mentioned,

[17:08] what we'll do is we'll kind of gather

[17:10] all these plans. We will um uh then come

[17:16] up with some additional projects

[17:17] possibly and then we'll add look at

[17:20] those and kind of initially screen them.

[17:22] We'll come back and do a more technical

[17:24] analysis which is where the point we are

[17:26] right now and what we do there is we we

[17:30] score the projects. We have a long list

[17:32] of projects and what we'll do is then

[17:35] provide that information to the decision

[17:37] bodies first the technical advisory

[17:39] committee and then they'll make a

[17:41] recommendation to the MO board and then

[17:44] eventually we phase the projects which

[17:46] projects go in the first 10 years which

[17:48] projects go in the second 10 years and

[17:50] which projects go in the last 10 years.

[17:53] Then we have an additional category of

[17:55] projects that are called exploratory

[17:58] things that are just kind of being

[17:59] dreamed up and those kind of things.

[18:02] Um

[18:04] we looking at the long range needs not

[18:07] what's in the next four, five, six,

[18:09] seven years. We're looking at again

[18:11] things very very long term and we try to

[18:14] do that with the trends. You know if you

[18:16] if we had done this plan now before CO

[18:20] we do it every four years but in before

[18:23] CO we had a different travel behavior

[18:26] different trip making behavior um

[18:29] amongst our residents and things have

[18:32] changed you know we now have these

[18:33] technologies where people can join us

[18:35] online people can have remote meetings

[18:38] um we don't uh work a full week in the

[18:41] office we do some telecommuting those

[18:43] kind of things so things have changed So

[18:46] those trends are changing. The other

[18:47] trends that are changing are the amount

[18:49] of people that are moving into Utah

[18:51] County, the amount of jobs that are

[18:53] moving into Utah County. So we look at

[18:55] all those and we kind of try to project

[18:56] that out for 25 to 30 years or so.

[19:00] Again, updated every four years. And the

[19:03] one that we are currently doing that

[19:04] will be hopefully adopted next uh next

[19:08] July is the 2055 horizon year RTP.

[19:14] So what it is, it's again a unified

[19:16] transportation blueprint for Rita

[19:18] County. It's a plan that aides you in

[19:22] your your growth. Where are these

[19:24] facilities going to be and how do I plan

[19:26] my growth around them? Um approve

[19:29] regional improve regional mobility needs

[19:32] and really it also again as I mentioned

[19:35] we're using your plans to help become

[19:37] the foundation for our plan. um and

[19:40] projects financial needs and and funds.

[19:43] And that's really important from the

[19:44] standpoint of every project in our plan

[19:49] has to have enough money for it to be

[19:52] moved forward.

[19:54] So what we do is we look at a um all

[19:58] that list of projects. We find out how

[20:00] much each of them cost and then we look

[20:02] at how much revenue we anticipate over

[20:04] the first 10, the second 10 and the last

[20:06] 10 years. And we do not assign money to

[20:11] any particular project. We just know

[20:14] that we have $100 million to spend and

[20:17] we have $100 million worth of projects.

[20:20] So those become part of our plan.

[20:25] So we also don't

[20:27] allocate, like I said, we don't allocate

[20:29] monies. Yes.

[20:32] >> If you have a hundred million dollars of

[20:34] projects and you allocate 100, they're

[20:36] all funded, right? They are.

[20:38] >> What do you mean you don't do specific

[20:39] projects?

[20:42] >> There's a lot of No, there's a lot of

[20:43] different um funding sources. There's

[20:47] federal funding, there's state funding,

[20:49] there's some local funding that helps

[20:51] the state and federal funding as our

[20:52] matching.

[20:54] There's transit money, there's highway

[20:56] money, there's active transportation

[20:58] money. So, we add up all this money and

[21:00] we find out how much total we have and

[21:02] then we just go down and assign projects

[21:05] to be be able to be funded. It's almost

[21:07] like you have um you want to purchase a

[21:10] home and you've got um

[21:14] three or four different bank accounts or

[21:16] three or four different

[21:19] [snorts]

[21:19] funding sources for yourself. and you

[21:22] don't know which funding source you're

[21:23] going to use to buy that house yet, but

[21:25] you know you have enough money amongst

[21:26] those three or four sources to buy the

[21:28] house. That kind of that kind of an

[21:30] idea. [clears throat]

[21:32] >> Can I add something?

[21:35] >> I think it's it's important to note that

[21:37] within each of those phases, we have a

[21:40] needs list and we have a fiscally

[21:42] constrained list. So, we certainly do

[21:46] not have enough money for all of the

[21:48] projects that we've identified in each

[21:49] of the phases of the RTP. Um, and so

[21:52] therefore, we know it's a need. We know

[21:54] it's a need, you know, when it's needed,

[21:56] we but we just don't have enough money.

[21:58] So, there's a couple of different types

[22:00] of of projects when it comes.

[22:02] >> Yeah, I was that's my next part is that

[22:04] so we have the $100 million in the first

[22:06] phase. We have a list of 10 projects,

[22:08] let's say, but we also have a need for

[22:11] another five projects. those five

[22:14] projects in the first phase that are

[22:15] needed end up in the second phase that

[22:18] could be funded. And so we kind of go

[22:21] through the process that way.

[22:26] » So I've heard

[22:32] former

[22:34] directors that I've heard you get

[22:36] through the first phase first before you

[22:39] start thinking about the second phase.

[22:40] Is that true?

[22:41] >> Yes. So we again we we look at revenues.

[22:44] What revenues do we anticipate between

[22:46] 2027 and 2037

[22:50] when this will be adopted? And when we

[22:52] say let's say again $100 million. And we

[22:55] know from 2037 to 2047 we're going to

[23:00] have $150 million. But we know that in

[23:04] the first phase, even though we only

[23:06] have $100 million available, we may have

[23:09] $125 million of need.

[23:13] >> So that other $25 million worth of

[23:16] projects gets moved to the second phase,

[23:17] which then becomes part of that 150

[23:19] million that we have available.

[23:23] Does that make sense? taking that off.

[23:26] >> Becky,

[23:30] » I think Becky's als

[23:32] one one project, right?

[23:35] >> Well, okay. Yeah.

[23:37] >> Well, but it could be like for instance,

[23:38] we've got this project in our plan for

[23:41] crossing Utah Lake. That is going to

[23:44] take up most if not all of the money in

[23:46] one phase. So, it might have to be and

[23:49] it's going to be a long project. So you

[23:51] would have to phase that project out as

[23:52] you're saying phase one in the first 10

[23:55] years phase two and

[23:56] >> yes and another similar type situation

[23:59] would be um the central corridor transit

[24:03] um corridor where we might start in

[24:06] phase one just funding an enhanced bus

[24:09] service and then in phase two we might

[24:12] fund a BRT type service and finally in

[24:15] phase three we would fund a light rail

[24:17] service in that same corridor. So, we

[24:19] kind of step into it, if you will, or

[24:21] some projects. Um, and again, the Lake

[24:24] Crossing might be a good example in that

[24:25] initially we put it in as a four-lane

[24:27] roadway, but we know that eventually 15

[24:31] years from now, we're going to need six

[24:33] lanes. So, we just put it in the first

[24:36] part as a four lane, find the pull, the

[24:39] additional two lanes later on. Kind of

[24:41] an idea. [snorts]

[24:42] But just to get back to the needs, that

[24:46] first phase, that first 10 years, those

[24:49] are the critical needs. Even though you

[24:51] might have needs that are five in the

[24:54] next 10 years, which will be 20 years

[24:55] out,

[24:56] >> but you try to work through those first

[24:59] >> 10 years before you start hitting those

[25:01] other years. But if you don't get

[25:03] through all of them, then that gets

[25:05] regrouped down to in the in the 20-year

[25:07] phase,

[25:08] >> right? And again, we do this every four

[25:09] years. So some projects that might be in

[25:11] the second phase this time around

[25:13] >> might move to the first phase the next

[25:15] time

[25:15] >> or might get pushed now

[25:16] >> or might be moved to the third phase if

[25:18] they're not as big a priority anymore.

[25:20] >> Gotcha. And that's all determined by the

[25:22] scoring system. The rubric that's

[25:24] >> well it's determined by the scoring

[25:26] system as far as how we rank them. When

[25:28] it comes to actually putting them in a

[25:30] phase there's a whole another analysis

[25:32] that becomes a little more

[25:35] subjective maybe a better way to put it.

[25:38] Um, sometimes like Bob mentioned, um, a

[25:41] project might be ranking number 10 on

[25:44] the on the on the on the ranking list,

[25:47] but it might be a much more needed

[25:49] project politically and it gets moved up

[25:52] a little bit maybe.

[25:54] >> Thanks.

[25:54] >> So, does that part then is that more

[25:56] done by the no board or that that

[25:58] they're doing on votes?

[26:00] >> Yes.

[26:05] Councelor Whitlock,

[26:06] >> one question I have is

[26:09] how there's this [clears throat] the

[26:11] unified Utah's unified transportation

[26:13] plan.

[26:14] >> How does that compare to our specific

[26:17] RTP for MA?

[26:18] >> So RTP becomes an input into that into

[26:21] that unified transportation plan and all

[26:23] the other NPOS as well. Their their

[26:26] plans like we're doing get put in as

[26:28] input and then the regional plans get

[26:30] put in as input. Then the state kind of

[26:32] goes down that list.

[26:33] >> And then when there's discrepancies, why

[26:35] do those typically happen?

[26:38] >> Discrepancies.

[26:39] >> Well, for example, I think in in the

[26:42] current Utah unified transportation

[26:44] plan, there's like three potential lake

[26:46] crossing versus in ours, there's just

[26:48] one. I'm just curious like how those

[26:50] >> TBA

[26:51] >> that particular project in general, the the different ones are um

[26:56] possibilities. We've got one that's

[26:59] showing the

[27:01] >> um

[27:02] >> center street provo ones.

[27:04] >> Yeah, we're trying to cost it out. So,

[27:05] we'll just cost one of them out and then

[27:07] the other two are still possibilities.

[27:09] >> Got it.

[27:09] >> The other thing to um think about with

[27:13] all this is some of the work we do gets

[27:16] ahead of some other more detailed work.

[27:19] For instance, on that particular lake

[27:21] crossing you're referring to,

[27:23] um, UD do is currently doing what's

[27:25] called a planning environmental linkage

[27:27] study. We call it a PEL. And that PEL is

[27:31] a precursor to a national environmental

[27:34] policy act, a NEPA project. And what

[27:36] that PEL is trying to do is they're

[27:38] trying to identify an alignment or

[27:41] alignments that serve the northwest part

[27:44] of Utah County and the northern part of

[27:47] Utah County. How do they get from Eagle

[27:50] Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Fairfield

[27:53] over to I-15 for instance? And then once

[27:57] our plan will be done before that is so

[28:00] we're going to put in what we think is

[28:02] the right answer and then couple years

[28:05] from now when they finish that project,

[28:08] they may come up with a different

[28:09] solution that's more because we're

[28:11] looking at a lot more detail than we

[28:12] will. So we we would then amend our plan

[28:15] to put that new alignment in if that's

[28:18] what happens.

[28:20] I think the important thing here on this

[28:21] slide really is this bottom part here

[28:24] and that any project that receives

[28:25] federal or state funding has to be in

[28:28] our plan.

[28:31] Not worried about the local funding.

[28:33] can help as far as

[28:35] matching the federal and state funding.

[28:37] But anytime they receive federal and

[28:40] state funding, particularly state roads,

[28:41] federal roads, those kind of things,

[28:43] that has to be in our plan for it to

[28:45] receive that type of funding.

[28:50] And I'll just touch on this real

[28:51] quickly. What we're doing right now is

[28:54] we kind of talked about some of the

[28:55] process already is we're going through

[28:57] the project measures and kind of how we

[29:00] weight these projects against all the

[29:01] goals that we have. Um, in September,

[29:05] the TAC and board will receive

[29:08] information and adopt a final ranking

[29:10] list, not a phasing list, but a ranking

[29:13] list. And then we'll start our initial

[29:16] phasing process in October. And the

[29:19] final project phasing and draft regional

[29:21] transportation plan will be done in

[29:23] November.

[29:24] The spacing part is a really really

[29:27] important [clears throat] part of this

[29:28] whole process because even though the

[29:30] projects may be ranked one to 100, they

[29:33] get kind of maybe jumbled up a little

[29:34] bit in the project phase and what

[29:36] becomes more of a need from a from a

[29:40] subjective standpoint.

[29:42] Then in u January, we'll receive the uh

[29:46] approval to go ahead and do what we call

[29:48] our air quality uh uh

[29:53] public involvement process in February.

[29:56] And then in March, we'll take anything

[29:59] that the legislature provides to us um

[30:02] with any output from the uh February

[30:05] public involvement process, readjust the

[30:08] plan a little bit, take it back to the

[30:10] TAC and board and then in um April and

[30:14] May that the board will have their final

[30:16] opportunities to to adjust things and in

[30:18] June hopefully hopefully adopt it. But

[30:21] the real the real big thing is this this ranking piece comes from technical

[30:26] analysis. This phasing piece comes from

[30:29] more of a community input analysis, if

[30:32] you will.

[30:33] >> Yes.

[30:35] >> So um

[30:38] our master transportation plan informs

[30:41] your RTP.

[30:42] >> Yes.

[30:44] And then there's the input of

[30:47] your board, the MO board. That

[30:51] is the final approval process or Yes.

[30:54] input process.

[30:55] >> Yes.

[30:58] >> Yeah. Now, the part we take from your

[31:00] local plan is just the region

[31:02] significant roadways,

[31:03] >> right?

[31:04] >> We're not worried about

[31:06] um

[31:07] >> south.

[31:08] >> Yeah. those kind of things or First

[31:10] North or something like that that those

[31:12] improvements those are completely local

[31:14] goal. Those are not ones that we're

[31:15] going to um put into our plan.

[31:17] >> I was going to say third

[31:21] example

[31:22] >> I'm not familiar enough but

[31:25] >> north

[31:28] worried about unless you want

[31:30] >> tell my district you don't care about we

[31:32] care but we're not going to dictate

[31:34] anything. Well, if you want to

[31:35] federalize it, [laughter]

[31:37] I mean, and then there's a whole another ball of string that goes

[31:40] with the the federal project. So, we try

[31:42] to unfederalize things as much as we

[31:44] can.

[31:46] >> Um, yeah, I was just going to say it

[31:48] sounds like 99% of the roads and

[31:50] transportation

[31:52] corridors and such you don't in Provo,

[31:54] you don't really aren't really concerned

[31:55] with, right? Um, can you, and I'm

[31:58] putting you on the spot here, can you

[31:59] list your top three or four that we

[32:02] really need to make sure that our

[32:04] transportation master plan aligns well

[32:06] with? Is there are there things that

[32:08] you're looking at right now and saying,

[32:09] "Hey, Provo, make sure you get this

[32:10] right because this is really important

[32:12] to us or

[32:13] >> um, yes, there are a couple. Uh,

[32:16] primarily I-15 for instance, but that

[32:18] really isn't going to fall in your your

[32:19] plan per se. But we do have a corridor,

[32:22] a lake view corridor that comes off of

[32:25] the Geneva Road area and comes down past

[32:28] the airport and crosses Provo Bay and

[32:31] goes towards Spanish Fork. Something

[32:32] like that. We would want to have

[32:34] >> um a lot of what we would be most

[32:36] concerned about or find most helpful are

[32:39] those local roadways that connect to

[32:41] these regional roadways. How can we

[32:44] better improve access to the regional

[32:46] roadways? How can we better improve

[32:48] dispersion from the regional roadways?

[32:50] Those types of things.

[32:56] » And another question I have

[32:58] >> under your uh project measures weight

[33:01] ranking. What are some examples of the

[33:04] types of weights you put on criteria

[33:07] analysis you do?

[33:08] >> Yeah, so we've got a a list of we have

[33:10] five goals and then there are um

[33:14] probably 15 or so

[33:17] um criteria that we're measuring these

[33:19] goals on. Some of them include um does

[33:23] the facility go through a high growth

[33:24] area. Does it connect to some of the

[33:26] Waset's choice vision centers that would

[33:29] be in Provo for instance? Um on the

[33:32] transit side might be something like um

[33:35] amount of population within a quarter

[33:37] mile of of the transit service within

[33:40] walking distance in other words. So a

[33:42] lot of those types of things.

[33:44] So, we're just going through that

[33:46] process, getting that finished right

[33:47] now. And then the weights, we're going

[33:50] to weight each goal. And I don't have

[33:53] them off memorized off the top of my

[33:54] head, but it's like access to

[33:56] opportunities, safety, air quality, some

[33:59] of those kind of things.

[34:00] >> Are those published now or they're

[34:02] you're working on themselves?

[34:03] >> The goals are published now. Yes. And

[34:06] one of the things we'll be asking the

[34:07] technical advisory committee, the board

[34:10] in August is, okay, here's the project

[34:14] rankings with a static 25% or 20% for

[34:17] each of the five goals.

[34:20] Well, it's not the goals are al also

[34:25] applied by mode. So, you're not ranking

[34:27] a transit project against a roadway

[34:29] project or an active transportation

[34:31] project against a roadway project

[34:33] because it would just fail every time.

[34:35] So what we're doing is we're taking each

[34:37] mode roadways, transit, and active

[34:41] transportation, and ranking the project

[34:43] separately, scoring them against each

[34:45] other.

[34:46] >> Are those three modes?

[34:48] >> The three primary

[34:50] >> like do trails fall in active transit?

[34:53] >> Yes. And the active transportation is

[34:55] sort of a catch-all for like the

[34:56] scooters and bicycles and walking and

[34:59] all kinds of things that aren't

[35:00] motorized basically, right? Um

[35:04] so then what we'll do is we'll take this

[35:06] static

[35:08] percentage of a weight and then ask the

[35:10] TAC and the board to say well gee you

[35:13] know we act we value safety more than we

[35:16] value access to opportunities or we

[35:19] value air quality more than we value

[35:21] safety or whatever that the the decision

[35:23] is. And so those rankings may change to

[35:27] 40% in 20 2020 20 or something like

[35:30] that. But the idea is that there's this

[35:33] opportunity to adjust the waiting which

[35:37] will then adjust the priority somehow

[35:39] that it'll affect, you know, one project

[35:42] might do better if it's weighted higher

[35:43] on safety and lower on access or

[35:45] something.

[35:46] >> Thank you.

[35:50] » All right, any other questions? All

[35:53] right, I'll let Bob talk about the real

[35:55] good stuff. The real good stuff. Um,

[36:00] I'm going to talk about the tip really

[36:01] quick, but I want to step back. Um,

[36:05] council member, you asked about FHWA,

[36:08] and I think it's really important that

[36:09] we highlight AFHWA, because the Federal

[36:13] Highway Administration, basically,

[36:15] they're the ones that tell us how to put

[36:17] together an RTP, our regional

[36:19] transportation plan, and how we need to

[36:21] put together the tip, right? And so

[36:24] they're kind of not our bosses, but

[36:25] they're they're the cops that say, "This

[36:27] is the law. This is what you're going to

[36:29] do." So when we talk about strange

[36:31] things like fiscal constraint or air

[36:34] quality conformity, those are all rules

[36:36] that are given to us by the federal

[36:38] government that we have to follow in

[36:40] developing our processes.

[36:42] And I bring that up because it's really

[36:45] important. We talked about funding and

[36:47] fiscal constraint. And it's really

[36:49] important when we talk about the RTP,

[36:52] we're not really talking about real

[36:54] money when it comes to fiscal

[36:55] constraint. Fiscal constraint is

[36:58] essentially an air quality um exercise

[37:02] that we're told we have to do to make

[37:04] sure that all the things that we do

[37:07] we're still going to have decent air

[37:08] quality and we can afford

[37:12] in in the next 20 30 years we can afford

[37:15] to do those things that will ensure we

[37:17] have air quality but there's when a plan

[37:20] is in we you could say funded or

[37:22] fiscally constrained in the RTP that

[37:25] does not mean there is any real money

[37:27] assigned to it. Okay? Just like your

[37:30] general plan is kind of a hey, this is

[37:33] who we're going to be in the future and

[37:34] these are some guidelines that we want

[37:36] to follow. There's no real money

[37:38] allocated through the plan. But you also

[37:42] have probably Gordon a public facilities

[37:44] plan or capital facilities plan, right?

[37:47] And that's just like 5 years out into

[37:49] the future. And that's where you really

[37:51] are saying in 2027 we have $10 million

[37:54] and we're going to build a new sewer

[37:56] plant or whatever the case may be.

[37:58] That's what the tip is. So the tip is

[38:01] our capital facilities plan. What are we

[38:04] going to do in the next five to six

[38:06] years and what real money are we going

[38:09] to build? What projects are we going to

[38:11] build with what? It's federalally

[38:13] required. Um we and this is basically

[38:17] the implementation

[38:19] arm of the RTP. This is how we implement

[38:22] it. It lists all regionally significant.

[38:24] Yes, ma'am.

[38:25] >> Okay. So really quickly, so that does

[38:27] that mean

[38:29] the tip comes from the RTP and that is

[38:31] what triggers the actual job?

[38:33] >> Exactly. Exactly. If you thought how

[38:36] does a idea become a project? The very

[38:40] high level step is a problem is

[38:42] recognized or projected into the future.

[38:45] We go through the RTP process to

[38:47] identify okay what's the problem? What's

[38:50] the right solution for it? Let's get it

[38:53] in the adopted in the RTP. It becomes

[38:55] fiscally constrained phase one and then

[38:58] it goes to the tip process or the

[39:01] implementation.

[39:02] >> This is the equivalent of RCIP.

[39:04] >> Yes. Yes. Exactly. Um, it lists all

[39:07] regionally significant projects for all

[39:10] transportation modes. It's not just MAG

[39:11] funded projects. It's UDOT funded

[39:14] projects, UTA funded projects. So, if

[39:16] you looked at our tip right now, it

[39:19] shows $3.6

[39:21] billion worth of projects that will be

[39:24] funded in Utah County over between now

[39:25] and 2031.

[39:27] >> Wow. of that only

[39:31] 500 million of that is actual MAG um

[39:35] money.

[39:36] >> Most of it is big U dot facilities. And

[39:40] so you kind of have to separate when a

[39:41] project is in the RTP and it wants to

[39:43] become a funded actual rated to dig up

[39:46] and build things. There's kind of two

[39:49] ways to go at it. There's the UD do

[39:51] process where it's the big stuff, the

[39:54] freeways, the the interchanges,

[39:57] the state streets, those big things. MAD

[39:59] can't afford those things cuz we just

[40:02] don't have enough revenue. U DOT and the

[40:04] transportation commission funds those.

[40:06] They go through a process that we won't

[40:08] go into right now, but I'm happy to

[40:10] unpack it with you at any time. And then

[40:12] there's the MAG process where we have

[40:13] very small budget that we try and phase

[40:16] and implement as much as we can. Um that

[40:19] was how we funded the two stages of the

[40:22] airport that MAG's funding the new

[40:24] bridge on 820 north you know yada yada a lot of those kinds of projects

[40:28] are funded that way um we identify a

[40:31] funding sources and we have to do fiscal

[40:33] constraint we have to show because these

[40:35] are all projections so we have to show

[40:37] the federal government we say we're

[40:39] going to spend a hundred we're going to

[40:42] spend $120 million in the next we're in

[40:47] 27 and 28 we have to show that that's

[40:49] reasonable. Um, next four to five years

[40:52] encompasses all that. We update it

[40:54] annually, but MAG only selects projects

[40:57] every two years. Um, and then I'm I'm I

[41:02] know we're running out of time, but I

[41:05] want to leave time for question answers.

[41:07] This is essentially what I just told you

[41:10] about how idea becomes a project. We

[41:13] find a problem or a need, we develop it

[41:16] and put it in the RTP and then it splits

[41:19] into those two processes of what's the

[41:22] right way to fund the project.

[41:24] Um, and with that, this is was our

[41:27] schedule. We're basically at the end of

[41:29] our schedule, but I think before we move

[41:32] on, we know that there are some specific

[41:35] projects maybe you wanted to talk a

[41:36] little bit about like 820 North or some

[41:38] of those others. Now's probably the time

[41:41] just so we don't overstay our welcome.

[41:43] >> One thing I think I just gathered that

[41:45] so we were supposed to do an expansion

[41:46] of 800 between Freedom and State Street.

[41:51] >> State Street. Okay. Yeah.

[41:52] >> So that was lined up and um we already

[41:55] own the easements and the hospitals on

[41:57] board

[41:58] >> and that's just a it's kind of what you

[42:00] referred to that's a huge um

[42:01] interconnector between two major things.

[42:03] >> That is a regionally significant road.

[42:05] >> Yeah. And um so it didn't happen in

[42:08] January like we anticipated.

[42:10] >> Um and so you said two years. Does that

[42:15] mean our next chance to get that project

[42:16] done is the beginning of 2028?

[42:19] >> Essentially we will start the next

[42:22] selection cycle. Our cycle takes it's

[42:25] every two years. It takes about 8 months

[42:27] to go through all the steps. So,

[42:30] beginning in the winter of 20, late 2027

[42:34] is when we'll kick it off. We'll start

[42:36] saying, "Hey, everybody, bring us your

[42:38] ideas."

[42:39] >> And we will finalize that process and

[42:41] say, "These are the projects that are

[42:42] going to be funded in August of 2028."

[42:46] >> Now, something important to point out

[42:49] >> that is going to fund projects that will

[42:51] be built in 2031 and 2032,

[42:54] >> right? It's not like that.

[42:56] >> Yes. Okay. Perfect. And on that note,

[42:58] like so the mayor is the our

[43:02] representative on the NO. So if she

[43:05] hasn't put that forward, can someone

[43:06] else put that forward

[43:07] >> on the MO? It's

[43:09] >> like can a can a county commissioner put

[43:11] it forward? Can a

[43:12] >> Well, the county the county certainly um

[43:15] they submit projects as well. We

[43:17] actually had Provo City the Provo bike

[43:21] collective years ago requested a

[43:23] project. it was kind of understood that

[43:25] Provo supported that. Um, that is

[43:29] getting into the fine splitting hairs

[43:31] that I'm not necessarily ready to say

[43:34] could you submit it versus if the mayor

[43:37] didn't

[43:37] >> I think somebody on the board like a

[43:39] county commissioner,

[43:40] >> a county commissioner certainly. Um, I

[43:42] would there would certainly need to be

[43:45] some

[43:47] understanding between the county that's

[43:49] submitting it and the city so to speak.

[43:51] I don't we would hope that that gets

[43:53] figured out beforehand, but I guess

[43:55] technically that is possible. Yes,

[43:59] good question. Any do we want to talk

[44:02] specific projects? I tell me what you

[44:04] want to how can I answer? What can I

[44:06] answer?

[44:06] >> One thing you mentioned the freeway as

[44:08] being a big thing but not involving you.

[44:11] But doesn't that

[44:12] >> it does all it does involve us heavily

[44:14] >> does and that's part of I mean like I

[44:16] believe we have a freeway entrance on

[44:18] our master transportation plan

[44:20] >> on A20 or where

[44:23] >> I think it is

[44:26] >> but just the idea that it's it's it's

[44:28] there like as something in the future. I

[44:30] don't even know if you specified the

[44:30] exact spot, but

[44:32] >> so we so if we're talking about I-15,

[44:36] um there in our current plan right now,

[44:39] we show that I-15 is our unfortunately

[44:43] there's too many eggs in I-15 and there

[44:46] are improvements that are identified

[44:48] that need to take place on I-15 in the

[44:50] next 30 years. We're still working with

[44:53] UDOT to figure out exactly what that

[44:55] looks like. Is that a collector

[44:56] distributor system? Blah blah blah. lots

[44:58] of different things. We're kind of to

[45:00] the point where we can't really just add

[45:02] more lanes because there's a certain

[45:05] point with a free a road where past I

[45:08] think it's seven lanes the more if you

[45:10] add another lane it actually reduces.

[45:13] >> Yeah.

[45:13] >> And so we can't do that. But it would be

[45:15] things on the sides of the freeway to

[45:17] help the freeway function because really

[45:20] friction people getting on and off

[45:22] creates friction and that's what slows

[45:23] down.

[45:24] >> Kind of like you did the whole 215

[45:25] thing.

[45:26] >> Exactly. or say um Lehigh Technology

[45:30] Corridor where you have oneway frontage

[45:32] roads on each side or you could look at

[45:34] Salt Lake where there's the collector

[45:36] distributor if you're getting off on

[45:38] 21st or 9th 7th whatever those three are

[45:43] you get off once and then you don't

[45:44] touch the freeway till you go all

[45:45] through that back on

[45:47] >> things like that

[45:48] >> there are certain solutions that need to

[45:50] be made also currently in the RTP is

[45:53] identified a future interchange in that

[45:57] 800 820ish north area that's been in the

[46:00] plan for some time. And there also is a

[46:03] widening project on 820 north. Um I

[46:06] believe that is in your RTP in your

[46:09] transportation plan. Um and we've taken

[46:12] that for years, looked at it, says there

[46:15] are certain certainly things that that

[46:18] makes sense. We make sense enough that

[46:20] we put it in our plan. Um, and we will

[46:24] continue to through this process look at

[46:28] it and analyze it to make sure it makes

[46:30] sense to go through the prioritization

[46:32] process, etc., etc. Does that mean it

[46:35] automatically gets in? No. There's

[46:37] certainly a process to that. Um, and

[46:40] essentially, I mean, just from past

[46:43] experience and looking at past numbers,

[46:45] it really comes down to Center Street

[46:48] and the Parkway is why that specific

[46:51] project it would need to be needed.

[46:54] You're you house the two largest

[46:57] employers in the entire county, the

[46:59] hospital and BYU, and you can see

[47:02] through the modeling that that's where

[47:04] people want to go, whether A20 is there

[47:06] or not. And so it's it kind of it's not

[47:11] a silver bullet, but it's certainly a

[47:13] helpful project from looking at a very

[47:16] high level.

[47:17] It's impactful. There's no doubt. Um but

[47:22] >> yeah, we have over 10,000 employees just

[47:24] with those two.

[47:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I think just off the back

[47:29] of my memory, we were looking at a

[47:31] little bit of modeling today. Um uh if

[47:35] and I can just instead of bringing up

[47:36] the link, I can just tell you if we

[47:38] didn't do 820 North University or Center

[47:41] Street would probably add around 15,000

[47:44] trips a day. It's from more than what it

[47:46] is today. 15,000 trips a day is a lot.

[47:49] It was basically going from 41,000

[47:52] to

[47:54] well I think it was 44,000 or something

[47:57] like that right now today up to almost

[47:59] 60,000 trips a day. a terrible road for

[48:02] >> on what on what time frame?

[48:04] >> Um that was just out to 2055,

[48:07] >> but the thing is is you're kind of it's

[48:11] a phase one project, meaning it's one

[48:13] that we see is needed in the next 10ish

[48:16] years. So, it's it's kind of one of

[48:19] those needs to be happening sooner

[48:21] rather than later. Um, but again, we

[48:25] work for y'all and that's, you know,

[48:28] we're we're here to give you the

[48:29] technical information and our board will

[48:32] make those decisions. I know we're

[48:33] running out of time, so I just wanted to

[48:35] >> questions. I had some general questions,

[48:38] but if people wanted to ask

[48:40] >> and can I I will also happily offer and

[48:44] Lenise will throw a rock at me if I'm

[48:45] saying something wrong. We are always

[48:48] available if we don't have time. Hit us

[48:50] up. We'll sit down and talk with you,

[48:53] have a conversation, meeting, whatever

[48:54] you'd like.

[48:56] >> I'm just gonna let me add to that. Um, I

[48:58] brought some cards. We can hand out, we

[49:00] can leave these with you. We brought

[49:01] some uh information about UFI's

[49:03] transportation plan, which you brought

[49:04] up earlier. So, please take a look at

[49:06] that. It has all of the FPO regional

[49:08] transportation plans in it and then a

[49:10] little thing about the Wasach's vision.

[49:11] But, we do have like a minute or so.

[49:14] Well, I I mean I do it was import I

[49:16] really wanted the council to understand

[49:17] what you guys do and that they can be

[49:20] informed about these things and what's

[49:21] happening and how it's so I mean it's a

[49:24] big deal to our city and we are over the

[49:26] master transportation plan in the city

[49:29] and I guess we just wanted to make sure

[49:30] that that you knew that we back the

[49:33] master transportation plan and we don't

[49:34] have plans to change it and

[49:37] >> we want you to know that

[49:40] >> yeah duly noted duly noted and and Maybe

[49:44] just in closing from Mac's perspective,

[49:47] we love working with Provo. We have

[49:48] great working relationship with the

[49:50] city, with the mayor, with this body.

[49:53] We're happy again any any time anytime

[49:57] you have a question, reach out to us.

[49:59] Vern is a wealth of knowledge. You know

[50:02] that we we love working with him and we

[50:04] can coordinate and get you the

[50:06] information you need.

[50:07] >> Okay. Gary Garrett, he is traveling. He

[50:09] is on Zoom. He has a question.

[50:12] >> Okay.

[50:15] Go ahead.

[50:16] >> Go ahead, Gary.

[50:27] » Are you muted, Gary? We can't hear you.

[50:32] >> Okay, sorry about that. Um, yes, a great

[50:35] presentation. Thank you. I um actually I

[50:38] think most of my questions were answered

[50:40] relative to budget where the funding

[50:42] comes from. It sounds like your annual

[50:45] budget varies yeartoyear just depending

[50:47] on those sources of funds. It would be

[50:50] hard for you to say what your annual

[50:52] budget is. Uh and then I had questions

[50:55] on specific projects bringing this down

[50:58] to Provo that we have queued up or if

[51:01] they are in exploratory stages but I

[51:04] think those were answered as well. I

[51:05] think I think generally I would um just

[51:08] like to make a motion to make it clear

[51:10] to um you all who have come today. Thank

[51:13] you very much. That um to make clear our

[51:16] council support

[51:18] of the current master transportation

[51:20] plan and the projects that we have

[51:22] currently in common with MAG. Um I'd

[51:25] like to make that as a motion.

[51:28] >> All right.

[51:30] Want to second that motion?

[51:33] Yeah, I respect that motion.

[51:36] >> So, we often vote in our just to make

[51:38] sure that people understand what our

[51:39] intent is.

[51:40] >> Very well.

[51:41] >> Any discussion on the motion?

[51:44] Councelor Bogden,

[51:45] >> I know they have a minute to leave, but

[51:48] um some of these things are really

[51:50] impactful like that 800 North

[51:54] that that's a mess right now and rather

[51:56] than 2031 that that needs to be done

[51:59] sooner rather than later. And

[52:02] The west side is growing. It's not just

[52:04] Provo's west side. It is westside

[52:06] everywhere. And when I've talked to some

[52:07] of our former transportation people,

[52:09] they're like, you know, people have to

[52:12] get to BYU. People have to get to the

[52:14] hospital. Even people on my side of the

[52:16] tracks, those train tracks are awful.

[52:19] And to have something come over there,

[52:22] even if it's just a freeway on and off

[52:25] ramp, you know, that that makes a huge

[52:27] difference. um

[52:30] some of these things really need to

[52:32] happen and so I'm in in support of this

[52:35] because we do need these things on

[52:37] schedule and they need need to match up

[52:39] with our our needs. Um, I remember when

[52:42] I ran the first time, I got really

[52:44] educated on the west side because that

[52:46] wasn't an area I was terribly familiar

[52:47] with. And I remember, um, a neighborhood

[52:50] chair walked me through the west side

[52:51] and talked to me and they were like, "Do

[52:53] you know how much time we would save to

[52:56] get our an emergency, if we had to get

[52:58] out if there was a flood, per se, or if

[53:00] we had people who need to go an

[53:01] ambulance, literally five plus minutes

[53:04] could be saved, not having to deal with

[53:06] the tracks, not having to deal with the

[53:07] limited east to west connectivity." and

[53:10] um in having a freeway entrance right to

[53:12] 800 where it's right to the hospital.

[53:14] They just like they're like, you know,

[53:15] we want this on the west side. Like this

[53:17] is a huge deal. This is like life and

[53:18] death to us. And I that was a I wasn't

[53:20] even on my radar.

[53:21] >> Sure.

[53:22] >> But um so yeah, it is interesting. And I

[53:25] we have IHC presenting after you guys,

[53:27] but they do an incredible amount of

[53:31] ambulances coming from the south and

[53:34] coming from the surrounding areas to

[53:36] Provo. So, um, you know, it's I had no

[53:39] idea the number that they do in just

[53:42] ambulance rides.

[53:43] >> Not to mention the new medical school

[53:45] that's coming here. And not to mention

[53:46] that they're going to be what, a level

[53:49] one trauma center.

[53:50] >> I don't think you need to present. You

[53:51] got to [laughter]

[53:53] >> he he educated us very well last year.

[53:56] But yeah, and so that's going to put

[53:58] more and more pressure to get there. But

[54:00] we all know on the west side that we're

[54:02] going to die in an emergency because we

[54:03] can't get out. [laughter]

[54:04] >> Well, let's hope

[54:08] All right. Um, Council Hoben,

[54:11] >> well, I'm okay reaffirming our support

[54:13] of the the current transportation master

[54:15] plan, but I do think like you had

[54:17] mentioned, you have some updated models

[54:19] regarding A2800.

[54:21] >> I think when we visited this six years

[54:24] ago when I was newer on the council,

[54:26] frankly, I didn't feel like the modeling

[54:28] we had showed a huge need for that

[54:30] specific road to be

[54:32] >> with

[54:32] >> Yeah, I need to meet with you guys.

[54:34] And also, you know, frankly, if you

[54:36] don't get over the railroad tracks and

[54:38] pass the school, nothing you do on 820

[54:40] is going to matter because you still get

[54:42] stuck at those areas and they still, you

[54:44] know, and so I'm okay reiterating

[54:47] reaffirming our support of the plan for

[54:48] now. with the caveat that I think if

[54:51] we're going to make any changes to the

[54:52] plan moving forward or you know if we're

[54:55] going to really move forward with some

[54:56] of these projects like I think there

[54:58] just needs to be a comfort level that we

[55:00] have good data supporting this and that

[55:01] we have a good plan around that as

[55:03] opposed to just saying like yeah we're

[55:04] going to allocate 100 million towards

[55:06] this and we'll figure it out right I

[55:08] just

[55:09] >> it's hard for me to get behind it

[55:10] without understanding more nuances of

[55:13] the plan

[55:14] >> to get into data but don't have time to

[55:16] say councel

[55:16] >> Christian yeah I I would agree it it's

[55:19] actually very hard. But did you have a

[55:21] comment?

[55:21] >> I was just going to kind of add to his

[55:24] and something that's to be understood is

[55:26] when we put these projects in the RTP,

[55:28] we use sophisticated tools like um the

[55:31] travel demand model and so forth. But at

[55:34] each stage of a project, more and more

[55:36] study is done with step to an

[55:38] environmental process where

[55:40] >> co changed everything. So, I think being

[55:43] updated and maybe that's a follow-up

[55:45] presentation, maybe specifically for

[55:46] somebody from your team to come and show

[55:48] us like here is here is the modeling

[55:50] that we're looking at for 820 and here's

[55:52] why we feel it's important and or rather

[55:55] why it makes sense if it is something we

[55:57] wanted to do.

[55:58] >> I think that could be really helpful for

[55:59] me to help inform my decision- making

[56:01] moving forward.

[56:02] >> Sure.

[56:04] >> Yeah.

[56:04] >> Councelor Whit last. [clears throat]

[56:05] >> Uh just from my perspective, I mean my

[56:07] understanding is these plans are updated

[56:09] every 5 to 10 years. we had a pandemic

[56:12] in the interim. I wasn't part of office.

[56:15] So, I would like to see more data and go through the process with more

[56:18] thought before I I would be able to vote

[56:20] for something like that.

[56:23] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[56:24] >> But Craig didn't get to say his comment.

[56:25] I cut him off. So, no, I I think the

[56:27] points have been covered. I our job as

[56:30] council is to balance things and we're

[56:33] talking about significant trade-offs and

[56:35] I think it is important to consider

[56:37] safety. It is important to consider

[56:40] access. Um it is important to consider

[56:42] neighborhoods. I mean this is part of

[56:44] the balancing act that we must do. And

[56:46] so I support this future planning.

[56:48] Without this future planning, we end up

[56:51] in culde-sacs all over the place. And so

[56:54] uh I I would be supportive

[56:57] of of what the the work that you're

[56:59] doing. [clears throat]

[57:00] >> Okay. Well, we'll take a vote on the

[57:02] motion. [snorts] Um councelor Garrett.

[57:07] Yes.

[57:08] >> Councelor McKay. Yes. Councelor

[57:09] Christensen.

[57:10] >> Yes.

[57:10] >> Councelor Whitlock.

[57:12] >> No.

[57:12] >> Councelor Boggen.

[57:14] >> Yes. Councelor Hoben.

[57:15] >> Yes.

[57:16] >> Councelor Whipple is not here. So that

[57:18] passes 61.

[57:20] >> 51.

[57:21] Thank you.

[57:22] >> We need a motion to ask them to come. I

[57:25] mean, not to ask them, but I mean within

[57:27] we can get it ring. Okay. I just want to

[57:29] make

[57:29] >> you let us know. We'll come.

[57:31] >> You say,

[57:31] >> we can't tell you what to do. I was

[57:33] saying internally. Are we behind this?

[57:35] having you guys come back.

[57:36] >> Boss him around.

[57:37] >> Yeah. Hey, we tell Mag what to do around

[57:39] here. [laughter]

[57:40] >> But I think it would be good for our

[57:41] public to to listen to a presentation on

[57:45] >> Yeah. I would love to I would love to.

[57:47] >> I'll just say then thank you for your time and if again please contact us

[57:52] if you have more questions. Sorry if we

[57:53] took more than our aotted time.

[57:55] >> Thanks so much Bobby.

[57:56] >> Thank you Lenise and Kevin.

[58:00] >> All right. Next, we have a presentation

[58:02] regarding an update from Inter Mountain

[58:03] Healthcare

[58:05] and presented by Kyle Hansen, the

[58:06] administrator for Well, what? You're

[58:09] like the president of Inter Mountain

[58:10] Healthcare.

[58:13] » I have a couple of jobs.

[58:15] >> It says big dog on his

[58:16] >> No.

[58:19] >> I want one of your business cards. I

[58:20] need a

[58:23] >> um getting the the presentation pulled

[58:26] up.

[58:26] >> Big dog right there. [clears throat]

[58:29] I did bring a friend, Janet Frank. He's

[58:31] our love.

[58:32] >> She's a leader over community outreach.

[58:34] So grateful grateful for some time to

[58:37] chat with all of you today. Uh we love

[58:39] being in the city of Provo and as I've

[58:42] said before, don't have any plans to

[58:44] ever leave. Um [laughter]

[58:46] thank goodness. But wanted to wanted to

[58:48] just share maybe some uh ways that we're

[58:52] looking at the growth. you know,

[58:53] listening to kind of the uh the way that

[58:57] MAG goes about projecting it that out

[58:59] and looking at transportation. We do a

[59:01] lot of this work looking out in similar

[59:03] time frames, 30 plus years and trying to

[59:05] predict um healthcare demand and there's

[59:10] a lot of factors that obviously go into

[59:12] that technology,

[59:14] you know, drug development. Maybe GLP1s

[59:16] will make it so that none of us need a

[59:18] hospital uh in the future. I doubt it.

[59:21] But um anyway, I wanted to just share

[59:23] some of that data with you and and kind

[59:25] of um answer questions that you might

[59:27] have in regards to what that means for

[59:29] the growth in our in our campus here in

[59:31] Prao. Um because as the as the county

[59:36] grows um our hospital will will grow and

[59:39] it and almost doesn't necessarily

[59:42] correlate to how fast Provo is growing

[59:45] population wise. So um somebody am I

[59:49] advancing? Is this

[59:50] >> you're good to go?

[59:51] >> Perfect. Okay. So, I won't bore you with

[59:54] statistics you've probably already seen

[59:55] many many times. You know, our county is

[59:57] growing and projected to grow. I think

[59:59] these are pulled from the Gardener

[1:00:00] Institute. We work with uh some national

[1:00:03] consultants that that help with master

[1:00:05] site planning for healthcare

[1:00:06] organizations that help us look at some

[1:00:09] of this and and help us start to get an

[1:00:11] idea based on kind of utilization

[1:00:13] trends, changing demographics. You know,

[1:00:16] what what kind of hospital bed needs are we talking about in in certain

[1:00:20] geographical areas? We're not the only

[1:00:22] ones providing hospital care. Obviously,

[1:00:24] Inter Mountain um is is not alone in

[1:00:27] that regard, but but we do look at this

[1:00:29] and we know the fastest growing

[1:00:30] demographic in our county is that cohort

[1:00:34] that's over the age of 65 and that's

[1:00:36] going to continue to grow as a

[1:00:37] percentage uh over the next 30 years.

[1:00:40] And so we we look at this data um you

[1:00:43] know, we certainly look at it

[1:00:44] geographically and as I mentioned, we

[1:00:46] know, for example, zone 3 maybe isn't

[1:00:49] growing population-wise as fast as you

[1:00:51] all uh know.

[1:00:54] much more growth occurring in areas like

[1:00:56] zone one on the west or up the north as

[1:00:59] well as down south in in zone 4. And

[1:01:01] these projections are from 24. They're

[1:01:03] probably already somewhat out of date,

[1:01:05] but incredible growth um that that we

[1:01:09] know we're we're all expecting in the in

[1:01:11] the coming years and kind.

[1:01:16] >> So, are you saying that you feed from

[1:01:17] zone one? So, as a trauma hospital, we

[1:01:21] take patients from all over Utah County,

[1:01:24] from all over central Utah down to

[1:01:26] Beaver, and from uh Wasach County.

[1:01:29] >> Wow. Beaver.

[1:01:30] >> Are we the only trauma hospital in the

[1:01:31] area?

[1:01:32] >> We are the only level two trauma

[1:01:34] hospital in Utah County.

[1:01:36] >> And I'll talk a little bit about some of

[1:01:38] our vision for what what the future

[1:01:39] holds with that. But but again, as you

[1:01:42] know, you know, not as much population

[1:01:44] growth in zone three where there isn't

[1:01:46] as much land.

[1:01:48] built out and you know massive growth

[1:01:51] happening on the ends uh and in the west

[1:01:53] on our in our county.

[1:01:56] Um so working with these consultants we

[1:01:59] try to look at that and predict okay

[1:02:00] what do we think that means in the

[1:02:01] coming years and we we tend to take sort

[1:02:03] of a 5 to 10 year look at this so that

[1:02:06] we can attempt to align what our

[1:02:08] delivery model needs to look like going

[1:02:10] forward with with growth. And so there's

[1:02:13] probably more data than you need to

[1:02:15] worry about looking at here, but just as

[1:02:16] an exercise, you know, today within the

[1:02:19] county, we have roughly 210 patients

[1:02:22] every day in our hospitals. Um, most of

[1:02:25] those are at Utah County or Utah Valley

[1:02:27] Hospital here in Provo. Uh, this is for

[1:02:29] medical, surgical, and ICU patients. So,

[1:02:31] not maternity, not a NICU, not somebody

[1:02:34] that's in a rehab unit, just those types

[1:02:36] of units. And if you look at projected

[1:02:39] population change, demographic shift,

[1:02:41] and aging, that adds to that census

[1:02:44] projection going forward out 10 years,

[1:02:46] right? Um disease prevalence. Again,

[1:02:48] some of these are are estimates and

[1:02:49] projections. And then things that would

[1:02:51] start to pull back on more people being

[1:02:53] in the hospital, things like reducing

[1:02:55] readmission, changes insurance or care

[1:02:57] management, technology that enhances our

[1:02:59] ability. Um we're actually admitting

[1:03:02] people to their homes. Uh we have a

[1:03:04] hospital at hope pro uh program today uh

[1:03:06] that's growing where through technology

[1:03:08] we we send nurses and have doctors and

[1:03:11] monitoring equipment that patients can

[1:03:13] take to their home if you have the right

[1:03:15] condition. We're not going to send

[1:03:16] somebody who's acutely ill home.

[1:03:18] >> Is that a pilot kind of project or is

[1:03:20] that

[1:03:21] >> um it's it's hopefully not a pilot. It's

[1:03:23] been somewhat uh dependent on CMS's

[1:03:25] ability to continue to fund

[1:03:27] >> the uh the Medicare uh you know hospital

[1:03:30] at home reimbursement program. And so,

[1:03:34] uh, it's it's been funded and keeps kind

[1:03:36] of coming up at the last minute for

[1:03:38] continuing funding, but it's very much a

[1:03:40] part of our strategy is to take care of

[1:03:43] p patients at home. It's much more

[1:03:45] affordable to to do that, and everybody

[1:03:47] would much rather sleep in their bed

[1:03:48] than one of our hospital beds. We we

[1:03:50] know that. So, so the the moral of this

[1:03:53] slide is simply our projection and this

[1:03:55] is a county projection is that over the

[1:03:58] next 10 years we're going to see at

[1:03:59] least or close to a 50% increase in the

[1:04:02] number of patients every day that are

[1:04:03] admitted to one of our hospitals. Okay?

[1:04:06] So that's increasing from 210 uh to a

[1:04:09] number of of 312. The majority of those

[1:04:12] because of our size and acuity and the

[1:04:15] specialists that we have will be at Utah

[1:04:17] Valley Hospital. And so we take that

[1:04:20] kind of information. We look across the

[1:04:21] county where we have care sites and we

[1:04:23] say, "Okay, what do we think that means

[1:04:25] for bed need in each of these sites,

[1:04:26] right? So you can see for Utah Valley,

[1:04:29] again, this is just the ICU and med

[1:04:31] surge going from 216 to 304. Um, and the

[1:04:35] other hospitals that we have in the

[1:04:37] county, there's some different planned

[1:04:39] increases. This is all just sort of

[1:04:41] planning again, subject to sort of

[1:04:42] change and and whatnot. Kevin,

[1:04:44] >> we we have a

[1:04:45] >> Yes,

[1:04:46] >> councelor Bogdan.

[1:04:47] >> I'm gonna ask this question because it

[1:04:48] was asked by

[1:04:50] one of our citizens yesterday, a couple

[1:04:53] of days ago. Anyway, you guys have a

[1:04:56] building up by Day's Market in Provo,

[1:04:59] >> Canyon Road.

[1:05:01] >> Okay. What is that on here? What What is

[1:05:03] that going to be?

[1:05:04] >> It's probably a circle on here. Um I

[1:05:06] think we've got the clinics listed uh

[1:05:09] listed there. So maybe number 15 is

[1:05:11] that. Um,

[1:05:12] >> so I I hesitate to announce things

[1:05:15] before we've released the dollars to

[1:05:17] actually do the construction because,

[1:05:18] >> okay,

[1:05:19] >> I've gotten in trouble [laughter]

[1:05:21] doing that before. So, I'll just talk in

[1:05:23] general terms. Um, we we do have plans

[1:05:26] to redevelop that site. Um, you'll

[1:05:30] likely see something come through the

[1:05:31] city with a project for re uh

[1:05:35] >> so it'll get a it'll get a fresh coat of

[1:05:37] paint,

[1:05:37] >> demo uh not that demo and rebuild the

[1:05:40] new building.

[1:05:40] >> Okay. Okay. hear that resident.

[1:05:43] [laughter]

[1:05:44] >> Sorry. Um, in fact, in in probably in

[1:05:48] the next couple of months, you'll you'll

[1:05:49] likely see something coming through as

[1:05:52] we're working on design there.

[1:05:54] >> I appreciate that. And

[1:05:57] >> we're gonna be excited.

[1:05:57] >> Yeah. The city, the resident will

[1:05:59] appreciate that. I'm sure he's

[1:06:01] listening.

[1:06:01] >> Yeah. And and part of part of our goal

[1:06:04] there is, you know, we really need to

[1:06:06] ensure our primary care physician access

[1:06:09] a little bit more convenient and

[1:06:11] accessible, not on a busy hospital

[1:06:13] campus. You know, when somebody's coming

[1:06:14] for a primary care visit, they

[1:06:17] if if we can get those out into the

[1:06:19] community um as much as possible, we

[1:06:21] want to do that. So part of the strategy

[1:06:22] for that uh for that site really is to

[1:06:26] relocate some of our existing physician

[1:06:28] clinics from the Utah Valley Hospital

[1:06:30] campus up to Canyon Road in a new

[1:06:32] building.

[1:06:35] >> Councelor,

[1:06:36] >> if I'm jumping ahead here, sorry. I

[1:06:38] mean, clearly there's a huge increase in

[1:06:41] need for your services. Um what what

[1:06:44] would you need from Provo City to help

[1:06:46] meet the need? I don't care about your

[1:06:48] bottom line, but I'm saying like I mean

[1:06:51] >> No, no, that's fine. Yeah.

[1:06:52] >> I I care about quality of life for our

[1:06:54] residents. You know, there what do you

[1:06:57] need from us to ensure that you can

[1:06:59] provide the services that our residents

[1:07:01] need um so that they don't have to

[1:07:03] travel very far and they can get the

[1:07:05] services they need in the area. They

[1:07:06] don't have to move. Is it is it

[1:07:08] workforce housing? Is is it um is it we

[1:07:13] need to zone for more of this or that? I

[1:07:16] mean, what is it you need from Provo? Is

[1:07:17] it

[1:07:18] >> roads? I mean, what what I know that's a

[1:07:21] topic, but I'm saying

[1:07:23] >> generally, are there some things that

[1:07:24] you could kind of point to and say this

[1:07:26] is where we need help from Provo City

[1:07:27] over the next 20 year, 20, 30 years to help prepare for this or even 10

[1:07:31] years?

[1:07:32] >> Yeah. Uh, great question. Great

[1:07:33] question. And there's probably a number

[1:07:35] of answers. Our organization is getting

[1:07:37] more more active in the affordable

[1:07:40] housing space. I know there's kind of

[1:07:42] different models. We've met at times

[1:07:44] with uh different different agencies

[1:07:46] about possible ways to do that. In

[1:07:48] Provo, I think we're exploring that

[1:07:50] space much more because our workforce

[1:07:52] is, you know, at times obviously

[1:07:55] struggling uh to find affordable

[1:07:56] housing. And so there's we we have some

[1:07:59] initiatives uh that we're looking at on

[1:08:01] that front up in Summit County because

[1:08:04] it's very acute up there. Nobody can

[1:08:05] afford to live

[1:08:06] >> Yeah. Sure.

[1:08:07] >> You know, nobody doing housekeeping

[1:08:08] services or uh nursing aid. It's really

[1:08:11] hard to live in Park City and and and

[1:08:13] survive on a a salary of a nursing aid.

[1:08:15] And so we're exploring in some kind of

[1:08:18] unique locations opportunities to do

[1:08:20] that. I think we've had a lot of

[1:08:22] discussion about Utah County and where

[1:08:25] and is is there an opportunity for us to

[1:08:27] explore that further here. I think we're

[1:08:28] very interested in that uh with with the

[1:08:30] right kind of model. Um land is always a

[1:08:34] challenge. My my summary slide that

[1:08:36] you'll see on here very much says we

[1:08:39] need the city to help ensure that it's

[1:08:41] easy for patients, visitors, and

[1:08:43] employees to come to our campus in

[1:08:45] Provo.

[1:08:46] >> Okay.

[1:08:46] >> And hopefully as I get through this

[1:08:49] presentation, the data and the

[1:08:50] information that I share reinforces the

[1:08:53] need there because the the growth is,

[1:08:56] you know, pretty incredible. That's still coming for for our campus.

[1:09:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. Because I mean if somebody

[1:09:01] is on the north part of probe and

[1:09:03] they're like well I'll just go to ORM

[1:09:04] then that's revenue that's tax revenue

[1:09:07] we've lost right I assume that that's a

[1:09:10] re that's a real consideration right

[1:09:12] >> yeah and I think for for us there's a

[1:09:13] balance because we don't want to force

[1:09:15] everybody into a centralized location

[1:09:18] for care if if we can provide something

[1:09:20] close to home we have a hub and spoke

[1:09:22] model and inner mountain is up and down

[1:09:24] the state we we want to be in

[1:09:26] communities to provide that care that's

[1:09:28] really part

[1:09:28] >> yeah I'm just saying if we want to drive

[1:09:30] as much of the revenue to Provo as

[1:09:32] possible, right? I mean, we we want to

[1:09:35] try to make it easy for you to do

[1:09:36] business in Provo, right?

[1:09:38] >> Yes. Yes. And getting to the campus, I

[1:09:40] mean, once you're on the campus, that's

[1:09:42] our problem to figure out parking and

[1:09:44] navigation, all that. But, you know,

[1:09:45] getting to the campus is absolutely

[1:09:48] imperative. And the data I will show you

[1:09:50] is that we're going to have many more

[1:09:52] people coming to this campus in the

[1:09:54] future.

[1:09:55] >> Okay.

[1:09:56] >> Great questions.

[1:09:58] Okay. Um, in addition to kind of the

[1:10:00] impatient side, one of the biggest areas

[1:10:02] that's growing for us is actually the

[1:10:04] ambulatory side. More and more of

[1:10:05] healthcare is being done outside of of a

[1:10:08] hospital. Um, you can have your carpal

[1:10:11] tunnel surgery done in a in an exam

[1:10:13] room, in a clinic uh location today. And

[1:10:16] joint replacement is being done in

[1:10:17] surgery centers and outpatient settings.

[1:10:19] And more and more of how healthcare is

[1:10:21] provided is moving out of a hospital

[1:10:23] into, you know, into clinic locations.

[1:10:25] And so we have incredible growth that's

[1:10:28] happening in our what we call our

[1:10:30] medical group where where physician uh

[1:10:33] physicians provide care in clinics. You

[1:10:35] can see some of the projections that we

[1:10:38] anticipate are pretty staggering in

[1:10:40] terms of the number of of visits and we

[1:10:42] are doing teleaalth visits. We that is

[1:10:44] part of our solution. So this factors in

[1:10:47] growth in areas where somebody just gets

[1:10:49] on a zoom call with their doctor and has a visit doesn't need to travel

[1:10:52] somewhere. We obviously want to continue

[1:10:54] to push those, but incredible growth in

[1:10:57] terms of clinic visits. You can see

[1:10:59] projected over the next 10 years over

[1:11:02] roughly 200,000

[1:11:04] additional visits with more than 200

[1:11:06] additional providers, doctors on this

[1:11:09] campus in Provo. And um again, part of

[1:11:13] our goal is to make care accessible. So

[1:11:15] we're not just if you need a

[1:11:17] cardiologist, we don't want everybody in

[1:11:18] Utah County to have to come to Provo to

[1:11:20] get that. That's not our goal. We're

[1:11:21] going to have cardiology access in

[1:11:23] Spanish Fork and over in Saratoga and up in the north. But um just based

[1:11:29] on the changing demographic, the growing

[1:11:32] Medicare population and the need uh for specialty care, specialty services,

[1:11:39] you know, this is this is our

[1:11:41] projection. That's an increase of 194

[1:11:43] exam rooms to 467.

[1:11:45] I mean that essentially means we have to

[1:11:47] build another 250,000 square foot

[1:11:49] patient tower just for clinics on our

[1:11:52] campus. So if you know the Sornson tower

[1:11:54] on the north side of our our clinic,

[1:11:57] it's building another one of those

[1:11:58] basically um in the next 10 years.

[1:12:01] Similarly with inpatient growth, we

[1:12:04] expect on the Utah Valley campus, you

[1:12:07] know, growth of

[1:12:09] roughly 115 additional beds that will

[1:12:12] needed be needed to house that growing

[1:12:14] average daily census. So that's growing

[1:12:17] another patient tower uh to to start to

[1:12:20] accommodate that as well. Um so I'm

[1:12:23] going to show you just some oh some

[1:12:25] additional stats and I'll show you some campus layout here. This is our

[1:12:29] headcount. So you can see the medical

[1:12:30] group bars here, the ones kind of

[1:12:32] growing the fastest. This has gone from,

[1:12:35] you know, 250

[1:12:37] employees in our medical group to over

[1:12:39] or just about 800 uh in the last 5

[1:12:41] years. It's been just incredible growth.

[1:12:44] The hospital's maybe not grown quite as

[1:12:46] fast. I think when you look at 21

[1:12:48] compared to where we are today, it's

[1:12:50] about 70 70 more employees, but we

[1:12:52] expect that will continue to grow. In

[1:12:55] total, Inter Mountain has over 4,000

[1:12:57] employees based in Provo. is just at the

[1:12:59] UT hospital campus. So this number

[1:13:02] starts to get us close to about 3,800

[1:13:04] just on the campus alone.

[1:13:05] >> Counselor Whitlock has a question.

[1:13:06] >> Yeah, just a quick question on that. I

[1:13:08] know sometimes you have rotations. Are

[1:13:10] these people who are dedicated to this this campus?

[1:13:13] >> This is their primary work location.

[1:13:16] Yeah,

[1:13:16] >> thank you.

[1:13:16] >> Yeah, great question.

[1:13:17] >> Um, additionally, uh, some transfer

[1:13:20] data. So every day our hospital gets

[1:13:23] somewhere on the average of 18 patients

[1:13:25] transferred from another facility into

[1:13:27] our hospital every day. Um you can see

[1:13:30] how much those numbers have have grown

[1:13:32] since 2021 from about 5,400 to I mean by

[1:13:36] a thousand additional visits. We project

[1:13:39] that will continue to grow as the county

[1:13:41] grows because some of the specialty

[1:13:43] services that we provide are only going

[1:13:45] to be provided at this hospital and many

[1:13:48] of those transfers are for higher level

[1:13:50] of care needs. 90% of those visits are

[1:13:54] EMS ambulance transfers. Yes, some are

[1:13:56] lifellight and we obviously helicopters

[1:13:58] going all day long back and back and

[1:14:00] forth. Um but most are ambulance. So

[1:14:03] when you start to talk about so this is

[1:14:05] not looking at EMS going out into the

[1:14:07] field and picking somebody up from a car

[1:14:09] accident on I-15 and and coming in

[1:14:11] that's that's additional traffic this is

[1:14:14] facilityto facility transfers that have

[1:14:17] >> So that's just your transfers

[1:14:18] >> correct correct

[1:14:22] um

[1:14:24] not to how am I doing on time make sure

[1:14:26] I'm right

[1:14:27] >> you're good

[1:14:28] >> doing okay um so this is our campus and as we do master site planning with these groups. We look at ages of,

[1:14:35] you know, building and and where do we

[1:14:36] have building plan? Obviously, uh a

[1:14:39] relatively new campus with some of the

[1:14:41] building that's been done in the last 10

[1:14:42] years with new towers and new uh new

[1:14:44] facilities and and then so so we look at

[1:14:47] this, but we have a you know a fairly

[1:14:49] narrow somewhat dense campus for the

[1:14:51] types of services and and the growth

[1:14:53] that that we're looking at. That dashed

[1:14:56] white line is sort of outlying most of

[1:14:58] the footprint of our campus. There are

[1:15:00] some buildings intermixed there. There's

[1:15:02] gas station, there's a credit union. I'm

[1:15:03] not I'm not showing those that we

[1:15:05] obviously don't own uh um but but not

[1:15:08] showing those on this.

[1:15:09] >> Um but if you know, if you look at kind

[1:15:12] of our campus um where where we have the

[1:15:15] opportunity to grow there, there isn't a

[1:15:17] ton of room to work with. We've got some

[1:15:19] area here on the north. We have this

[1:15:22] parcel that's along 800 um that's uh

[1:15:25] between uh Freedom and and uh 300 there.

[1:15:30] uh that uh we have been purchasing some

[1:15:33] of the kind of aging buildings and

[1:15:34] things uh along Freedom that uh that

[1:15:37] we've been tearing down. That's in

[1:15:39] preparation for if I go to the next

[1:15:41] slide. Um we we have some plans. So

[1:15:44] along kind of my prior comment, I'm not

[1:15:47] announcing anything [laughter] yet, but

[1:15:50] we we have some plans to develop that

[1:15:52] parcel uh with with new space um and

[1:15:56] expect that there will be some new

[1:15:59] services provided on that parcel in the

[1:16:01] not too distant future. I'm sorry. We

[1:16:04] [laughter]

[1:16:04] I I'm not trying to be elusive, but um

[1:16:09] you know, until the until the uh company

[1:16:11] releases the funds to actually build

[1:16:13] something, it's not technically

[1:16:14] approved. So, um but you know, as we

[1:16:17] work with our planners, we look at

[1:16:19] things like where would you potentially

[1:16:20] put a new parking garage and where would

[1:16:23] you put a new tower? And so we try to

[1:16:25] look at planning for our campus and and

[1:16:27] the growth, but it is a it is a dense

[1:16:29] campus and in order to grow, we're going

[1:16:31] to have to continue to go, you know, go

[1:16:33] vertical. I don't know that if we build

[1:16:35] another parking garage, that's where it

[1:16:36] will go. This is just sort of for

[1:16:38] illustrative purposes, but um needing

[1:16:40] new ambulatory buildings and new

[1:16:42] inpatient buildings um gives you a sense

[1:16:45] of kind of how we uh look at how we

[1:16:48] might do that going forward.

[1:16:51] So uh maybe if I'm giving you the the kind of big picture vision for the

[1:16:57] hospital, the things that we are really

[1:16:59] focused on the most today. Um you know

[1:17:03] in a few years you could probably put

[1:17:06] university uh hospital in our title

[1:17:08] because uh we are very much moving

[1:17:11] towards a a teaching what I call a quasi

[1:17:14] academic medical center. So, our

[1:17:16] partnership with the new school of

[1:17:18] medicine at at BYU is going to uh

[1:17:20] trigger a number of things where we uh

[1:17:23] we have plans to stand up a number of

[1:17:25] new training programs at our hospital uh

[1:17:28] for two reasons. One is to help train uh

[1:17:31] new medical students. Um having

[1:17:34] residency programs is actually one of

[1:17:36] the most cost-effective ways to to train

[1:17:39] medical students. taking a busy doctor

[1:17:40] who's trying to see patients and giving

[1:17:43] them three medical students to try and

[1:17:44] teach while they're trying to get

[1:17:45] through their busy day is that's a hard

[1:17:47] thing. Um, but having a teaching model

[1:17:49] like most universities have where

[1:17:51] residents are involved in teaching

[1:17:53] medical students and then the residents

[1:17:55] are being taught more by faculty and the

[1:17:57] attending providers, that's a model

[1:17:59] we're trying to mimic. So, we have we

[1:18:01] have plans to stand up a number of

[1:18:03] residency programs. Um you can see in

[1:18:05] phase one these two are the ones that

[1:18:07] were kicking off initially internal

[1:18:09] medicine and psychiatry. The benefit of

[1:18:11] residency program besides training

[1:18:13] medical students is the statistics say

[1:18:16] roughly 50% of residents stay in the

[1:18:18] state where they train. So our goal here

[1:18:20] is to train not only med students but

[1:18:24] med students don't always stick around.

[1:18:25] They often are going to different

[1:18:27] programs you know all over the country.

[1:18:29] Um but with residents we have a much

[1:18:31] better sticking opportunity to have them

[1:18:34] fill our needs here locally in in the

[1:18:36] city in the county and in the state. And

[1:18:38] so um we are working uh on on examining

[1:18:42] a number of residency programs where we

[1:18:45] would be really have an identity as a as

[1:18:48] a teaching hospital um which is a a huge

[1:18:51] evolution um from what we've been over

[1:18:54] the years. So that's a big part of of

[1:18:56] what we're exploring there. There's kind

[1:18:59] of a phase two based on if if BYU's

[1:19:01] medical school expands beyond 60

[1:19:03] students, which we expect it will, um,

[1:19:06] where we think we need some additional

[1:19:07] programs. These are specialty programs

[1:19:09] called fellowships where, uh, we think

[1:19:11] there's opportunities to train in some

[1:19:13] of these specialty areas as well. And so

[1:19:15] that's a big part of of what we're

[1:19:17] doing. Another big part of what we're

[1:19:18] doing is becoming a level one trauma

[1:19:20] hospital. So, uh, our goal in the next

[1:19:23] couple of years is to achieve this

[1:19:24] designation. There's only two facilities

[1:19:26] in the state that have this. University

[1:19:27] of Utah Medical Center and Intermount

[1:19:30] Medical Center in Murray. Um that's it

[1:19:33] for the state of Utah. Primary

[1:19:35] Children's is a pediatric level one

[1:19:37] trauma uh for the state. But as far as

[1:19:39] adult hospitals go, um we are already

[1:19:41] acting very much like a level one trauma

[1:19:43] hospital today. There isn't much that

[1:19:45] comes to us that we send out. So, um,

[1:19:48] you know, the Highway 6 disasters and,

[1:19:52] uh, the ATV and the recreating accidents

[1:19:54] and and, um, interestingly enough, our

[1:19:57] largest volume of trauma is ground level

[1:19:59] falls. So, uh, grandma, our mom and dad

[1:20:03] trip at home and break a hip, that

[1:20:05] counts as a trauma and activates our

[1:20:07] trauma team. So um those numbers are

[1:20:10] growing and our our intent is to become

[1:20:12] a level one facility to kind of match

[1:20:14] this identity as a teaching quatinary uh

[1:20:18] type hospital uh going forward. And then

[1:20:20] I've mentioned some of this already, but

[1:20:22] just the growth within our medical group

[1:20:23] to support that subsp specialcialization

[1:20:25] of services, you know, having

[1:20:27] specialized cancer surgeons and and

[1:20:30] specialized uh within certain

[1:20:32] specialties, sort of subsp

[1:20:34] specialcialization. That's a big part of

[1:20:36] kind of what the future is for us as

[1:20:37] well. So,

[1:20:39] >> before we leave that, um so you talk

[1:20:41] about partnering with BYU, do you

[1:20:42] partner with Norda or Rocky Mountain?

[1:20:44] >> We do. Yeah, we do. uh Rocky Mountain I

[1:20:47] think um well we do partner with Rocky

[1:20:49] Mountain in terms of some of their you

[1:20:51] know programs and students but from a

[1:20:52] medical school school standpoint we do

[1:20:54] have a partnership with Norda so their

[1:20:56] medical students already are are are in

[1:20:57] our facility and and so some of this

[1:21:00] actually will help us solve solve how we

[1:21:03] do training for all medical students

[1:21:05] whether they're BYU or or Norda um type

[1:21:08] thing and so um you know uh yeah great question

[1:21:14] >> uh So to make [clears throat] sure I'm

[1:21:15] understanding correctly, right now

[1:21:17] because you're not a teaching hospital,

[1:21:18] you don't actually have residents on

[1:21:20] staff.

[1:21:21] >> We have one residency program today. Uh

[1:21:23] it's family medicine. So we've been uh

[1:21:25] that's a program in place uh for more

[1:21:28] than 20 minutes. 20 minutes, sorry, 20

[1:21:31] years.

[1:21:31] >> 20 years.

[1:21:32] >> Um

[1:21:33] >> long program.

[1:21:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh just started. Um

[1:21:36] yeah, more than 20 years. And actually,

[1:21:39] you know, many of the physicians that work in the county and and even in

[1:21:42] rural central parts of the state went

[1:21:44] through our our program at Utah Valley

[1:21:46] Hospital for family medicine. So that's

[1:21:48] the only one we have.

[1:21:49] >> But you'll be expanding that to multiple

[1:21:51] residence programs.

[1:21:52] >> Multiple programs, correct? In addition.

[1:21:55] And

[1:21:55] >> do you know rough numbers on what that

[1:21:57] would be?

[1:21:57] >> He he just showed them off.

[1:21:58] >> Yeah. I mean the the the programs

[1:22:00] themselves are are we're looking at

[1:22:02] these ones, but I'll give you an as like

[1:22:05] rough number residenc.

[1:22:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, for internal medicine,

[1:22:07] it's a three-year residency program. Um,

[1:22:10] we're looking at 15 residents per class.

[1:22:12] So, it' be a total of 45 new residents

[1:22:15] training at our hospital. Um, in that

[1:22:18] specialty for psychiatry, it'll be uh

[1:22:21] four per class. And that's a four-year

[1:22:23] residency. So, total of 16.

[1:22:25] >> Yes.

[1:22:25] >> Uh per for per for the program in total.

[1:22:29] >> So, quite a lot of residents.

[1:22:31] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:22:32] >> Well, I'm thrilled you're focusing on

[1:22:34] psychiatry. That's such a

[1:22:35] >> Yeah, we have

[1:22:36] >> such an underfunded one. Um Gary Garrett

[1:22:38] has a question online. Gary,

[1:22:40] >> great.

[1:22:41] >> Yes. Can you go back to your last uh map

[1:22:44] image, the one that says long-term 0 to

[1:22:47] 10 years? That one shows along 500 North

[1:22:51] on the corner there and I'm sorry, 500

[1:22:54] West and 800 North. The charcoal

[1:22:56] property which includes Chevron and the

[1:22:59] other private practices. I assume that's

[1:23:01] charcoal because that property is in

[1:23:03] private hands.

[1:23:05] Yeah, we it's probably charcoal because

[1:23:07] our our consultant made a mistake when

[1:23:10] they drew this map and failed to

[1:23:12] remember that there's property there we

[1:23:14] don't own. So, we don't we don't have

[1:23:17] plans. We actually have a building in

[1:23:18] that charcoal area for our family

[1:23:20] medicine residency that that got wiped

[1:23:22] out in this and I wasn't able to get an

[1:23:25] updated uh map in time. So,

[1:23:27] >> so based I just made an assumption there

[1:23:30] and then farther uh north

[1:23:32] >> um or rather east on the under north the

[1:23:34] other charcoal piece adjacent to the

[1:23:37] west of the prospective building is also

[1:23:40] charcoal. My real question is is that

[1:23:42] property not owned by um IHC?

[1:23:46] >> It is. And I think that's meant to

[1:23:48] depict like additional surface parking

[1:23:50] opportunity. Again, I think the

[1:23:52] consultant uh made some made some

[1:23:55] mistakes in their in their map drawing

[1:23:57] here. We will have additional parking

[1:23:59] around any building that we build um on

[1:24:02] that parcel, but we do not own the

[1:24:05] credit union and so we're, you know, we

[1:24:08] are planning for what we're doing there

[1:24:10] is if the credit union stays and that

[1:24:13] may change, who knows over time, but you

[1:24:15] know, not not something that we are in

[1:24:17] charge of obviously. So, sorry for that

[1:24:20] mis mis direction there.

[1:24:21] >> I know the city wants to get rid of the

[1:24:23] credit union too.

[1:24:24] >> Okay, [laughter]

[1:24:24] >> you both have a mutual.

[1:24:27] >> Um, so yeah, just in summary,

[1:24:30] I I mean I think covered covered much of

[1:24:33] this. I mean, we are very interested in

[1:24:36] an 800 North expansion. In fact, when we

[1:24:38] rebuilt the hospital, the front door for

[1:24:41] our hospital faces south to 800 North

[1:24:44] intentionally because this was in the

[1:24:47] RTP. This is part of the plan. We we

[1:24:50] were expecting that to kind of continue

[1:24:52] to to grow as maybe a major corridor,

[1:24:55] but you know, obviously we're very

[1:24:58] interested in an interchange connecting

[1:24:59] the freeway and having a direct shot

[1:25:01] just because the the number of patients

[1:25:04] coming to our campus, you know, by

[1:25:06] ambulance and transport is going up. And

[1:25:09] if you can have a direct line for uh for

[1:25:12] how they get to us, that's that's just

[1:25:14] better. Um, and so we're we're very

[1:25:17] interested, very supportive of that.

[1:25:18] Happy to, you know, to be vocal about

[1:25:20] that. Our campus is going to continue to

[1:25:23] be an increasingly active and and

[1:25:25] vibrant campus with with greater

[1:25:26] density. And then, as I mentioned

[1:25:28] earlier, we we just need your continued

[1:25:31] support, you know, as as we grow. How do

[1:25:33] we how do we accommodate

[1:25:35] the growth of of people getting to our

[1:25:38] campus?

[1:25:39] Well, I know one of the you as we talked

[1:25:41] about, you are the second highest

[1:25:43] employer in our city and we're working

[1:25:45] on our economic development plan and we

[1:25:47] assume I mean who knows what'll happen

[1:25:49] but it's very likely I think it'll come

[1:25:51] back to something medical that we should

[1:25:52] focus on bio industry something but um

[1:25:58] you know I we've talked about even

[1:26:01] having like a committee or something of

[1:26:04] you know the top economic people you

[1:26:06] know the hospital BYU um Norda, like

[1:26:09] having these groups together that we can

[1:26:11] help

[1:26:13] do the things we need to do in the city

[1:26:15] to make it better for you, to make it

[1:26:17] better for our customers. I mean, our

[1:26:20] citizens and the customers of the

[1:26:22] businesses that you bring so much to the

[1:26:24] city. And so, I I assume that we will

[1:26:26] work a lot together in the future. And

[1:26:28] we're grateful for that you guys are

[1:26:29] here and that you take good care of your

[1:26:31] property and that you're a wonderful

[1:26:34] asset to the city.

[1:26:35] >> Wonderful. Thank you. We're excited to

[1:26:37] continue to be involved in conversations

[1:26:39] on

[1:26:39] >> any questions for Kyle.

[1:26:41] >> No. Thank you, Kyle.

[1:26:42] >> Great. Thanks, guys. Thank you.

[1:26:45] >> What' you say?

[1:26:48] [laughter]

[1:26:48] >> Sorry.

[1:26:50] >> All right. We're going to take a break.

[1:26:52] >> Yep.

[1:26:52] >> Recording in progress.

[1:26:55] >> All right. Next, we have a resolution

[1:26:56] amending the home ARP allocation plan.

[1:26:59] This presented by Melissa McN, our

[1:27:01] community grants administrator.

[1:27:05] Melissa,

[1:27:12] » good afternoon. Um, so for those of you

[1:27:15] who are new and aren't aware, our home

[1:27:17] ARP um funding was a one-time funding

[1:27:20] from um HUD uh to help with uh

[1:27:25] individuals dealing with homelessness or

[1:27:27] at risk of of homelessness. And this is

[1:27:30] just an amendment to the plan because

[1:27:33] one of our um one of our recipients of

[1:27:35] this funding um would like to change the

[1:27:38] use of some of the funding. So they want

[1:27:40] to move $260,000

[1:27:43] from um tenant based rental assistance

[1:27:45] into supportive services um because

[1:27:48] there's a little more leeway in the

[1:27:50] things that they can use it for in

[1:27:51] supportive services. So um it's not um

[1:27:55] increasing their funding at all. is just

[1:27:57] moving the funding kind of from one

[1:27:58] bucket to another one. And because it's

[1:28:00] sub it's because of the amount we have

[1:28:03] to do a substantial amendment and have a

[1:28:06] public comment period and then we'll

[1:28:08] have a hearing on this in August. So, do

[1:28:11] you have any questions on any of that?

[1:28:15] What about the description, Melissa? It

[1:28:16] I just wondered if this was like um

[1:28:19] administrative services for them to

[1:28:21] manage the program like are they using

[1:28:22] it for staff wages or was it for actual

[1:28:26] >> No, this is for this is for homeless.

[1:28:29] So, it's for for community action. Um

[1:28:32] some of some of the supportive services

[1:28:34] does um reimburse them for salaries for

[1:28:39] um the individuals that are dealing

[1:28:42] directly with that population. But uh

[1:28:44] one of the biggest things that they

[1:28:46] cited was to um for eviction prevention.

[1:28:50] Um so a lot of the the bulk of the

[1:28:52] funding will be going to um help people

[1:28:55] stay in their housing. Um and then some

[1:28:59] of it will go for um staff salaries.

[1:29:02] >> But that's like a percentage, right?

[1:29:03] Isn't like 10% or something?

[1:29:05] >> No, that that part, the administrative

[1:29:08] is for us. Yes. So, we reduced that down

[1:29:11] to because um council had some concerns

[1:29:14] about how big that was, we reduced it to

[1:29:16] 5% and released the others to for more

[1:29:19] helpless services. So,

[1:29:20] >> okay, great.

[1:29:21] >> That's where we're at.

[1:29:22] >> Um any other questions for Melissa?

[1:29:24] >> All right, we'll see you tonight.

[1:29:27] >> Um

[1:29:27] >> or is this does it have to

[1:29:29] >> Yeah, this is just a hey, this is this

[1:29:31] is coming up. Sure.

[1:29:33] >> Always invited.

[1:29:33] >> Sure. Thank you. [laughter]

[1:29:37] » Thanks.

[1:29:37] >> All right. Next, a resolution approving

[1:29:39] an interlocal agreement between Pa City

[1:29:41] and Orm City regarding funding for ORM

[1:29:44] 2000 South storm drain project and

[1:29:46] authorizing the mayor to sign that

[1:29:47] agreement on behalf of the city.

[1:29:50] Presented by Daniel Nixon, public works

[1:29:52] engineer. I don't think you've ever

[1:29:53] presented to us before.

[1:29:54] >> She has.

[1:29:55] >> Oh, have you? I'm sorry, Danielle.

[1:29:56] >> No, just fine.

[1:29:57] >> I'm just excited to see you anyway.

[1:29:59] [laughter]

[1:30:01] >> So, it's it's kind of funny because I

[1:30:02] have presented

[1:30:03] >> I see you. I do know I see you. I

[1:30:05] presented on the other section of 2000

[1:30:07] north interlocal agreement. So this is

[1:30:10] >> going onto the east side of Geneva Road.

[1:30:14] Um

[1:30:16] so previously when I came I talked about

[1:30:19] the storm drain that they that I

[1:30:21] installed as part of my project between

[1:30:23] Lake View Parkway and Geneva Road. This

[1:30:26] is now on the other side of Geneva. So,

[1:30:29] um, to reiterate, we do have an existing

[1:30:32] agreement for 2000 North. Provo City

[1:30:34] owns 2000 North up to the north curb.

[1:30:39] Um, and then it's Orm City after that.

[1:30:41] So, they own the planner strip and the

[1:30:43] sidewalk. Um, so any utility work that

[1:30:46] they do within the road does need to

[1:30:48] have um, [clears throat] Provo City

[1:30:51] review it and approve it. Um, but we

[1:30:53] have this agreement in place stating

[1:30:56] that they can put in utilities within

[1:30:58] that road that they may need.

[1:30:59] >> Okay. I had a question for you. Provo

[1:31:02] and ORM don't share any utilities,

[1:31:04] right? We don't share pipes,

[1:31:05] >> right?

[1:31:06] >> So, when it comes to water, they have

[1:31:09] their water system. We have our water

[1:31:10] system. Same with sewer.

[1:31:12] >> There's some electrical stuff probably.

[1:31:14] >> They have Rocky Mountain Power and we

[1:31:16] have our city.

[1:31:17] >> So, they're just using our space to go

[1:31:19] in and access their stuff. It's not our

[1:31:22] stuff. So to clarify on this one

[1:31:25] specifically because we don't have a

[1:31:28] storm drain main in 2000 North nor do we

[1:31:33] well we were planning on putting one in

[1:31:34] but they needed a large facility to be

[1:31:38] put into this road and they with working

[1:31:42] with our staff we agreed that if they

[1:31:45] would accept our roadway drainage into

[1:31:48] their system we would not put in our

[1:31:51] system and then they could put in a

[1:31:53] bigger facility and have more room for

[1:31:55] their storm draining. So in this case it

[1:31:58] is a shared facility in some regard. So

[1:32:01] Provo City takes care of the inlets and

[1:32:04] the laterals connecting to the main but

[1:32:06] then ORM city takes care of all of the

[1:32:09] main storm drain and

[1:32:10] >> and they're getting that water.

[1:32:12] >> Yeah.

[1:32:14] >> Right.

[1:32:14] >> Um so like I was saying before this is

[1:32:18] on the east side of Geneva Road. So

[1:32:20] where I have it kind of highlighted in

[1:32:22] red is the location of the project that

[1:32:24] ORM city is proposing. Well, they

[1:32:26] already have it put out to u already

[1:32:29] awarded to RB construction. Um so

[1:32:33] they'll connect on to where I ended just

[1:32:35] past uh Geneva Road right by the Holiday

[1:32:39] Gas Station and then they'll continue up

[1:32:41] and stop right prior to the UTA tracks

[1:32:46] so they won't have to cross those

[1:32:47] thankfully. Um so we have a proposed

[1:32:51] agreement between ORM and Provo

[1:32:54] currently stating that ORM will be doing

[1:32:57] will be paying and for the design and

[1:33:00] putting out bid the contract for

[1:33:03] installing this storm drain. Um, and

[1:33:07] then Provo City's cost [clears throat]

[1:33:09] associated with this is um there's a and

[1:33:14] I'll I'll get to that later, but there's

[1:33:16] a connection into an existing system

[1:33:18] that we have that we would like them to

[1:33:20] make and some inlets that will be placed

[1:33:24] um further up. One of the big caveats

[1:33:27] though that I wanted to make sure you

[1:33:28] guys were aware of is in this agreement

[1:33:31] we did put in a limited discharge

[1:33:33] section. The reason being is that

[1:33:36] currently there is no um Oram city

[1:33:40] outfall because they have not completed

[1:33:43] their Lake View Parkway uh

[1:33:45] [clears throat] roadway. They have to

[1:33:47] overflow into Provo City's connection or

[1:33:50] system in Lake View Parkway. And if they

[1:33:54] were to connect like a whole subdivision

[1:33:58] or two onto the system, our system

[1:34:01] wouldn't be able to handle it. we don't

[1:34:02] have the capacity to have their

[1:34:06] communities added onto our system. So

[1:34:09] this limited discharge is essentially

[1:34:11] stating that the only discharge going

[1:34:13] into the system is from our street

[1:34:16] drainage because that is going

[1:34:19] eventually to Provo City

[1:34:22] uh [clears throat] storm storm water

[1:34:23] right now. And once they have an outfall

[1:34:26] placed with their lengthy parkway

[1:34:28] extension, then they can hook on

[1:34:31] whatever they want because it will then

[1:34:33] be disconnected from the Provo um

[1:34:37] system. So um these are just some of the

[1:34:42] exhibits within the agreement showing

[1:34:43] the project plans um [clears throat]

[1:34:46] just where it starts and and

[1:34:49] ends. And then um the highlighted in

[1:34:53] yellow section right here. Oh, sorry. I

[1:34:56] forget that. You can draw.

[1:34:58] >> Draw it. No worries.

[1:35:00] >> This part.

[1:35:02] Um so we have an existing sump in the

[1:35:05] road on 2000. We would like them to make

[1:35:09] the connection so that instead of

[1:35:12] potentially overflowing in a big rain

[1:35:14] event having to go around corner um it

[1:35:16] can just connect into the storm drain

[1:35:19] system and flow out. So um that's the

[1:35:22] main cost that Provo City is going to be

[1:35:24] paying for. We also do take they we did

[1:35:28] some math and we take percentage of

[1:35:30] other costs associated which I'll show

[1:35:33] you.

[1:35:34] >> The whole cost is 16. Yeah. Yep. That's

[1:35:38] the cost that Provo City will pay. The total contract cost is 900 just over

[1:35:44] 900,000.

[1:35:45] >> So the materials to do that connection

[1:35:49] and the replacement of the of the

[1:35:52] asphalt and everything is about 13

[1:35:54] $14,000. And then this $2,2500

[1:35:59] is is takes a percentage of so we take

[1:36:03] the cost of $14,000 and see how much

[1:36:06] that is of the overall contract and then

[1:36:08] on certain items like SWIP and

[1:36:12] mobilization and traffic control we take

[1:36:15] we pay a cost part of that cost because

[1:36:17] they'll have to use that you know to do

[1:36:19] our section. So the total cost for us

[1:36:22] comes out to $16,52049.

[1:36:26] So not a crazy expense for us in the

[1:36:29] long run.

[1:36:30] >> No.

[1:36:30] >> All right.

[1:36:31] >> Um Oh, there was one. I don't know if I

[1:36:33] had that. No. Um there

[1:36:38] this is a part of what Provo City is

[1:36:40] paying, but there is also an inlet here

[1:36:45] and another one on that side. There's

[1:36:48] two inlets that are being placed that

[1:36:50] public city will take over ownership of

[1:36:52] once they are installed, but we are not

[1:36:54] paying the cost of them. The reason

[1:36:56] being is that there's a development and

[1:36:59] why this is all going in is there's a

[1:37:01] development on ORM's side of the road

[1:37:04] that they have to get collector street

[1:37:08] drainage at some point. It's part of our

[1:37:09] city code. And so ORM has an agreement

[1:37:12] with the developer to get these

[1:37:14] installed. And since that would normally

[1:37:16] be a cost of the developer, we are not

[1:37:18] having to pay for them. So,

[1:37:20] >> yes.

[1:37:23] >> Any questions? Yes.

[1:37:26] >> Is it fair to say this is a good deal

[1:37:27] for us? [laughter]

[1:37:28] >> Yes.

[1:37:29] >> That's what it sounds like.

[1:37:32] >> Councelor Bogen.

[1:37:34] >> Danielle, do we know how close Orm is to

[1:37:38] getting their portion of the Lake View

[1:37:39] Parkway finished?

[1:37:41] >> I don't know. Unfortunately,

[1:37:44] I'm hoping I have heard rumors so that things are

[1:37:49] >> What do rumors say?

[1:37:51] >> That that maybe the mayor, the new mayor

[1:37:53] might be helping get things moving. But

[1:37:56] again, all of them are all speculation.

[1:37:58] I don't know.

[1:38:00] >> When I when I talked to Karen, she said

[1:38:02] that's probably a good thing to put on

[1:38:04] our joint meeting.

[1:38:05] >> That is a good thing to

[1:38:06] >> Yeah, that is

[1:38:10] » Yeah, I finished.

[1:38:11] >> Thank you so much. Thank you.

[1:38:13] >> All right. Next, we have an ordinance

[1:38:15] vacating a section of 600 West to deed

[1:38:17] back to the adjoining property owners.

[1:38:19] This was presented by Megan Jensen, a

[1:38:20] city planner.

[1:38:27] Hey, thank you.

[1:38:31] Um, this one is pretty simple. Um, on

[1:38:34] 1600 West, there was a subdivision. Um

[1:38:38] and the city had a certain portion of

[1:38:40] the ride ofway dedicated to us to do

[1:38:43] street improvements. Um those

[1:38:45] improvements have been done.

[1:38:49] Um and there's about a 20 foot width

[1:38:54] that's left over. And so this is just to

[1:38:57] deed that property back to the adjoining

[1:39:00] land owners.

[1:39:02] >> They originally gave it to you, right?

[1:39:03] >> Yeah.

[1:39:05] >> And that's all

[1:39:05] >> as it should be. Any questions?

[1:39:09] >> I I was a little confused on this one.

[1:39:11] So

[1:39:14] they You just said they gave it.

[1:39:16] >> It's their land originally.

[1:39:17] >> It was their land originally. So when we

[1:39:19] got that from them, did we purchase it

[1:39:22] from them? Did we

[1:39:24] >> You have to give it

[1:39:26] >> for their subdivision. We required it

[1:39:28] dedication.

[1:39:28] >> Okay. We required as dedication for the

[1:39:30] subdivision and we've been able to do

[1:39:32] our work. Had our elbow room. We're done

[1:39:35] with it now.

[1:39:36] Okay. I just

[1:39:39] I I know that we're not supposed to give

[1:39:42] away land without compensation and

[1:39:44] that's I wanted to make sure that wasn't

[1:39:46] an issue here

[1:39:47] >> because they gave it for freeze.

[1:39:48] >> That's that's what I thought though.

[1:39:50] >> Yeah. And on top of that, it's actually

[1:39:51] what the state statute requires for

[1:39:53] vacations. So once we dedicated

[1:39:55] property, once we decide we're not using

[1:39:57] it and we vacate it, it's what the state

[1:39:59] statute requires.

[1:40:00] >> Yeah. I just think it's useful to make

[1:40:03] it clear that it's okay for us to give

[1:40:06] this land back.

[1:40:08] >> Councelor Bogdan.

[1:40:10] >> So with 1600 West, especially down this

[1:40:13] portion, it is super narrow. Super super

[1:40:16] narrow. We are confident that we're

[1:40:19] going to have be wide enough.

[1:40:22] >> So

[1:40:23] >> this portion right here is across from

[1:40:24] existing houses. It's not that upper

[1:40:27] portion that we had widened. So, this

[1:40:29] road has been on the plan to widen for

[1:40:32] um decades. And the problem we have is

[1:40:35] you notice the next house and you can't

[1:40:37] see all the houses on there. It never

[1:40:40] gets widened. Sidewalk never got done

[1:40:42] because we kept saying we're going to

[1:40:44] build back to this line of dedication,

[1:40:46] but we would have had to buy like eight

[1:40:48] houses to do that. Um we determined that

[1:40:52] that's never going to happen. So, we

[1:40:54] would never build sidewalk along the

[1:40:55] street. So, it's better just to get the

[1:40:57] sidewalk in now. Even though rather than

[1:41:01] try to wait till we buy these houses,

[1:41:03] otherwise we'd be

[1:41:05] decades before they would get sidewalk.

[1:41:07] It's better to get that in there now

[1:41:08] because we have so much growth. There's

[1:41:10] schools there. We just need to get the

[1:41:11] sidewalks in. And if we tried to hold

[1:41:15] that for a big roadway section, we would

[1:41:19] do what we did in the past and just

[1:41:20] never do it. And so, it just makes sense

[1:41:22] to get get in there, get it done. So

[1:41:25] holding out this person's right away

[1:41:27] after they dedicate it to us, we're just

[1:41:30] never going to use it. It's just uh it

[1:41:32] was a good idea, but it's not really

[1:41:35] practical or feasible to think we'd ever

[1:41:37] build that road that way just because of

[1:41:39] the house takings we'd have to do on

[1:41:40] both sides of the road.

[1:41:42] >> That doesn't solve the problem that that

[1:41:43] road is so narrow. That road is a

[1:41:46] problem. Is there parking allowed on it?

[1:41:48] No,

[1:41:50] I I don't think there's no parking

[1:41:52] signs, per se, but if people park on it,

[1:41:55] they're told by the cops you can only

[1:41:57] get one car down it. It's It's that

[1:41:59] narrow. It's an alleyway. It is not a

[1:42:00] street.

[1:42:01] >> So, it's one of the other streets that

[1:42:02] needs signs.

[1:42:03] >> It's just a street that needs to be

[1:42:06] widened and dealt with. And that's my

[1:42:08] concern right now.

[1:42:09] >> It's a main street. I'm not familiar

[1:42:10] with that.

[1:42:11] >> 1600 West is scheduled to go in through

[1:42:13] all the way to the Parkway.

[1:42:16] And this goes from Sunset View

[1:42:18] Elementary

[1:42:19] south and it dead ends right now into

[1:42:22] Farmfields and it will go through all

[1:42:24] the way to the Parkway. It's one of the

[1:42:27] 1100,600 2050

[1:42:31] river.

[1:42:32] >> It goes down to the ballpark, so you get

[1:42:34] a lot of traffic when ball seasons in.

[1:42:39] Um,

[1:42:41] I get complaints all the time that we

[1:42:43] never should have allowed that

[1:42:44] development to go through because we

[1:42:46] just don't have

[1:42:49] the sidewalk for the kids to walk to

[1:42:50] school. We just don't have the width of

[1:42:53] that road. And so that's my concern is

[1:42:55] we're giving this up and I realize we

[1:42:57] have to buy this is going to be a major

[1:43:01] corridor. It's going from Center Street

[1:43:04] all the way to the Parkway.

[1:43:06] The sense is if we're going to end up

[1:43:08] doing that and buying all these homes,

[1:43:11] if we have to buy back that right away,

[1:43:12] that would be the least of our expenses.

[1:43:15] The the the power corridor, all the

[1:43:18] utilities, the expense of this project

[1:43:20] to make it a bigger width than this is

[1:43:22] so enormous that I don't see it

[1:43:25] happening in several generations. And so

[1:43:27] we would go generations without this.

[1:43:29] Even if this connects down to it to the

[1:43:33] lake view, it will

[1:43:36] the the funding cost looking projecting

[1:43:38] out funding. This will never get done

[1:43:41] and it will stay with no sidewalks on a

[1:43:44] narrow road for generations because

[1:43:47] we're waiting for funding to buy all

[1:43:48] those homes, relocate all the power

[1:43:50] corridor, um relocate all the

[1:43:53] irrigation, all the other things are out

[1:43:54] there. And and I think we've seen that

[1:43:57] in the last 30 years. this is need to be

[1:43:59] done, but we just there's not going to

[1:44:01] be a time that we'll come to this group

[1:44:03] and say we got to buy nine homes at half

[1:44:06] a million or a million dollars a pop,

[1:44:08] buy all this property.

[1:44:10] I would envision this group looking at

[1:44:12] us and saying that's just not ever going

[1:44:15] to be a $10 million priority to build

[1:44:17] this road.

[1:44:18] >> Is it is it narrow for blocks and blocks

[1:44:21] or is it just narrow for like eight

[1:44:22] homes? It's narrow for several blocks,

[1:44:24] but once you get into the open field,

[1:44:26] we'll widen it out once.

[1:44:28] >> So, with the new stuff, you will make it

[1:44:30] appropriately.

[1:44:30] >> We looked at the traffic. It will

[1:44:32] function. It's not ideal. It's um going

[1:44:36] to be challenging, but we'll have other

[1:44:38] um collective grid in this section. So,

[1:44:42] this piece of rightway, whether we own

[1:44:45] it or don't own it, isn't going to

[1:44:46] dictate whether we ever do this widely

[1:44:48] or not. It's going to be if this body

[1:44:51] wants to dedicate millions and millions

[1:44:53] of dollars to buy homes and not even

[1:44:56] build the road yet, just to buy the

[1:44:57] homes, then

[1:45:00] >> this road not being wide doesn't mean

[1:45:01] you can't widen the new roads that will

[1:45:03] come in.

[1:45:03] >> No, we would widen for this. We go

[1:45:05] further down.

[1:45:06] >> The problem is it ends at Sunset

[1:45:08] Elementary. So, it is one of the two

[1:45:11] major roads you use going from the south

[1:45:13] to get up to the school. And it's

[1:45:16] as much as it has no sidewalk on it,

[1:45:18] you've got that new subdivision that has

[1:45:19] lots of kids. And so you do have a lot

[1:45:21] of pedestrian traffic.

[1:45:23] >> We just want to get them off the road

[1:45:25] into on the sidewalks is the goal we

[1:45:27] have there.

[1:45:30] Anyway, that's where I think just

[1:45:32] projecting out seeing the future. That's

[1:45:34] what I would envision. So certainly this

[1:45:36] body can look at something different,

[1:45:37] but I don't envision us owning that. We

[1:45:40] have a no man's land. It'd be nice just

[1:45:42] to have landscape take care of it.

[1:45:45] I just don't see a a scenario

[1:45:49] where the city is going to take those

[1:45:52] homes through there for for generations.

[1:45:54] That's that's the concern we have. And

[1:45:56] we're going to have kids walking there

[1:45:57] for generations.

[1:45:58] >> And where is the sidewalk being placed?

[1:46:00] Is that on the piece that still Yeah.

[1:46:02] >> The city would own the sidewalk?

[1:46:05] >> That's where it says area to to remain

[1:46:07] dedicated. The sidewalk on the other

[1:46:09] side is actually more useful than the

[1:46:10] sidewalk here because these are farm

[1:46:13] houses, right? I mean, you can see how

[1:46:14] deep these lots are. I mean, Jeff and

[1:46:17] Lori live on this street, right? They

[1:46:20] live on this side of the street. This

[1:46:22] other side of the street is more they

[1:46:24] built the Hill Shawn Lane. So, Hillshaw

[1:46:27] is that one call Lane, but they built

[1:46:30] that there. And so, most of that

[1:46:31] farmland is is taken.

[1:46:34] And the junior high's over there, too,

[1:46:36] guys. I mean, you're looking at maybe

[1:46:38] two houses north is the elementary

[1:46:40] school and then you're looking at maybe

[1:46:42] three blocks w east is the junior high

[1:46:45] school.

[1:46:48] >> So, this is a very traveled road. It is

[1:46:50] a very narrow road

[1:46:53] and the inlet at 890 goes all the way

[1:46:56] through over to 1100 right past that

[1:46:58] junior high.

[1:47:02] » It's a highly traveled road. It does

[1:47:04] need sidewalks all the way down. So, the

[1:47:07] sidewalk goes what? Two houses and then

[1:47:09] it stops and then it goes down to 8.90.

[1:47:12] I mean, you're looking from six out to

[1:47:13] 890. You're looking at three blocks and

[1:47:16] this is closer to six than it is to 890.

[1:47:19] So, I agree the sidewalk needs to be

[1:47:21] there.

[1:47:24] And I And this is behind the sidewalk.

[1:47:26] It's not in front of the sidewalk,

[1:47:27] right?

[1:47:28] >> Yeah, that section's

[1:47:30] >> Why did we have the sidewalk come out so

[1:47:32] far? Why didn't we have it pushed back?

[1:47:34] >> So if you look what we intend to do is if we have the road weeding in and

[1:47:40] out makes an unsafe condition. We wanted

[1:47:42] to just have a straight shot because if

[1:47:44] you look at all the other pre property

[1:47:46] they would own way out. So, if we're

[1:47:49] putting this sidewalk in,

[1:47:51] um,

[1:47:54] if we had built it into this section and

[1:47:57] then build it out, then build it in and

[1:47:59] build it out, the the drainage would be

[1:48:03] virtually impossible to manage. It would

[1:48:05] be awful for It'd be unsafe condition

[1:48:07] for the traffic.

[1:48:09] Um,

[1:48:11] it would just create a hazard. it would

[1:48:13] be a hazard for the kids that walk out

[1:48:15] into the sidewalk, out into the street.

[1:48:18] There's there's not a good reason to

[1:48:20] build it that way. So, we need to build

[1:48:22] a straight shot. And um I just believe

[1:48:26] the financial constraints are not going

[1:48:28] to let us

[1:48:31] build a road we'd really like to build.

[1:48:33] And so, I think that's where we are with

[1:48:35] that. I don't know if that answered your

[1:48:36] question.

[1:48:37] >> No, it did. I appreciate that. But I

[1:48:39] also think it's good to get out there

[1:48:40] into the public because this street is

[1:48:43] the street is a problem.

[1:48:45] >> It is, but we have so many kids walking

[1:48:47] down that street and

[1:48:48] >> we do.

[1:48:48] >> And if I and if we just keep the lane

[1:48:51] and not doing the sidewalk, I felt so we we just said we're going to jump on

[1:48:55] this. This just needs to get done. So

[1:48:57] we're going to finish the sidewalk.

[1:48:58] >> We need to get the no parking signs up

[1:49:00] on that road, too.

[1:49:00] >> Yeah, we can do that, too.

[1:49:01] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[1:49:02] >> I have two questions. One, just to

[1:49:04] summarize the conversation to make sure

[1:49:05] I'm understanding it well. Essentially,

[1:49:07] we're saying there's a lot of kids on

[1:49:09] the street. We want to build a sidewalk.

[1:49:11] Because we're building the sidewalk, we

[1:49:12] know we won't need that piece of land

[1:49:14] because we're putting the sidewalk to

[1:49:15] the right of it. And that's why we're

[1:49:17] doing that's like the trigger. Is that

[1:49:18] correct?

[1:49:19] >> Yes.

[1:49:20] >> Amazing. So, we're prioritizing kids

[1:49:21] safety um ahead of time, proactively. Is

[1:49:25] that fair to say?

[1:49:26] >> Yes.

[1:49:26] >> Cool. I have a really just a small

[1:49:28] question. What is the actual size of

[1:49:30] that parcel? Because there's sort of

[1:49:32] different reports of it in the in

[1:49:34] different documents. One of them says

[1:49:36] it's uh

[1:49:40] 13 acres and the other one says it's 085

[1:49:42] acres. So I'm just curious if you know

[1:49:44] the actual size.

[1:49:45] >> The size of the the red part the red

[1:49:48] >> is 08 is what it says in the legal

[1:49:51] description here.

[1:49:54] >> Sorry it's small. Okay, there we go. So

[1:49:56] >> they knew they told me one time. I never

[1:49:58] really

[1:50:00] >> That's why I need somebody to tell me.

[1:50:02] >> Makes sense. What is the width of that

[1:50:04] row now that we're talking about city

[1:50:06] shades?

[1:50:06] >> I

[1:50:08] burn both speakers on vacation.

[1:50:12] No, we're not glad. Nobody should be

[1:50:14] flat. It's not a positive.

[1:50:16] >> Don't reward that behavior.

[1:50:17] >> No, we are not going to reward that. I

[1:50:19] won't tell anybody said otherwise. No.

[1:50:22] So, we we've gone back and forth this

[1:50:25] before we did the sidewalk project. We

[1:50:27] had been arguing for probably two years,

[1:50:29] Bernie and I, back and forth. we got to

[1:50:31] consensus that we had to get this was

[1:50:34] the only way to get the sidewalk done

[1:50:35] and is just to do this and and and and

[1:50:40] he's concurrent with me. He agrees we we

[1:50:43] just we just had to find a way to solve

[1:50:45] this. So

[1:50:46] >> we don't remember the width.

[1:50:48] >> Yeah, we do know the width, but I have

[1:50:50] to go look it up. I don't know it.

[1:50:53] >> Well, we're glad bird agrees. Is it

[1:50:55] smaller than 24 feet?

[1:50:57] >> Uh I'm looking at it right now. I would

[1:51:00] dare say it is

[1:51:01] >> not what it is.

[1:51:03] >> Don't measure the wider part with the

[1:51:04] new subdivision measure.

[1:51:05] >> I think it's bigger. I think it's a 60

[1:51:07] foot asphalt or 30 foot asphalt section,

[1:51:10] but I'd have to

[1:51:11] >> I would guess we're 30. I don't think

[1:51:12] it's 60.

[1:51:18] » Yeah,

[1:51:19] >> let me let me check. We're also we're

[1:51:21] eliminate. Let me let me find out. We

[1:51:24] can get back [laughter] to

[1:51:26] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:51:29] All right. Next, we have an ordinance

[1:51:30] requiring members of the boards and

[1:51:32] commissions to be provo residents. This

[1:51:33] is presented by our policy analyst,

[1:51:36] Tanner Tikuchi.

[1:51:53] » Thank you. Today, first item I'll be

[1:51:55] presenting regards our boards and

[1:51:57] commissions. this topic came up because

[1:51:59] we're in the confirmation season, the

[1:52:01] consenting season for board appointees.

[1:52:05] So essentially what this does is it

[1:52:07] changes the what I call the default

[1:52:09] setting for residency requirements.

[1:52:11] Currently in code, the default is that

[1:52:13] anyone can serve on a Provo board or

[1:52:17] commission regardless of their residency

[1:52:19] status being a Provo resident unless the

[1:52:22] code in that specific board or

[1:52:24] commission section of statute says

[1:52:26] otherwise. Those boards, as I understand

[1:52:28] it, are listed right here with their

[1:52:30] actual requirements. So, what the

[1:52:32] proposal, the policy proposal that I'm

[1:52:35] going to explain today would essentially

[1:52:38] add a residency requirement to the

[1:52:40] general section of the boards and

[1:52:42] commissions chapter of code and allow

[1:52:46] exceptions to be made in the individual

[1:52:50] uh sections for the specific boards and

[1:52:52] commissions. So you can see the language

[1:52:55] here. That is what is the the function

[1:52:58] like the main functional part of the

[1:53:00] proposal. And then the other exhibits

[1:53:03] that are included in your packet allow

[1:53:05] the arts council to maintain three

[1:53:07] non-residents because of the impact the

[1:53:09] arts council has on the broader Utah

[1:53:11] County community. Uh that was uh

[1:53:14] requested by the sponsor councelor

[1:53:16] Bogdan. And then as Brian and I talked

[1:53:18] about it, we suggested adding

[1:53:22] exceptions there in the airport board

[1:53:25] and on the board of equalization which

[1:53:26] is made exclusively of city employees.

[1:53:29] >> What's FPO?

[1:53:31] >> Uh flight based operator.

[1:53:34] >> It's the person who runs the

[1:53:36] >> Yeah.

[1:53:36] >> the gas and stuff.

[1:53:38] >> Oh yeah yeah yeah. Okay. Got it. They're

[1:53:40] that representative is required to be a

[1:53:42] member of

[1:53:44] representing the business side rather

[1:53:46] than Yeah.

[1:53:47] >> Citizen sign and there's no guarantee

[1:53:49] that whoever that person is going to do.

[1:53:51] That makes sense.

[1:53:52] >> Correct.

[1:53:54] >> And uh this was a change made when we

[1:53:56] about the time we published. So the

[1:53:58] language of of candidates here would

[1:54:00] allow any incumbent non-residents to

[1:54:03] continue. I understand that there's at

[1:54:04] least one that was just appointed to the

[1:54:06] landmarks commission. So that individual

[1:54:08] would be able to to carry out the term

[1:54:10] that they've been approved to. Great.

[1:54:12] >> To to start.

[1:54:13] >> All right. Any questions for Okay.

[1:54:15] >> Oh, sorry. I can just I'll make this

[1:54:16] quick. I I just want to point out like

[1:54:19] there's there's a consideration to be

[1:54:21] made about some committees having very

[1:54:24] specific requirements. You'll see some

[1:54:26] of these uh listed here require

[1:54:29] additional training or experience. So

[1:54:32] essentially one of the impacts of this

[1:54:33] could be shrinking the total talent

[1:54:35] pool. For example, not all BYU history

[1:54:37] professors live in the city. So you

[1:54:39] would if the council is comfortable uh

[1:54:42] with the pool of professors or anyone

[1:54:45] else with history experience or

[1:54:47] transportation academia experience

[1:54:49] living in the city then that really is a

[1:54:50] non-issue at that point. I don't have

[1:54:53] any numbers to back that up right now.

[1:54:55] [laughter] But I don't know how many

[1:54:57] history professors live here in the

[1:54:58] city. That's what I mean. Uh you can see

[1:55:02] of the boards and commissions that we

[1:55:03] have, we're on the lower end. Most

[1:55:04] cities require more of their boards to

[1:55:06] have some form of residency than us. So,

[1:55:08] we're the largest city out of those.

[1:55:10] >> That's correct. And this is just a

[1:55:13] summary of

[1:55:13] >> there's more people that you

[1:55:14] >> how

[1:55:15] >> the boards will be composed

[1:55:18] if this proposal is adopted. And that's

[1:55:20] the end of it.

[1:55:23] >> Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for

[1:55:25] Tanner?

[1:55:27] >> Yes.

[1:55:28] >> Just the arts council could you

[1:55:30] mentioned the broader impact it has on

[1:55:34] the broader community,

[1:55:35] >> correct? Um, I guess I need a little

[1:55:37] more. I mean, why does the IRS council

[1:55:41] need to have people from outside Provo?

[1:55:43] I don't know. Just I just need to

[1:55:44] understand it was a little more.

[1:55:45] >> That just came to us a couple years ago.

[1:55:47] Yeah, go for it.

[1:55:49] >> When the Cubby Center was constructed,

[1:55:51] that was a change I think that came

[1:55:53] around that time because of the regional

[1:55:56] nature of the Cubby Center and the

[1:55:58] assumption that the arts council would

[1:55:59] be part of, you know, with that

[1:56:02] facility. So it was looked at as a

[1:56:05] regional facility and is being utilized

[1:56:07] as such. So that was the logic behind it

[1:56:09] back then.

[1:56:09] >> So you think it's still justified?

[1:56:14] » I think it is. Yeah.

[1:56:15] >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:56:19] >> Question.

[1:56:20] >> Yes.

[1:56:21] >> Gary.

[1:56:22] >> Uh yes, Tanner. Can you um clarify for

[1:56:26] me how this relates to the power board?

[1:56:29] Is the power board technically not a

[1:56:31] Provo board since it's UMPA?

[1:56:36] » It it is and it is outlined in the pro

[1:56:40] the power section of code.

[1:56:42] >> Yeah.

[1:56:42] >> And they're all residents, right?

[1:56:44] >> Yes.

[1:56:45] >> Oh, they are all residents.

[1:56:47] >> Currently they are.

[1:56:48] >> I believe they are.

[1:56:49] >> Currently they are.

[1:56:50] >> So is it not requ but this would make it

[1:56:52] required that they all are.

[1:56:53] >> As I Yes, that is correct.

[1:56:55] >> And I think that makes sense because

[1:56:57] only six cities. Why would we want

[1:56:59] somebody from or sitting on our

[1:57:01] >> energy board? And we have to have an

[1:57:03] energy board from what I understand

[1:57:05] because we're so large, right?

[1:57:07] >> So, it doesn't make sense to farm that

[1:57:09] out.

[1:57:10] >> If we're supposed to have it, let's keep

[1:57:12] it,

[1:57:13] >> right? But what about So, what am I

[1:57:16] missing here? Because it includes Nephi

[1:57:18] and um so

[1:57:21] >> No, no, no. Well, that's not the Oompa

[1:57:23] board. That's a whole different board.

[1:57:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. Gary, I think you're

[1:57:25] conflating the the board of directors of

[1:57:28] UMPA with the Provo City Energy Board

[1:57:31] that just advises the Provo City Energy

[1:57:33] Department.

[1:57:34] >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Thank Thank you.

[1:57:38] >> Thank you,

[1:57:38] >> Gary. I've heard that Spanish Fork is

[1:57:40] getting close to where they would be

[1:57:42] required to have an energy board as

[1:57:43] well. So, I think it's within UMPA's

[1:57:45] bylaws or something that triggers an

[1:57:48] energy board.

[1:57:52] » All right, any other questions?

[1:57:55] Yeah, go ahead.

[1:57:56] >> Yes, madam director. [laughter]

[1:57:59] >> Um I thought Bill, correct me if I'm

[1:58:02] wrong. I thought we got rid of the

[1:58:04] design review committee. Is that still

[1:58:06] in code?

[1:58:07] >> Um we'll be getting rid of formalizing

[1:58:09] that with new

[1:58:10] >> Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you,

[1:58:13] >> Scott Henderson.

[1:58:14] >> Uh maybe um helping you with the

[1:58:17] definition of residency. Um, I know

[1:58:19] there are board members that own a

[1:58:21] business here in town or own land or own

[1:58:24] property. Are those included as

[1:58:27] residents? Are we going to have to

[1:58:29] establish whether or not they reside in

[1:58:31] the community or are they landowned?

[1:58:33] >> That's a good that's a good point.

[1:58:35] >> So, as far as the legal definition, I

[1:58:38] mean, when I've worked on other issues

[1:58:39] in the past, if there's no definition in

[1:58:41] code, then it reverts to the most common

[1:58:43] understanding of what a resident would

[1:58:44] be, which would be their primary

[1:58:46] residences here in the city. like they

[1:58:48] spend 51% of their residential time in

[1:58:51] the city. But Brian, feel free to jump

[1:58:53] in and correct me on that.

[1:58:55] >> No, I I think that's I think that's

[1:58:57] right as far as what the definition

[1:58:58] means. And I guess to the policy

[1:58:59] question, could you go back to the slide

[1:59:01] that lists the boards? I think yeah I

[1:59:04] was gonna say I think the question the

[1:59:07] policy question is a valid one and then

[1:59:10] and it just becomes a are there some of

[1:59:12] the are there any of these that you

[1:59:15] think that someone who owns property

[1:59:20] uh should be allowed rather than someone

[1:59:23] who lives here because you know just

[1:59:26] because somebody I don't know owns a

[1:59:30] business doesn't necessarily make them a

[1:59:31] prime candidate for the library board,

[1:59:34] >> but it might make them a prime candidate

[1:59:35] for

[1:59:36] >> the energy board maybe, right? I mean,

[1:59:39] because they're that has an impact on

[1:59:40] business. So,

[1:59:42] >> I know I know my goal is residents as

[1:59:44] far as they live here. Yeah.

[1:59:46] >> Their quality of life, their day-to-day,

[1:59:50] >> they're invested.

[1:59:51] >> And I would say also to Brian's comment,

[1:59:53] you know, there's a ven diagram. people

[1:59:55] who own businesses in Provo, people who

[1:59:56] live in Provo, and there's an overlap

[1:59:58] there, you would be now then focusing on

[2:00:00] you could consider if there was a need

[2:00:02] for someone who owned a business. It's

[2:00:05] just a smaller pool, but it is an

[2:00:06] existing pool of residents who own

[2:00:08] businesses. So,

[2:00:09] >> Gary, do you have a question? Does Gary

[2:00:11] have his hand up?

[2:00:12] >> Okay.

[2:00:13] >> Um, it was the earlier question, but

[2:00:15] since you call asked, [clears throat]

[2:00:16] yes, I will inquire. I will inquire

[2:00:19] about DPI. Um to Scott's earlier point

[2:00:23] about down about business owners, could

[2:00:26] they be in business owners be included

[2:00:28] on

[2:00:29] >> Okay. Okay. That's a separate

[2:00:31] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:00:35] >> I have I have a question. Have we had

[2:00:37] because Tanner, you mentioned like a

[2:00:39] conceptual on your other slide where you

[2:00:41] said residency requirements may limit

[2:00:43] talent pools.

[2:00:44] >> Yeah, sure.

[2:00:45] >> Have we had a difficult time filling

[2:00:49] boards historically?

[2:00:51] Now that I'm aware, Scott, I don't know.

[2:00:52] You would probably have more experience

[2:00:54] historically and I haven't asked that

[2:00:55] question of you.

[2:00:56] >> It seems to be a constant call and

[2:00:58] especially around July 1, there is a,

[2:01:01] you know, quite a turnover, but I think

[2:01:03] we've been able to reach quorums and

[2:01:04] fill our boards along the way with a

[2:01:06] little bit of cooperative effort. While

[2:01:09] this slide is up, just going back to

[2:01:10] Scott's earlier comment. You notice that

[2:01:12] particularly in team, one of the members

[2:01:15] on TeamAC is supposed to set

[2:01:17] specifically be a somebody who

[2:01:19] represents a business. So that that may

[2:01:22] be one of the questions where that one

[2:01:24] of the areas where Scott's question

[2:01:25] particularly applies is do you want that

[2:01:28] to have to be a business representative

[2:01:31] who also lives here or could it just

[2:01:34] >> We have that now. So, right now it's the

[2:01:35] Vesper owner who lives here and owns the

[2:01:39] >> Yeah.

[2:01:39] >> the scooter store.

[2:01:42] So, I think we can do both.

[2:01:46] I I double checked on T-Mac and Vern

[2:01:48] felt comfortable with the change.

[2:01:50] Thought it was good.

[2:01:53] >> You can try it. See how it goes.

[2:01:55] >> I mean, yeah, if we run into a problem,

[2:01:56] we know [laughter]

[2:01:59] expand.

[2:01:59] >> All right.

[2:01:59] >> Yeah. the way that it's for example the

[2:02:01] way that it's the way that it's written

[2:02:04] uh it says accept as provided with the

[2:02:07] specific board. So you could always add

[2:02:08] language to the team act one later

[2:02:11] saying that that one doesn't have to be

[2:02:13] a resump the one that you're the change

[2:02:15] that you're making.

[2:02:16] >> Sure. So

[2:02:18] >> all right well we'll hear to this is in

[2:02:20] the night meeting.

[2:02:21] >> Yeah I can bring it back to a night

[2:02:22] meeting the next night meeting. But I

[2:02:24] can also say that even though we have

[2:02:25] BYU, we're still a pretty large city,

[2:02:27] right? And we are still the hub and I

[2:02:32] think we can and we have a college town.

[2:02:34] So we have professors living here, we

[2:02:36] have business owners living here, we

[2:02:38] have residents living here. I think we

[2:02:40] should be able to fill those.

[2:02:42] >> Awesome. Thank you.

[2:02:46] » Oh, you're the next one. Read it really

[2:02:49] quick, Tanner. a discussion regarding a

[2:02:51] proposed text amendment to allow tow

[2:02:53] truck parking in residential zones

[2:02:56] and I'm not going to read the part that

[2:02:57] >> yeah thank you for not reading so yeah

[2:03:00] uh this is an issue item that was

[2:03:02] sponsored by councelor McKay and

[2:03:03] councelor Bogdan and just to clarify

[2:03:05] this item only pertains to storage and

[2:03:08] parking of a tow truck on a residential

[2:03:12] parcel not streets in a residential zone

[2:03:14] so I [snorts] just want to make that

[2:03:15] clear up front I I that's my

[2:03:17] responsibility for any confusion on

[2:03:19] that.

[2:03:21] So,

[2:03:23] this is an act balancing act of public

[2:03:27] safety and the needs of the police

[2:03:29] department compared to like local

[2:03:32] neighborhood issues and trying to make

[2:03:35] uh trying to balance those those

[2:03:37] important needs.

[2:03:39] First, just a little bit of context. I'm

[2:03:40] going to talk about how tow trucks

[2:03:42] operate in Provo and I'm going to get to

[2:03:44] the proposal and describing what the

[2:03:46] proposal exactly entails towards the

[2:03:48] end. But in Provo, we have several tow

[2:03:51] truck businesses that operate here

[2:03:54] and not all of them are resident. People

[2:03:56] who operate tow truck businesses,

[2:03:58] speaking to that question from earlier,

[2:04:00] actually live here in Provo. some they

[2:04:02] might operate from yards here. But in

[2:04:05] addition to providing services to

[2:04:08] citizens or residents who need towing

[2:04:10] services because they have a flat tire

[2:04:11] or something like that, they also

[2:04:13] respond to public public needs from law

[2:04:14] enforcement agencies including the

[2:04:16] proper police department. And so that

[2:04:18] can be for any number of issues, some of

[2:04:20] which are listed here. And so the police

[2:04:22] department rather frequently calls on

[2:04:24] tow trucks in the area through a what's

[2:04:28] called a rotation list where all of the

[2:04:30] tow truck businesses are listed out and

[2:04:32] then they go in order calling on their

[2:04:34] services when they're required.

[2:04:37] Those tow truck companies that are on

[2:04:39] the rotation list and who are on the

[2:04:41] rotation list for other law enforcement

[2:04:43] agencies in the county that will operate

[2:04:45] in the county have contractual

[2:04:49] time limits that they have to respond to

[2:04:51] those calls. So you'll see it can be

[2:04:54] longer for some of these other agencies.

[2:04:56] Ours is 15 minutes. I will say though

[2:04:58] that that's actually to my knowledge not

[2:05:00] written anywhere yet. The police

[2:05:03] department is working on a written

[2:05:04] agreement that will codify that likely

[2:05:06] to 15 minutes uh when they adopt their

[2:05:09] new software uh to help operate the tow

[2:05:12] list. But I spoke to everyone on the tow

[2:05:14] list, the operators that is to say, and

[2:05:17] then the police department. And everyone

[2:05:20] across the board without fail said the

[2:05:22] expectation is 15 minutes. So that is

[2:05:24] what they're functionally operating on

[2:05:26] right now. So would they have to respond

[2:05:29] in 15 minutes to any call that they

[2:05:31] receive any time of day 24/7? That's

[2:05:33] what we're expecting of the tow truck

[2:05:35] companies.

[2:05:37] So I'll go over these again. It's not

[2:05:40] covering this or sorry it's not covering

[2:05:41] this. This has nothing to do with this.

[2:05:43] But so this will stay in code. However,

[2:05:47] this is a piece of code that's currently

[2:05:50] in our zoning our zone ordinance zoning

[2:05:54] code that would prohibit them from they

[2:05:57] prohibit most tow trucks from being

[2:05:59] stored on a residential lot. So

[2:06:01] essentially they cannot park their tow

[2:06:03] truck that they operate at their house

[2:06:06] is what that law is saying. And so this

[2:06:08] has created some conflicts for residents

[2:06:10] where they're being cited by code

[2:06:12] enforcement for having their tow truck

[2:06:14] at their house even though we're

[2:06:16] requiring a 15-minute response to police

[2:06:18] calls even at night time.

[2:06:20] >> Wait, can you go back one, Tanner? There

[2:06:22] you go.

[2:06:23] >> Shall be allowed to be parked on any

[2:06:25] public street or world.

[2:06:27] >> No tow truck. Okay. So, that's no

[2:06:29] parking. Correct.

[2:06:30] >> That's correct.

[2:06:30] >> I thought they were conflicting like you

[2:06:31] said, but they're the same. Okay.

[2:06:33] >> Yes.

[2:06:35] So, just to give a quick background also

[2:06:38] on if if this has been a problem, if

[2:06:40] this happens frequently, um this is how

[2:06:43] many heavy trucks or heavy commercial

[2:06:45] vehicles are cited by code enforcement

[2:06:47] annually for parking on the street

[2:06:49] illegally in violation of that first

[2:06:50] code. This is how many heavy commercial

[2:06:52] vehicles in general are being cited for

[2:06:55] being parked on a parcel illegally,

[2:06:58] whether that's a food truck or a, you

[2:07:00] know, heavy earth moving equipment or

[2:07:02] something like that. And then tow trucks

[2:07:04] actually, there's only been about five

[2:07:06] cases over the past 5 years that a tow

[2:07:08] truck has actually been in violation.

[2:07:10] That's just for you general context.

[2:07:12] This doesn't happen a lot, but it could

[2:07:14] happen. It's happened to some residents

[2:07:16] who have brought this to the council's

[2:07:18] attention recently.

[2:07:21] So, as far as the actual need or the

[2:07:24] effect of this and potentially

[2:07:27] prohibiting or making it difficult for

[2:07:29] operators to park at their house, um

[2:07:32] this is a a frequent occurrence.

[2:07:35] It's not probably a small portion of

[2:07:37] their actual business being a being

[2:07:39] called on to tow for Provo once a week,

[2:07:42] but um they could be um towing for other

[2:07:46] cities. And it really just would strain

[2:07:50] their ability to respond to like is

[2:07:53] listed here 1,800 requests a year for

[2:07:56] towing services.

[2:07:58] >> Councelor Bogdan has a question. So,

[2:08:01] >> let's say we keep this and they can't

[2:08:03] respond in 15 minutes because they're

[2:08:05] not dynamic

[2:08:07] and they can just drive to their yard

[2:08:09] and grab it and go.

[2:08:10] >> Mhm.

[2:08:12] >> What was cut from 35 down to what? We

[2:08:15] know. So I talked talked to Lieutenant

[2:08:18] Larson that he didn't give me an exact

[2:08:20] number. There are some people on the

[2:08:22] rotation right now who routinely miss

[2:08:24] the cutoff. And that's really the

[2:08:25] biggest impact on the operators is the

[2:08:28] fact that if they can't come in time

[2:08:31] then the officer, the responding officer

[2:08:32] will just skip them and they lose out on

[2:08:34] the calls. That's probably the biggest

[2:08:36] impact to the operator. Lieutenant

[2:08:38] Larson expects that some will drop off,

[2:08:41] but I don't think he was able to

[2:08:43] quantify exactly how many will will drop

[2:08:46] off the list because they're just kind

[2:08:48] of permanently unable to respond. And

[2:08:49] >> so we don't know how many would put us

[2:08:51] in like crisis mode. I mean, because

[2:08:53] we're using them one

[2:08:55] per week at 35.

[2:08:57] >> I get what you're looking. So I think so

[2:08:59] 35 companies responding. I don't think a

[2:09:02] reduction in that number will lead to a

[2:09:06] crisis. I think it will just lead to to

[2:09:08] more calls for the ex for the people who

[2:09:10] remain on the rotation list.

[2:09:12] >> But let's say let's say that Robin his

[2:09:15] company

[2:09:18] >> are they the only ones in town that can

[2:09:20] actually park at a towyard and and

[2:09:23] respond? I mean we haven't others that

[2:09:26] just aren't

[2:09:27] >> that are hiding their truck well that

[2:09:28] aren't getting

[2:09:30] >> hit. I mean,

[2:09:31] >> I understand what you mean.

[2:09:32] >> If if we if we keep this in in line and

[2:09:35] keep enforcing on this, are we going to

[2:09:38] just be down to dynamic?

[2:09:40] >> I understand what you're saying. Yes.

[2:09:42] >> Well, given I mean, you would think not,

[2:09:44] given that it's already currently

[2:09:47] illegal and we've only been sighting

[2:09:48] once a year.

[2:09:50] >> Yeah.

[2:09:51] >> Okay. So, they're not doing well at

[2:09:53] hiding their trucks. They're just not

[2:09:54] parking them here.

[2:09:55] >> Yeah. And we're not finding them. We're

[2:09:56] not complaining about it. or they don't

[2:09:58] live necessarily in the city, but the

[2:10:00] operators who do live in the city who could live in the city in the future

[2:10:03] would be impacted by it. You're right

[2:10:05] that there are some operators, the vast

[2:10:07] minority though, uh I out of my

[2:10:11] interviews that I've had with the towing

[2:10:12] companies, only three or four, three of

[2:10:15] which are the people you're referring to

[2:10:18] live within, you know, walking distance

[2:10:20] or close enough that it wouldn't really

[2:10:22] be an additional tax on their time.

[2:10:25] [clears throat]

[2:10:28] It's going to open. Okay.

[2:10:30] >> Uh, so we're going to open this up to

[2:10:33] all trailers and such.

[2:10:35] >> No. So, yeah, just

[2:10:36] >> tow truck. You're just going to put in

[2:10:38] there exceptions for tow trucks.

[2:10:40] >> Yep. So, I'll skip right to that.

[2:10:44] So, this would just this would this does

[2:10:46] two things. The primary action that

[2:10:48] you'll be taking if you adopt this is to

[2:10:50] basically say the code as it is stands

[2:10:54] except tow trucks. So we were going to

[2:10:57] continue to prohibit heavy commercial

[2:10:58] vehicles on residential parcels below

[2:11:02] above a certain weight rating except if

[2:11:05] you're a tow truck.

[2:11:08] That's that's the only

[2:11:10] >> and it's actually even more restricted

[2:11:12] than that unless you're a tow truck that

[2:11:14] has a contract for us to be on list

[2:11:18] >> with us or with any government

[2:11:19] >> with any government entity and I spoke

[2:11:22] with the code enforcement about that and

[2:11:25] they say and Sandy can speak to this uh

[2:11:27] they would prefer to keep it as any any

[2:11:29] government entity and it's it's easy

[2:11:32] enough to to verify that because of the

[2:11:34] way that the trucks have to be marked

[2:11:36] and you can easily verify if they're on

[2:11:38] another government agency's list.

[2:11:40] >> I mean, obviously this isn't happening a

[2:11:42] lot, but who would technically be

[2:11:44] responsible to enforce this? Is it

[2:11:46] Sandy's group or is it enforcement?

[2:11:48] >> It's code it would be code enforcement.

[2:11:50] >> She's Oh. Oh. S Oh, you do both know.

[2:11:52] >> I both know.

[2:11:52] >> Yes. Yeah. I got

[2:11:54] >> Yeah. Okay. So, it's not What I was

[2:11:56] asking actually is it parking or is it

[2:11:57] zoning enforcement?

[2:11:58] >> It would be code enforcement because

[2:12:00] it's

[2:12:00] >> Okay, it's code enforcement. It's not a

[2:12:02] parking. Okay.

[2:12:03] >> Um, councelor Christensen.

[2:12:06] Um,

[2:12:08] I'm sorry. I'm I'm not tracking.

[2:12:10] >> Okay.

[2:12:12] >> This This is such a minuscule

[2:12:15] impact.

[2:12:17] Am I missing something?

[2:12:20] >> I was asking. So, I'm just thinking

[2:12:22] about all the time spent to get to this

[2:12:24] point

[2:12:25] >> that you've spent. I

[2:12:28] >> I must be missing a slide.

[2:12:31] >> I'm not saying it's you. I'm just saying

[2:12:34] >> why are we spending time on this?

[2:12:35] >> Residents reached out to us and I

[2:12:38] sponsored it and Becky did.

[2:12:39] >> Okay. It it just seems to be such a

[2:12:43] minuscule issue that I I don't I don't

[2:12:46] think it's worth the uh the cycles.

[2:12:50] >> Sure.

[2:12:51] >> Council.

[2:12:52] >> Well, all the work's been done now. Now

[2:12:53] you just got to vote on it.

[2:12:54] >> You for sure.

[2:12:56] >> Yeah. I I I'm in the same boat with with

[2:12:59] Craig right now on this one. And I I

[2:13:02] will note that just um a couple blocks

[2:13:07] down on my street is one of the little

[2:13:09] towy yards. And so we frequently have

[2:13:11] these trucks and and everything there.

[2:13:14] And it is a significant issue in the

[2:13:18] neighborhood to have these big trucks

[2:13:20] moving through it. And if you're

[2:13:22] allowing, you know, a resident to bring

[2:13:25] that truck through the neighborhood

[2:13:27] regularly and onto their property,

[2:13:29] you're going to complete create problems

[2:13:32] with those neighbors.

[2:13:33] >> And I don't like that this

[2:13:37] tailor the law to favor a very small

[2:13:41] subset as, you know, a certain kind of

[2:13:44] business. when we know there are other

[2:13:46] businesses that operate in Provo for the

[2:13:49] good of the city although not with a

[2:13:50] government contract either with the food

[2:13:53] trucks or you know your trailers for

[2:13:55] your audiovisisual equipment and things

[2:13:56] like that where they are not allowed to

[2:13:58] park those large things on their

[2:14:00] property and when we had looked at those

[2:14:03] before the

[2:14:06] safety justifications that we had for

[2:14:08] exercising that power as a a government

[2:14:11] was you know sightelines if you've got

[2:14:12] this in your driveway then you can't see

[2:14:14] somebody on the sidewalk, you're

[2:14:16] creating a dangerous condition

[2:14:18] potentially by parking a big thing on

[2:14:20] your own property. And I I don't see

[2:14:27] changing that requirement for this type

[2:14:30] of vehicle if we're keeping it for the

[2:14:33] others. Now, if we decide that you

[2:14:37] should be able to park whatever you want

[2:14:38] on your own property, which I think is

[2:14:41] also a defensible position, then I would

[2:14:43] be in favor of of removing those

[2:14:45] restrictions entirely, but not just for

[2:14:47] this very small subset.

[2:14:49] >> That that doesn't

[2:14:51] feel fair to me and it doesn't doesn't

[2:14:54] make sense of those safety

[2:14:55] justifications.

[2:14:57] Um, the other thing that I will note is

[2:14:59] I'm I like the idea of reducing the

[2:15:02] gross vehicle weight because those can

[2:15:05] be a problem on our residential streets.

[2:15:07] They add additional wear and tear. Um,

[2:15:11] but if we are are encouraging people to

[2:15:15] bring those heavy vehicles onto their

[2:15:17] residential streets, I think we're we're

[2:15:19] creating a cost for the city. I know one

[2:15:21] of my neighbors has a very heavy truck

[2:15:24] and he drove it through our little alley

[2:15:29] after a period of wetness and rubble

[2:15:32] substantial damage

[2:15:34] >> to the alley which the city is not going

[2:15:36] to repair

[2:15:37] >> and we're going to have to raise money

[2:15:38] to repair that ourselves. But I've seen

[2:15:41] >> the cost of these big things in our

[2:15:44] little residential areas. So I

[2:15:49] I'm not supportive and another this how

[2:15:53] many people it actually affects.

[2:15:55] I I just I don't see it.

[2:15:57] >> Okay. Well, can we hear from you Sandy

[2:15:59] your opinion on this?

[2:16:02] >> Well, now I'm I'm new to the code

[2:16:04] enforcement. code enforcement. I think

[2:16:06] this started um because we did site a

[2:16:10] tow truck that was in on their property

[2:16:13] and it's just kind of brought up the

[2:16:15] question, do they need those tow trucks

[2:16:18] for this 15 minutes? But again, as we

[2:16:21] were looking,

[2:16:23] we've only done one in a year. So that's kind of what I'm weighing on.

[2:16:28] Now, as far as parking enforcement, this

[2:16:30] 1,800, we enforce that. You've seen the

[2:16:33] citations that we're doing it on the

[2:16:35] street because of what you said. It

[2:16:38] loves residential the streets areas. So

[2:16:43] I and I was one and I will Ter and I

[2:16:47] spoke and I I did recommend that we kept

[2:16:49] it at 1,800 across the board.

[2:16:52] >> Sure. To make it beautiful.

[2:16:54] >> Yeah.

[2:16:55] >> We changed it to um we we changed it

[2:16:58] down to the lower rated.

[2:17:01] >> Yeah. So, I'll also just give context to

[2:17:04] that. So, I talked with Vern when I was

[2:17:07] looking at what we're going to keep as

[2:17:08] the standard regardless of the tow

[2:17:10] trucks. He just pointed out that the way

[2:17:12] this weigh 1 and a2 tons more license

[2:17:14] 18,000 lbs for us. That's kind of an

[2:17:16] outdated way. It was his words to

[2:17:18] describe a truck of that nature. So, we

[2:17:22] after we talked over it, his idea is

[2:17:24] that that definition across the board

[2:17:26] throughout code will need to be changed

[2:17:28] at some point. The 14,000 lb weight

[2:17:31] rating is the upper limit of the Federal

[2:17:34] Highway Administration's class 3 medium

[2:17:36] truck. It's basically the upper limit of

[2:17:38] most heavy trucks that a person would

[2:17:40] own as a private citizen. So that's why

[2:17:42] that number was selected to replace the

[2:17:45] current language.

[2:17:47] >> I'm not I'm not married to this like I

[2:17:50] see both sides too. And I also, you

[2:17:53] know, a citizen came and was, you know,

[2:17:54] it's their livelihood and these the

[2:17:56] things and so but there's also the

[2:17:59] reality of the sight of line and the

[2:18:02] safety and the nuisance and yeah,

[2:18:05] >> it is just one that we know of like the

[2:18:08] number knowing the stats on you know

[2:18:09] what's been ticketed is a you know very

[2:18:11] relevant.

[2:18:12] >> Yeah.

[2:18:12] >> Um

[2:18:14] would we just want to include the if

[2:18:16] there's unless someone wants to take a

[2:18:17] vote on it. I don't know what you think

[2:18:18] Becky. I could go either way really, but

[2:18:22] the Do we want to add the 14,000 to the

[2:18:24] code rewrite and just clue that in that?

[2:18:27] >> That might be uh if you're if you're

[2:18:29] looking for uniformity, that would

[2:18:31] certainly be the the better way.

[2:18:33] >> What do you think, Becky?

[2:18:37] Um,

[2:18:39] I did start thinking about worrying like

[2:18:41] the unevenness, the unfairness of it,

[2:18:43] you know, like why that,

[2:18:45] >> you know, I I did put it out and I got

[2:18:48] two responses because for me, I grew up

[2:18:51] in a transportation company family, big

[2:18:54] semis.

[2:18:56] We never parked our trucks at the house

[2:19:00] ever. However, my small street gets

[2:19:05] buses all the time just and diesel

[2:19:07] trucks all the time.

[2:19:10] We have heavy public works equipment

[2:19:12] that goes down all the time. And my

[2:19:14] street is very quiet.

[2:19:17] So, [sighs]

[2:19:20] um, to me, and it doesn't it would

[2:19:23] affect this guy and his livelihood, but

[2:19:26] he's not the owner of that. I mean, to

[2:19:29] me,

[2:19:29] >> the company owner, needs to be

[2:19:31] responsible to have something within 15

[2:19:34] minutes that the guy can go pick up and go around because that's the way

[2:19:38] that we run our company.

[2:19:40] >> However, I don't like it on the street.

[2:19:43] I mean, there's even heartburn with when

[2:19:45] public works does stuff with their own

[2:19:46] equipment and they park it there for a

[2:19:48] month and you've got a loader or a backo

[2:19:50] or,

[2:19:50] >> you know, and and it it causes problems

[2:19:52] with little kids dark. No, you can't see

[2:19:54] that.

[2:19:55] >> And so, that causes a lot of heartburn.

[2:19:57] I've seen that over the years. Um, so

[2:19:59] that's why I was like, not on the

[2:20:01] street. If this is going to happen, it's

[2:20:02] got to happen in dude's driveway.

[2:20:04] >> Yeah.

[2:20:04] >> Or chicks driveway. So, um,

[2:20:09] I

[2:20:11] like I said, I And then when they talked

[2:20:13] about the fairness, I'm like, let's just

[2:20:14] bring this to council and just have this

[2:20:15] conversation.

[2:20:16] >> Yeah.

[2:20:17] >> Because I don't really

[2:20:19] >> Yeah.

[2:20:21] >> I'm not married to it either.

[2:20:24] [clears throat]

[2:20:25] >> Sorry. No, it's okay.

[2:20:27] >> Yeah, I I I think there's a good private

[2:20:30] property rights argument if you could

[2:20:31] deal with the sight lines and and you

[2:20:33] know, parking away from the sidewalk

[2:20:35] through other reg.

[2:20:37] >> Correct. Yeah. Exactly. To just say, you

[2:20:38] know, if you're below this weight and

[2:20:40] you're respecting the sight lines for

[2:20:42] safety, then park whatever kind of

[2:20:43] vehicle you want. I think that's a

[2:20:45] reasonable approach or what we have is a

[2:20:47] reasonable approach. I I agree with

[2:20:48] councelor W that I don't love like the

[2:20:50] one you could make a similar argu if we

[2:20:52] put Tanner on any individual business he

[2:20:54] can make a similar argument for why we

[2:20:56] should create a carbon

[2:20:59] >> but two it's kind of a rub that there's

[2:21:01] only three cities that have this

[2:21:03] restriction right us or American port no

[2:21:06] one else cares

[2:21:08] >> and so maybe that goes I do know

[2:21:11] citizens like citizens do care when

[2:21:13] people have these huge boats and buses

[2:21:16] and RV like all these things that isn't

[2:21:18] it you know we've been through this

[2:21:19] already when was it Rachel like three

[2:21:21] years ago it was

[2:21:22] >> well I was on the planning commission

[2:21:24] when we saw one and it but it's

[2:21:25] oftentimes when they're parked on this

[2:21:26] tree that they become the biggest

[2:21:28] >> it's even in the driveway they think

[2:21:29] that the sidewalks they're always over

[2:21:30] there you know we

[2:21:32] >> Yeah I I agree with that I think but

[2:21:34] like I think if again if it's like 100%

[2:21:37] on their property that's different than

[2:21:38] if they're like

[2:21:40] >> yeah we did it so they can go in the

[2:21:41] back so it's not there's a visual aspect

[2:21:42] there's a neighborhood name should we

[2:21:45] just change the 14,000 in the code.

[2:21:48] >> Yeah.

[2:21:48] >> Are you okay with 14,000 S here or does

[2:21:50] it need to be 18,000?

[2:21:51] >> No.

[2:21:53] 14,000 would be great.

[2:21:55] >> Yes. What are you saying 18,000?

[2:21:58] >> That's what it used to be.

[2:22:00] >> No. No. No. She said when we had the

[2:22:04] 18,000 for 30 years anyway. Um, see for

[2:22:07] school buses or anything like that,

[2:22:09] we've used that when they've parked in the street. Plus, if you read the

[2:22:14] 9.32090

[2:22:17] for these bigger vehicles, they're

[2:22:18] required to be 30 feet back from all um

[2:22:23] driveways, streets, intersections such

[2:22:26] as that where a regular vehicle is only

[2:22:29] required to be 20 feet. So, that kind of

[2:22:31] keeps these big vehicles off of the

[2:22:33] street in the residential areas. There's

[2:22:35] just nowhere for them to park.

[2:22:37] So, but I think the 1400 is a great

[2:22:40] compromise.

[2:22:42] 14,000.

[2:22:42] >> 14,000. Thank you.

[2:22:46] Smaller bet. [laughter] My point is

[2:22:47] you're not going to see a lot of IRA

[2:22:49] 18,000

[2:22:51] people going okay now. No, I'm not. No,

[2:22:54] I'm not okay.

[2:22:55] >> I I No, I do not think there will be any

[2:22:58] push back on it. Um I could be

[2:22:59] surprised, but I do not foresee any.

[2:23:03] So my question is does it make sense to

[2:23:05] make that change for this part of the

[2:23:07] code now or should we just give

[2:23:08] instruction to part of the whole code

[2:23:12] rewrite so that we don't have

[2:23:14] inconsistency within the code?

[2:23:17] >> I really appreciate that.

[2:23:19] >> All right. I I can take responsibility

[2:23:21] for letting Vern know and letting Aaron

[2:23:22] know. And then Brian's of course here.

[2:23:24] So

[2:23:24] >> you have to do a nice fun control F.

[2:23:28] [laughter]

[2:23:30] >> Okay. Thanks Kevin. Okay,

[2:23:33] thank you.

[2:23:34] >> All right, next. It is next. A break.

[2:23:37] Going to take a break.

[2:23:38] >> Oh, hi.

[2:23:41] >> We'll just do five minutes.

[2:23:44] >> All right.

[2:23:44] >> Reporting in progress.

[2:23:46] >> All right. Two more items. Um, a

[2:23:49] discussion regarding proposed amendments

[2:23:51] to Pro City Code section 1437050

[2:23:54] relate to parking requirement

[2:23:55] reductions. This will be presented by

[2:23:57] Tanner Tuchi, our council policy

[2:23:59] analyst. That's three in a row. Yep.

[2:24:02] >> He's on a roll.

[2:24:02] >> It's my thing.

[2:24:04] >> All right. So, I'm just going to put up

[2:24:05] the

[2:24:08] exhibit here. This item comes in

[2:24:11] response not from an issue item, but in

[2:24:15] the discussion that was part of the June

[2:24:18] 23rd work meeting around the proposal to

[2:24:21] amend uh parking requirements in the

[2:24:24] city. So that item did not move forward

[2:24:28] to a council night meeting as it was

[2:24:31] proposed. However, there was talk of a

[2:24:33] you know discussion or and at one point

[2:24:35] there was a motion to address some of

[2:24:37] the concerns presented in the work

[2:24:40] meeting and to come back with an

[2:24:41] amendment that would not affect parking

[2:24:45] standards but rather shift the

[2:24:48] responsibility of granting a reduction

[2:24:49] from the planning commission to the

[2:24:52] council. So that is what the I have

[2:24:56] prepared to discuss today and just to

[2:24:59] clarify I don't have any information and

[2:25:01] part of this analysis was not answering

[2:25:04] the question of like do the impact of

[2:25:06] student cars or does urban planning

[2:25:11] impact uh resident lifestyle. I don't

[2:25:13] have research on that but that's

[2:25:15] certainly something I could pursue as a

[2:25:16] literature review. This is just talking

[2:25:19] about the impact of the language you see

[2:25:23] up here. So as a little bit of

[2:25:25] background for what we discussed in the

[2:25:26] June 23rd work meeting, there was a

[2:25:29] proposal about planning um or sorry

[2:25:32] about parking reductions and there was a

[2:25:35] motion made to shift that authority like

[2:25:37] I said from granting a proposal. So

[2:25:39] taking the required number of parking

[2:25:41] spaces and then saying that a developer

[2:25:43] can do a lower amount. That power

[2:25:46] currently resides with the planning

[2:25:47] commission. The motion at one point in

[2:25:50] the meeting was to shift that power to

[2:25:52] the council. So what effectively it

[2:25:54] does, Kevin, if you could scroll down.

[2:25:58] There are currently two methods that the

[2:26:00] planning commission could use to justify

[2:26:03] a right there a reduction. The first is

[2:26:06] in this paragraph two in the code. is uh

[2:26:10] to create basically a plan that would

[2:26:12] reduce parking requirements after a

[2:26:14] parking study is done. So if there's

[2:26:17] evidence from a study that says that few

[2:26:20] less fewer parking spaces are needed and

[2:26:22] they come up with a plan to mitigate any

[2:26:24] demand for parking then they can get a

[2:26:26] reduction. The second option that the

[2:26:28] planning commission can pursue or that

[2:26:30] the developer could pursue when asking

[2:26:33] the planning commission for a reduction

[2:26:35] in parking requirements. It's in number

[2:26:37] three. Keep going down.

[2:26:38] >> Yep. Right above the table

[2:26:41] on page three. Yeah. Up here. This is

[2:26:44] number three. They could uh

[2:26:47] institute like a bike parking program.

[2:26:49] So long-term and short-term bike

[2:26:51] parking. So, what this proposal would do

[2:26:53] would be to remove those as options,

[2:26:57] leaving the only way to hypothetically

[2:27:00] get a reduction in the required number

[2:27:02] of parking spaces that need to get built

[2:27:04] is to go to the council during the

[2:27:06] zoning process and ask for some

[2:27:09] adjustments in the zone either as a text

[2:27:11] amendment, as a new zone, or as an

[2:27:14] overlay that's created. So, that is what

[2:27:18] this proposal will do. It takes the

[2:27:20] power away from the planning commission,

[2:27:22] gives it to the council, and Kevin, if

[2:27:24] you can scroll all the way back up to

[2:27:25] the blue text at the top.

[2:27:29] The language that we're considering as

[2:27:31] an amendment to the previous proposal

[2:27:33] would be this blue language here ensures

[2:27:36] that the agreements that we've already

[2:27:38] entered into with people who have

[2:27:41] received a reduction will stay in place

[2:27:44] after this change is made. So, it will

[2:27:46] keep those legal agreements that they

[2:27:49] have to continue the programs that they

[2:27:50] do to try to mitigate the demand for

[2:27:52] parking going uh in the future and that

[2:27:55] doesn't go away.

[2:27:57] Currently, there are only there have

[2:27:58] only been eight TDMs approved that those

[2:28:01] are the plans that allow the planning

[2:28:03] commission to to lower parking

[2:28:04] requirements. There have only been eight

[2:28:05] approved. There are only six that are

[2:28:08] active at [snorts] the moment.

[2:28:10] most of them have parking that is above

[2:28:14] 90% of the required amount.

[2:28:17] So that is that is everything that this

[2:28:19] does. Um in my memo I mentioned that

[2:28:23] there is of the mayor council cities

[2:28:25] that I talked to only one has eliminated

[2:28:28] or does not have I should say an

[2:28:30] administrative way to lower their uh

[2:28:33] parking requirements and we would be

[2:28:35] joining them.

[2:28:37] >> Which city was that?

[2:28:38] >> It was Austin. audit.

[2:28:41] >> There is no administrative means.

[2:28:44] >> I just wanted to clarify one thing. Um,

[2:28:47] which anyway [clears throat]

[2:28:50] Tanner said a minute ago that this

[2:28:52] proposal removes the authority from the

[2:28:55] planning commission and gives it to the

[2:28:56] council. That's accurate, but I want to

[2:28:58] clarify exactly what that means. It

[2:29:00] doesn't give it to the council in any

[2:29:02] proactive sense where the council has a

[2:29:05] methodology to reach out and change

[2:29:07] parking. It's just inherent in the

[2:29:10] council's policy in passing new laws

[2:29:12] that if somebody applies for a new law

[2:29:15] that would give them different parking

[2:29:16] standards than the law currently has, it

[2:29:19] would be in your authority to propose

[2:29:20] that. But any kind of anything more

[2:29:24] proactive than that would require

[2:29:26] additional steps beyond what this does

[2:29:28] like the creation of an overlay zone or

[2:29:30] something like that.

[2:29:31] >> Yeah. So there's there's no formal

[2:29:33] mechanism anymore in the code,

[2:29:34] >> right? This just removes the formal

[2:29:36] mechanism.

[2:29:36] >> Yeah. So a developer would have to abide

[2:29:39] by the statutory parking standards in

[2:29:41] 1437 and if they really needed one, they

[2:29:44] would have to approach a counselor and

[2:29:46] we'd have to pursue some other form like

[2:29:47] Ryan mentioned. Now, at the same time,

[2:29:49] staff is working on looking at policy

[2:29:52] where they wouldn't have to have the

[2:29:53] parking on their exact lot as is

[2:29:55] currently required, but they could

[2:29:57] >> have it on another somewhere else. We

[2:29:59] are working on something about that. And

[2:30:01] we're also working on

[2:30:04] oh, an overlay type zone so that when a

[2:30:06] project does come to us that we think is

[2:30:08] worthy of a parking reduction that

[2:30:09] there's an overlay zone to use. Correct,

[2:30:12] Bill?

[2:30:13] >> We can do the overlay zone route. We can

[2:30:17] also you can also do it by development

[2:30:19] agreement. That's

[2:30:20] >> yeah. So either yeah so either way

[2:30:22] whatever is best on that. So there is

[2:30:26] >> my heartburn with the development

[2:30:28] agreement though is it ends with the

[2:30:30] certificate of occupancy. Right.

[2:30:33] >> It does. We'd have to come up with a new

[2:30:35] method similar to I I think we could

[2:30:37] work around it but I think there are

[2:30:39] some balancing tests about which method

[2:30:41] is is better. The overlay zone is more

[2:30:45] up work is more work upfront

[2:30:48] um uh but probably more durable. The

[2:30:52] development agreement way would have to

[2:30:54] do something similar to what we've done

[2:30:56] with uh the forale housing and and the

[2:30:59] development agreement itself would have

[2:31:01] to require recording of deed

[2:31:03] restrictions that would continue after

[2:31:05] the development agreement itself.

[2:31:07] I I I'm just more concerned about them

[2:31:09] getting the zone and then turning around

[2:31:11] in 20 years and having a mess because

[2:31:14] now now they don't have to go before the

[2:31:15] council,

[2:31:16] >> right? Yeah. That's always been for I

[2:31:18] mean, you know, for 15 years, that's

[2:31:19] always been one of my concerns about

[2:31:21] development agreements is that they rely

[2:31:23] on institutional knowledge that doesn't

[2:31:25] always stay in place. We we we enter

[2:31:28] into them and then we forget that we

[2:31:30] have them unlike the code.

[2:31:33] So,

[2:31:36] >> so your proposal to address that would

[2:31:38] be

[2:31:39] >> Well, I I think that's up to the council

[2:31:41] to make a policy decision about I think

[2:31:43] the two competing alternatives are well,

[2:31:46] there's three competing alternatives.

[2:31:48] One alternative is just don't do

[2:31:50] anything and wait for somebody to say I

[2:31:53] and and either say we're never granting

[2:31:56] parking exceptions or wait for somebody

[2:31:58] to come to you with a specific proposal

[2:32:00] about how uh they why they need a

[2:32:03] parking exception and you need to fix

[2:32:05] it. And the other two are uh competing

[2:32:09] alternatives of develop overlay zones or

[2:32:12] handle by development agreement. I think

[2:32:13] there's pros and cons to the two that we

[2:32:15] can we could do a separate presentation

[2:32:17] on once the council's ready to decide.

[2:32:19] >> Yes. And let's say that we went the

[2:32:20] development agreement route. You

[2:32:22] expressed concern about how do you make

[2:32:25] those stick beyond institutional

[2:32:27] knowledge.

[2:32:28] >> That's where the deed restrictions go.

[2:32:30] But again, deed restrictions even then

[2:32:32] >> institution

[2:32:33] >> we're going to forget that those exist

[2:32:34] until somebody complains and has a

[2:32:37] problem and we do a title search to find

[2:32:39] the deed restriction. But Bill has a

[2:32:41] comment. So, you started by saying we're

[2:32:43] going to have to wait till somebody

[2:32:43] makes proposal. That wait's not going to

[2:32:46] be very long because our pause is going

[2:32:48] to be coming in any day now. In fact, I

[2:32:50] expect that they're submitted last week

[2:32:51] and it didn't come in, but they'll

[2:32:53] submit any day now when they're going to

[2:32:55] ask through the development agreement if

[2:32:57] the council's comfortable with that line

[2:33:00] of thought. I would suggest not only a

[2:33:02] deed restriction, but we put on their

[2:33:04] recorded plat language about parking and

[2:33:08] about these restrictions. So that's very

[2:33:10] easy to find and very readily available.

[2:33:14] >> Great idea.

[2:33:17] >> Okay.

[2:33:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. So my I felt like my

[2:33:20] obligation here was just to explain what

[2:33:22] the motion does, not necessarily to do

[2:33:24] the to do a lot of background

[2:33:26] information like the other ones. But so

[2:33:28] as long as you all understand, I think

[2:33:29] we would need a motion because this is

[2:33:31] an amendment to the actual proposal.

[2:33:33] >> Councelor Bogda.

[2:33:34] >> Okay. So I make a motion that we take

[2:33:36] this to a night meeting.

[2:33:38] >> Okay. I second that.

[2:33:41] >> All right. Any discussion on the motion?

[2:33:44] >> I just council question on this

[2:33:47] generally. Um I'm not comfortable with with these

[2:33:53] changes. Um part of my questions are

[2:33:58] both about current enforcement and and

[2:34:00] the legal things. So I understand that

[2:34:02] we've got language to try to preserve

[2:34:03] the TDMs, but we are cutting out the

[2:34:06] language for subsection 2EA

[2:34:11] where it's talking about, you know, the

[2:34:14] annual um inspection to make sure that

[2:34:17] they're compliant with the TA like how

[2:34:19] we are continuing to administer the

[2:34:21] program. That information

[2:34:24] we're cutting out and so I'm I don't I'm a little bit worried about that. So

[2:34:30] this monitoring of the parking lot

[2:34:32] adequacy on least an annual basis and

[2:34:35] then the mitigation measures because I I do

[2:34:42] like to have

[2:34:45] more specific language about our

[2:34:47] obligation to make sure that they are

[2:34:49] following the TDI and then what the

[2:34:52] remedies are for that. So I'm

[2:34:56] >> I'm add that back in or TDM sorry. Um,

[2:35:00] so I I'm still uncomfortable with how

[2:35:03] much of this is getting cut out with

[2:35:05] relationship to the existing program.

[2:35:08] And I did want to ask, you said that

[2:35:10] there were eight of these approved and

[2:35:11] that six are active. I do note that the

[2:35:13] code allows that after five years, if

[2:35:16] there aren't any problems, then we're

[2:35:18] done. Is that why there are two of them

[2:35:19] that are no longer active?

[2:35:21] >> No, not that I'm aware. The two that I'm

[2:35:23] referring to, one is voided and they

[2:35:25] withdrew the request. Okay. one ended up

[2:35:28] actually not needing it because the the

[2:35:30] reason they applied for one in the first

[2:35:31] place was because of a physical

[2:35:33] constraint on the lot and they but they

[2:35:35] were able to negotiate and and get space

[2:35:38] on an adjoining one.

[2:35:39] >> So they actually ended up withdrawing

[2:35:42] the request.

[2:35:43] >> Yeah. Because I like the idea that this

[2:35:46] program is set up so that we are looking

[2:35:48] at how this parking reduction has

[2:35:51] actually affected if the parking is

[2:35:54] adequate and we lose this code set

[2:35:58] obligation and ability to continue to

[2:36:01] re-evaluate those reductions that were

[2:36:04] given. Um,

[2:36:05] >> Whipple, if I could just respond to

[2:36:07] that. I don't think that we do because

[2:36:09] the provision that you're mentioning

[2:36:12] says that the agreement has to include

[2:36:15] those provisions. So, those provisions

[2:36:16] are in the agreement even if they're not

[2:36:18] in the code anymore.

[2:36:19] >> Okay. So, we'll be okay for the existing

[2:36:21] ones.

[2:36:22] >> That's my that's my belief. Yes.

[2:36:23] >> And we do know that all of this is

[2:36:25] within those agreements.

[2:36:26] >> I have not reviewed the agreements. I

[2:36:28] was counting on the fact that it said

[2:36:29] that the code says that they must be in

[2:36:31] the agreements. Bill's nodding his head,

[2:36:32] but I haven't looked at it. But that's

[2:36:34] certainly something we could do.

[2:36:36] >> I would need to check specifically.

[2:36:38] >> Okay. And then have we been doing that

[2:36:41] parking lot adequacy monitoring on an

[2:36:43] annual basis for the existing ones?

[2:36:46] >> Um it's been months since I had Sandy go

[2:36:48] by and do counts or people go out and do

[2:36:50] counts in the middle of the night. It's

[2:36:52] probably been six or eight months since

[2:36:53] we did last one. But I had her

[2:36:55] monitoring as pretty regular.

[2:36:57] >> Okay. The other thing I would add though

[2:36:58] is and part of the reason that I was

[2:36:59] okay with cutting all of this. In fact,

[2:37:01] even suggested to to Tanner to cut it

[2:37:03] all is that and again this is we can fix

[2:37:06] this if this isn't meeting what you're

[2:37:08] expecting. But the code doesn't actually

[2:37:10] say that has to happen. It says it has

[2:37:12] to be in the agreement. So

[2:37:14] >> okay,

[2:37:15] >> even even with this still in there, it

[2:37:17] doesn't say that it has to happen. It

[2:37:19] just says that it has to be in the

[2:37:20] agreement and the agreement shouldn't

[2:37:22] have been valid if that wasn't in there.

[2:37:23] Does that make sense make sense? And is

[2:37:26] that the same way a development

[2:37:28] agreement will work effectively

[2:37:30] >> essentially if we use that method in the

[2:37:32] future?

[2:37:33] >> Yes.

[2:37:35] >> Okay. Um the other thing that I don't

[2:37:39] like about this is this is the only

[2:37:42] place I think that we have in the code

[2:37:44] where we have recommendations for

[2:37:48] bicycle parking the number of spaces. In

[2:37:50] another part of the code, we've got the

[2:37:52] standards for bicycle parking, like what

[2:37:54] kind of short-term and long-term, but

[2:37:57] there's no requirement for or or

[2:38:01] recommendation for how many bicycle

[2:38:03] parking stalls or or walkups should be

[2:38:07] at different types of businesses and

[2:38:08] things like that. This was developed

[2:38:10] right here. We have this chart and I

[2:38:13] think this is useful. Um, and so I

[2:38:16] >> go to that chart. Yeah, it just down a

[2:38:19] little bit.

[2:38:21] >> And so, you know, this is the

[2:38:23] recommendation for what would be good

[2:38:25] for the bicycle parking. And if you do

[2:38:27] this, then you can seek that reduction

[2:38:31] in car parking. Um, but we don't have

[2:38:34] any, and please correct me if I'm wrong,

[2:38:37] but is there any other place where we

[2:38:39] require bicycle parking or recommend

[2:38:41] what is an appropriate amount of bicycle

[2:38:44] parking for different types of

[2:38:45] businesses?

[2:38:46] >> I don't think so. And in fact that I

[2:38:48] mean to your point that's why I remember

[2:38:50] when this was put in that the it's

[2:38:54] essentially this was put in as an

[2:38:55] incentive program right I mean the whole

[2:38:58] aim of this was

[2:38:59] >> here are the things that we want to

[2:39:01] incentivize you to do or potentially

[2:39:03] incentivize you to do

[2:39:05] >> uh to reduce the need for parking so

[2:39:07] we'll in incentivize you by reducing

[2:39:09] your parking requirement if you do them.

[2:39:11] I think there might be some bicycle

[2:39:14] stuff in the um in the open space in the

[2:39:19] amenities density se section. But again,

[2:39:21] that's a menu of things that they can

[2:39:23] pick from. It's not the bices

[2:39:25] themselves.

[2:39:26] >> And I recognize this isn't a

[2:39:27] requirement, but this is actually really

[2:39:29] useful guidance. Like this is the kind

[2:39:31] of bicycle parking that's appropriate

[2:39:33] for these types of businesses and and

[2:39:36] things like that. Um, it's

[2:39:40] I think a useful chunk of a document.

[2:39:43] >> I also don't think though that people

[2:39:46] having a bike means they don't have a

[2:39:48] car. Like I don't think the two are are

[2:39:51] equal. Like I don't think one means the

[2:39:52] other. I don't think if you have a bike

[2:39:53] it means you don't have a car,

[2:39:55] >> right? But see this is this is not just

[2:39:59] about

[2:40:00] apartments and residential. This also

[2:40:03] has different businesses and what kind

[2:40:05] of bicycle parking is useful there. Um,

[2:40:10] so

[2:40:12] where we're looking

[2:40:13] >> Yeah, that's right.

[2:40:14] >> Well, and and maybe I should ask a

[2:40:16] question. We're looking at getting rid

[2:40:20] of the parking reduction primarily for

[2:40:23] residential things. Are we looking at

[2:40:25] reducing the parking requirement for

[2:40:27] businesses? I'm doing 05

[2:40:29] >> or changing.

[2:40:30] >> We're looking at getting rid of.

[2:40:32] >> So, this is a higher standard. Yeah. So,

[2:40:34] I'm gonna interject.

[2:40:36] >> I think that was just addressing

[2:40:37] residential,

[2:40:38] >> right? But see, this is also taking out

[2:40:40] the recommendation for reducing parking

[2:40:42] requirements for businesses.

[2:40:45] And with residential, I think we're on

[2:40:49] firmer ground for insisting that we need

[2:40:51] a certain number of parking for

[2:40:53] bedrooms. But I don't know that the

[2:40:56] standards that we have set for parking

[2:40:58] for commercial things have that same

[2:41:01] level of justification. Some of them are

[2:41:03] things that we have inherited from

[2:41:06] somebody else's code but aren't actually

[2:41:09] related to the actual use or the demand

[2:41:12] which is why we end up with big seas of

[2:41:15] asphalt around businesses that for the

[2:41:18] mall certainly weren't necessary.

[2:41:20] >> Council Ripple Tanner has pointed out to

[2:41:21] me that I misspoke so he's going to

[2:41:22] correct me.

[2:41:23] >> Oh, good. Oh, there there is a required

[2:41:25] bicycle parking in the code. It's

[2:41:27] actually 1437065.

[2:41:29] >> 06.

[2:41:30] >> So, it's just the section right below

[2:41:31] the automobile parking section.

[2:41:33] >> Thanks.

[2:41:33] >> And it's the standards to get a

[2:41:35] reduction appear to be on my cursory

[2:41:37] review about double what the minimum

[2:41:39] standard is.

[2:41:40] >> Those minimum standards and then if you

[2:41:43] do more, you can reduce your part.

[2:41:45] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:41:47] >> And we're only getting rid of this

[2:41:49] proposal only gets rid of the

[2:41:51] additionals, not the minimums. Yes.

[2:41:54] Okay, that makes me feel a little bit

[2:41:56] better about that. Um, and so that takes

[2:41:58] me to my last thing and that is

[2:42:02] I don't think that it is efficient to

[2:42:06] make the council do these decisions

[2:42:08] every time. I think it would be useful

[2:42:10] to continue to have this as an incentive

[2:42:14] and I think it's appropriate to have it

[2:42:16] with the complaining planning commission

[2:42:18] or to be an administrative decision. Um,

[2:42:22] I think as council sometimes we seek to

[2:42:28] exercise more micromanaging power and

[2:42:32] control and that takes a lot of time,

[2:42:36] not just our time and our staff time,

[2:42:38] but applicants time. There are real

[2:42:41] financial costs to that and part of the

[2:42:44] cost is benefit to our city in delaying

[2:42:48] or preventing developments that would be

[2:42:50] good for our residents. So

[2:42:54] I

[2:42:56] do not like this change.

[2:42:59] >> Thank you for

[2:43:01] >> I know we're in discussion but I have a

[2:43:03] couple more questions. Is that okay to

[2:43:04] ask? Uh, one question I have is if

[2:43:08] anyone was uh here, you kind of talked

[2:43:11] this a little bit, but do we know like

[2:43:13] what's the history of doing this TDM

[2:43:16] program?

[2:43:18] >> Why other cities do it?

[2:43:20] >> So, I don't know. I can't say that other

[2:43:22] cities have an TDM program exactly like

[2:43:24] we do. There are Salt Lake City for

[2:43:26] example has a very extensive list that

[2:43:28] allows the staff that guides them very

[2:43:30] narrowly as to what they can try to rent

[2:43:32] a reduction for and sets maximums and

[2:43:35] stuff like that. As far as I was able to

[2:43:37] get from my research, the TDM section of

[2:43:41] the code was added in 2017

[2:43:44] and the bike parking uh avenue for

[2:43:48] reduction was added in 2019 and modified

[2:43:51] in 2020. So I don't know if that gets at

[2:43:54] why a lot of the why but it that's the

[2:43:57] timeline basically that's all

[2:43:59] >> in 2017 we had council members who

[2:44:01] thought the code should be given to

[2:44:03] allow this opportunity

[2:44:06] >> what was the drive the discussion or the

[2:44:08] driving motivation

[2:44:11] >> I don't know that I remember exactly

[2:44:13] what brought it up I will say and this

[2:44:15] kind of piggybacks to some extent off of

[2:44:17] councelor Ripple's uh statement or com

[2:44:21] comments is I I do agree that to the

[2:44:25] extent exceptions to legal requirements

[2:44:29] are going to be granted the normal

[2:44:31] method for granting them is through

[2:44:33] administrative processes. So I think

[2:44:36] that so as I recall that was the that

[2:44:39] was what was happening is that there

[2:44:41] were so many people there were a lot of

[2:44:42] projects that were coming in and they

[2:44:44] were asking for lower parking and every

[2:44:48] one of them came in and had you know

[2:44:50] here's what we're going to do in order

[2:44:51] to justify our parking. This is why our

[2:44:53] parking needs to be lower. And because

[2:44:56] we didn't have a methodology for

[2:44:58] granting those it wasn't happening. it

[2:45:01] was mostly happening through people uh

[2:45:04] applying for prozzones, right? And at

[2:45:07] some point, I think my recollection is

[2:45:09] that uh some of the council said, well,

[2:45:11] we think that there are situations where

[2:45:14] if they are doing enough to mitigate

[2:45:17] um parking demand that they ought to be

[2:45:20] able to have uh the parking reduced. So,

[2:45:24] let's create a method for doing that.

[2:45:26] And I I do agree that the normal way for

[2:45:28] doing that kind of thing is through

[2:45:29] administrative processes. And so the

[2:45:32] question becau the normally the question

[2:45:35] is when you think that it when the

[2:45:38] legislative body thinks that the

[2:45:39] administrative process isn't achieving

[2:45:41] the goals the first question usually to

[2:45:44] ask is well are the criteria wrong? Do

[2:45:47] we need to fix the criteria so that the

[2:45:49] administrative process does achieve the

[2:45:52] goals that we're trying to achieve or

[2:45:55] similar to kind of what's happening now

[2:45:58] is it is the administrative process

[2:46:00] itself undermining the goals and it just

[2:46:01] needs to be get gotten rid of. It

[2:46:03] certainly uh makes sense to get rid of

[2:46:05] it if you think that it's not meeting

[2:46:07] the meeting the goals. So,

[2:46:09] >> thank you. And then I have a question

[2:46:11] for you, Director Pepron.

[2:46:13] We we've only had

[2:46:16] currently six eight have approved

[2:46:18] historically. How many have been

[2:46:20] requested? Do we have

[2:46:21] >> I don't have that data. The reason is

[2:46:24] because if they were not approved, they

[2:46:25] would just be recorded in the minutes of

[2:46:27] a planning commission meeting. And I

[2:46:29] certainly could try to do that, but

[2:46:31] there are 247 over the past 5 years.

[2:46:33] >> No, please do not. I was just curious.

[2:46:36] But I but I do I am curious because when

[2:46:39] I speak to developers, I just had uh

[2:46:42] lunch last week with with one that I

[2:46:44] used to be in the same ward of and is a

[2:46:47] friend. They always tell you cost the

[2:46:50] cost of parking is one of the most uh

[2:46:53] the biggest barriers to development

[2:46:54] right now, especially with high interest

[2:46:56] rates. So I'm curious, why don't we see

[2:46:58] more requests for this? Is it I'm just

[2:46:59] curious if you have any professional

[2:47:01] judgment on that question. I think we're

[2:47:03] coming out that Honeyish was very

[2:47:05] hesitant to uh approve them. Um the

[2:47:09] apartment building right by the state.

[2:47:10] You remember that when that went

[2:47:12] through? You may have been on the plan.

[2:47:14] >> Yeah, I think I was.

[2:47:22] » Yeah. I think they just felt like asking

[2:47:24] for a zone change and a parking

[2:47:26] reduction both was going to make it hard

[2:47:28] to get their project approved. So they

[2:47:30] didn't they never even asked for one. So

[2:47:33] we haven't had a request for a parking

[2:47:34] reduction in quite a while.

[2:47:38] >> Do you think it's possible that by

[2:47:41] removing this we may get more requests

[2:47:45] or get or there might be more coming

[2:47:47] through to the city council.

[2:47:52] » Um

[2:47:54] to me what we're experiencing right now

[2:47:56] is a drop off in applications. is the

[2:48:00] drop off in projects between the cost of

[2:48:02] parking you have referred to and the

[2:48:04] interest rates. Um we haven't had an

[2:48:08] apartment proposal in a while. Um so to

[2:48:11] me it's more of that.

[2:48:14] >> Okay. Thank you

[2:48:19] » councelor whistle.

[2:48:21] >> So I'd like you to help me understand or

[2:48:25] to correct my understanding of the

[2:48:26] history. Um, but I think with like the

[2:48:29] element or some other projects that were

[2:48:32] approved with the reduction, we did see

[2:48:35] problems with on street parking

[2:48:36] afterwards and that after that there was

[2:48:41] different guidance from development

[2:48:44] services to applicants to help them

[2:48:49] maybe not request the maximal thing like

[2:48:51] to actually tailor what you believe the

[2:48:54] project would need

[2:48:57] to not be a nuisance to the

[2:48:59] neighborhood. And so there wasn't

[2:49:04] it. It's not like everybody was able to

[2:49:06] get everything that was they could

[2:49:08] potentially ask for it. That's not a

[2:49:12] right that they would have even with

[2:49:13] this code.

[2:49:14] >> Correct. If you go back and look at the

[2:49:17] actual ones that were approved and maybe

[2:49:18] Tanner has this information, most of the

[2:49:20] ones were granted were pretty minor.

[2:49:23] >> Yeah. They weren't significant or large

[2:49:26] reductions. They were asked for 400

[2:49:28] element did not ask for a reduction is

[2:49:30] my recollection.

[2:49:32] >> Um

[2:49:36] we still have had cases though where

[2:49:39] those that received um

[2:49:42] reductions have experienced spillover

[2:49:45] parking on adjacent streets.

[2:49:47] >> Yeah. Um, so would it make sense

[2:49:52] to

[2:49:55] adjust this program to to deal with that

[2:49:58] better or is it just get rid of it

[2:50:01] entirely?

[2:50:02] >> Well, that was kind of the direction

[2:50:04] that Aaron's amendment was going um a

[2:50:07] few weeks ago was to allow the reduction

[2:50:10] in places where there wouldn't be

[2:50:13] spillover parking because of the nature

[2:50:15] of that location and the surrounding

[2:50:17] streets. We tried to come up with come

[2:50:19] up with criteria that allowed the

[2:50:21] reduction but got out ahead of these

[2:50:25] impacts that we were experiencing in

[2:50:27] other cases.

[2:50:30] >> So the the earlier proposal was a way to

[2:50:32] address problems

[2:50:34] um to address problems that we had seen

[2:50:37] in implementing the program.

[2:50:38] >> Yes.

[2:50:39] >> But still meet the need of developers

[2:50:41] and our community to have more housing.

[2:50:44] >> Yes. because I I think this is the

[2:50:46] single biggest factor that's holding

[2:50:47] back more student housing is this

[2:50:50] parking ratio. That's why when you see

[2:50:52] Park Plaza, they're going to

[2:50:55] the project won't happen if if they

[2:50:57] don't get a reduction. They'll end up

[2:51:00] reselling the property. I'm pretty sure.

[2:51:03] >> Oh, I want that property to be redone.

[2:51:06] Okay. Thank you.

[2:51:09] >> Right, Councelor Hoben. Well, I'm I'm

[2:51:13] okay with addressing the Park Plaza, but

[2:51:16] I don't like the broadness of this

[2:51:19] >> to us so we can address it.

[2:51:21] >> I'm I'm I agree that we need to address

[2:51:24] it. We don't want that opportunity to go

[2:51:27] away. Um I I guess I don't feel like,

[2:51:31] you know, six to 10 of these

[2:51:34] are currently in the works. Um I don't

[2:51:36] feel like that's too much to ask council

[2:51:38] to do. I mean, we just spent an hour

[2:51:40] discussing one tow truck a year, so I

[2:51:45] would I think we could prior

[2:51:46] >> one of our finest moments.

[2:51:47] >> I think we could prior Oh, well, do you

[2:51:49] remember how much time we spent on dog

[2:51:51] poop? I don't know if you remember that.

[2:51:52] was maybe prior to your time.

[2:51:54] >> Um, so I think we could prioritize our

[2:51:56] time. I I just I'm okay with kind of

[2:52:00] pulling this back to the council. I I

[2:52:02] don't like the broadness of of you know

[2:52:06] enacting

[2:52:08] the proposed currently proposed and I am

[2:52:11] okay bringing it back. I just wanted to

[2:52:12] make my my stance kind of clear.

[2:52:14] >> Yes.

[2:52:15] >> Okay. Ready to take a vote on the

[2:52:16] motion?

[2:52:16] >> Sure.

[2:52:17] >> Yeah.

[2:52:17] >> All right.

[2:52:18] >> Can I take Sorry. Can I say one thing?

[2:52:20] Uh, I I I think I think I'd be okay with

[2:52:23] I am okay with this, but I would like I

[2:52:25] hope it's in the spirit of by bringing

[2:52:28] these to us more, we're going to be able

[2:52:30] to wrestle with the trade-offs and the

[2:52:32] issues and potentially come with a

[2:52:34] better policy framework moving forward.

[2:52:36] And if that's how like we're approaching

[2:52:38] this, I think it could be a really good

[2:52:39] long-term solution.

[2:52:41] >> That's absolutely my hope as well. Um, I

[2:52:44] would much rather be surgical about

[2:52:45] this. I I have more confidence in our

[2:52:48] ability to do it. So, I am willing to

[2:52:50] micromanage it because I think it's that

[2:52:52] important. The spillover, easy for us to

[2:52:54] do that in someone else's neighborhood.

[2:52:56] When that happens in your neighborhood

[2:52:57] and there's spillover, people get

[2:52:59] ticked. So, I'm I want to advocate for

[2:53:02] those people and make sure that we we do

[2:53:04] something that really makes sense. But,

[2:53:06] we've got to figure this out. Now, I

[2:53:08] would also have to have to say um Bill,

[2:53:12] you made the comment that this is this

[2:53:14] is the biggest factor. The biggest

[2:53:16] factor, I think, is actually the

[2:53:17] economy. I think it's interest rates

[2:53:19] that's the biggest factor. This actually

[2:53:21] goes way down and is a factor, but

[2:53:24] there's there's so many micro excuse me

[2:53:27] macro issues that to put all those macro

[2:53:31] issues into parking and if we just solve

[2:53:33] this, we'd have a lot more development.

[2:53:35] That is not true. Vacancies are at very

[2:53:38] high rates. And so there there's much

[2:53:41] more to it. And I feel more confident in

[2:53:43] our ability to address that surgically

[2:53:45] than I do with a broad uh handed over to

[2:53:49] the administrative process.

[2:53:51] >> And there's still just a huge deal that

[2:53:52] people are obviously paying too much for

[2:53:54] land if they can't do the parking that's

[2:53:56] required in code right now. That's on

[2:53:57] them. Don't pay too much for your land.

[2:54:00] If everybody was honest about what's

[2:54:02] required in the code and how much that

[2:54:04] costs, then the land would be x amount

[2:54:06] of dollars and they wouldn't overpay for

[2:54:07] it. but they overpaid for it trying to

[2:54:08] upzone it, trying to get parking

[2:54:11] reductions. And that's not a burden

[2:54:14] that's we should be putting on our

[2:54:15] citizens. So word has to get out there

[2:54:18] that stop what we're paying for your

[2:54:20] land and this is what it's worth. And if

[2:54:22] you can't develop it, then it's not

[2:54:24] worth what you're paying for it.

[2:54:30] » All right. Councelor McCay, yes.

[2:54:32] Councelor Christensen,

[2:54:33] >> yes.

[2:54:34] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[2:54:35] >> yes. Yes. Councelor Bogden,

[2:54:36] >> yes.

[2:54:37] >> Councelor Hoben,

[2:54:38] >> yes.

[2:54:39] >> Councelor Whipple,

[2:54:40] >> no.

[2:54:40] >> And councelor Garrett,

[2:54:42] >> yes.

[2:54:43] >> And that passes 60.

[2:54:45] >> 61.

[2:54:46] >> Sorry. 61,

[2:54:50] » All right. Yes.

[2:54:53] >> Hope the council will move forward that

[2:54:54] amendment to allow us to count offsite

[2:54:56] park residential.

[2:54:58] >> Yeah.

[2:54:59] >> I think that's great and I'm excited

[2:55:00] about that.

[2:55:03] >> It's good. And I want to bring BYU into

[2:55:05] that discussion. [laughter]

[2:55:07] >> So just good question. So that will be

[2:55:12] do we need to do this in a night

[2:55:13] meeting?

[2:55:13] >> Yes. The motion was just to move this to

[2:55:16] the night meeting. Thanks.

[2:55:19] >> All right. Next, a discussion regarding

[2:55:20] external accessory dwelling units

[2:55:22] presented by Malia Dailyaly. Our council

[2:55:24] policy am.

[2:55:25] >> Okay. Great. This is a followup from the

[2:55:28] June 9th work meeting. Would have been

[2:55:31] in the June 23rd, but I was not here.

[2:55:33] So,

[2:55:34] >> where were you?

[2:55:35] >> Yeah, I was just out by three weeks. Um,

[2:55:39] okay. Um, I don't have any slides for

[2:55:41] this. Um, what we did, I worked with

[2:55:44] development services and legal based on

[2:55:47] the motions from that last meeting to

[2:55:50] adjust the privacy concerns for new

[2:55:54] external ADUs and existing under code.

[2:55:58] And then we also included some changes

[2:56:01] to the chapter based on state

[2:56:03] requirements. So there's five things

[2:56:06] here I'm just going to walk through and

[2:56:08] then at the end if there's any questions

[2:56:09] if not then what would happen I would

[2:56:11] imagine after this meeting if there's no

[2:56:13] additional amendments is I would send

[2:56:16] this version to development services and

[2:56:18] legal and they would incorporate it into

[2:56:20] the zoning rewrite that's going to

[2:56:22] planning commission I think next month

[2:56:25] and then it'll come to us in the fall

[2:56:27] and so this would just be included

[2:56:29] within that. So anyway now we'll go

[2:56:31] through those. Um, this first one here

[2:56:34] at the bottom, this first amendment,

[2:56:36] this one is

[2:56:39] um, a very nicely worded thing that

[2:56:43] Brian did to allow external ADUs as they

[2:56:48] exist currently in our code within that

[2:56:52] um, allowed map and the other specified

[2:56:55] areas. But then also in addition to

[2:56:57] those,

[2:57:00] okay, well, we can't go back. So in

[2:57:01] addition to those also

[2:57:04] now also external ADUs are allowed in

[2:57:06] the areas that the state is mandating.

[2:57:08] So that's all that that is. It's just

[2:57:10] compliance with state code. So that's

[2:57:11] the first one. The second change didn't

[2:57:15] change from the June 9th work meeting.

[2:57:17] This is just that first motion the

[2:57:19] council made which is parcel coverage.

[2:57:21] So that's here. This is just the primary

[2:57:25] drawing and any combined any other

[2:57:27] accessory structures can't cover 40%. So

[2:57:30] that didn't change. And then I'll also

[2:57:32] go down to the other motion that didn't

[2:57:34] change, which is the utility hookup.

[2:57:36] This didn't change from June 9th. This

[2:57:38] is just saying that utilities, whether

[2:57:41] connected to the primary dwelling or

[2:57:42] separate, will be an administrative

[2:57:44] based on public works is reviewing the

[2:57:47] plans, what would be best for our

[2:57:49] system.

[2:57:50] Um the one that did change based on the

[2:57:53] discussion that we had on the June 9th

[2:57:56] meeting is the issue of privacy.

[2:57:59] Originally in June 9th, we came back

[2:58:01] with an amendment that said if you have to have your height less than

[2:58:06] the main dwelling and less than 25 ft

[2:58:09] and for every foot if your accessory

[2:58:13] dwelling unit is above 16 ft. Every foot

[2:58:15] that is above it also has an have an

[2:58:18] additional foot of setback. We had a

[2:58:20] discussion how that might affect current

[2:58:23] existing areas that allow external

[2:58:25] dwelling units. for example, pioneer

[2:58:27] neighborhoods where they have unique

[2:58:29] parcels. They're not exactly they might

[2:58:31] not be 11,000 square foot, but they

[2:58:33] still could fit one and we don't want

[2:58:36] them to make subject to this new

[2:58:39] um these new requirements. So, we kind

[2:58:41] of have two separate requirements here.

[2:58:44] Um this is just saying for those

[2:58:46] detached ADUs that are permitted under

[2:58:48] the new state code, they are subject to

[2:58:51] that if it's over one story, it has to

[2:58:54] have additional setbacks. So that's what

[2:58:56] we're talking about with

[2:58:57] >> Yes. Okay.

[2:58:58] >> But if they're not subject to that,

[2:58:59] they're not addition to that, then

[2:59:02] >> they are kind of under the existing,

[2:59:05] >> right?

[2:59:06] >> So everyone understand we're good with

[2:59:08] that. Okay.

[2:59:11] [laughter]

[2:59:14] » Way to use your

[2:59:18] » um I very much appreciate how this was structured. I think that was well

[2:59:23] done. that addresses those concerns.

[2:59:26] >> You did a great job.

[2:59:27] >> I still But I [laughter] appreciate this

[2:59:31] is very well done and meets what the

[2:59:35] council as a whole is asking for.

[2:59:38] >> I say that's genius to get something

[2:59:39] personally benefiting you yet not voting

[2:59:42] for it.

[2:59:52] » [laughter]

[2:59:54] >> I'm kicking my leg for anybody grandma's

[2:59:57] or watches.

[3:00:01] » Councelor Whipple, can can I ask why

[3:00:03] you're so opposed to it? Um,

[3:00:06] so the reason I would would still be

[3:00:08] opposed to it is because it does make it

[3:00:12] more restrictive and more difficult for

[3:00:14] these properties that the state has said

[3:00:17] should be allowed to do this to go ahead

[3:00:19] and and meet that goal. Um,

[3:00:24] that's that's really it.

[3:00:25] >> So specifically just referring to the

[3:00:27] setback requirement.

[3:00:30] >> Um, yes. Yeah. So,

[3:00:35] and I I recognize that the city does

[3:00:38] have the right and the obligation to

[3:00:42] do what they can to make sure that the

[3:00:44] laws that are handed to us from the

[3:00:45] state actually work within our city and

[3:00:48] that we're continuing to protect our

[3:00:50] residents and their quality of life and

[3:00:52] things like that. And I recognize that

[3:00:54] that's what my fellow counselors are are

[3:00:56] trying to do. I have a different

[3:00:59] perspective and maybe a slightly

[3:01:01] different set of priorities based on my

[3:01:04] neighbors that we're talking to and so I

[3:01:07] disagree that this

[3:01:09] does do that. Um

[3:01:13] yeah, so it's it's just a a difference

[3:01:15] of opinion because I'm differently

[3:01:17] situated.

[3:01:18] >> But your neighbors still have what they

[3:01:20] want and

[3:01:21] >> yes other neighborhoods

[3:01:23] >> because Yeah. And I recognize that these

[3:01:26] height restrictions are because

[3:01:31] many people have raised concerns about

[3:01:32] having something tall looking over

[3:01:34] another person's backyard. And I am very

[3:01:38] grateful that this has been structured

[3:01:41] so that it doesn't make

[3:01:44] what was already the right to do a

[3:01:45] detached ADU in properties where this

[3:01:47] would be impossible. It doesn't take

[3:01:49] that right away from them.

[3:01:51] So, I I really am am appreciative. I

[3:01:55] just think that we should make it easier

[3:01:58] for people to be able to build these on

[3:02:00] their properties throughout the city.

[3:02:02] And that's just a fundamental different

[3:02:05] policy position that you all know I

[3:02:07] have. So, [laughter]

[3:02:11] » so that that's it. But I really am

[3:02:15] grateful for all of you for working

[3:02:18] through this so that it meets your goals

[3:02:22] and and I think reduces the harm that I brought to your attention. So

[3:02:30] again, I'm so grateful.

[3:02:35] Okay. The next change we will go to here

[3:02:39] is parking. This is put in because the

[3:02:43] state, if you remember, the state um is

[3:02:46] limiting what we can require for parking

[3:02:49] for those new external dwelling units to

[3:02:52] two off streetet if the unit is 650T or

[3:02:56] larger or just one if it's 650 ft or

[3:02:59] less. Brian very smartly just had us

[3:03:03] reference state code so if those parking

[3:03:05] requirements change then it

[3:03:06] automatically is update and we don't

[3:03:07] have to come back here. So, and then the

[3:03:11] final line, if you notice this final

[3:03:12] line, this is just to clean up. This

[3:03:15] also mentions utilities being in a

[3:03:17] separate name. That may or may not

[3:03:19] happen depending again on the

[3:03:21] administrative input public works

[3:03:23] depending on utilities.

[3:03:25] >> Oh, so we haven't got their okay on that

[3:03:26] yet.

[3:03:27] >> No, we have. This is just cleaning up

[3:03:29] code that way. Earlier it says it can be

[3:03:32] whatever and this says no, it has to be

[3:03:34] separate. So,

[3:03:35] >> it's just to mirror earlier in the

[3:03:37] section. Yes. Council,

[3:03:39] >> can you just remind me of one thing you

[3:03:41] just said? I want to make sure I recall

[3:03:43] [clears throat] correctly. Is

[3:03:44] >> if it's over 650 square feet, we can't

[3:03:47] require more than two stalls.

[3:03:49] >> You can only require two off- streetet

[3:03:51] parking.

[3:03:52] >> Okay.

[3:03:53] >> So, they're Yeah.

[3:03:54] >> Under the new extra dwelling units that

[3:03:57] are permitted through state.

[3:03:59] >> Okay.

[3:04:00] >> So, there's like a bunch of different

[3:04:02] ADUs that are now allowed under chapter

[3:04:05] 1443.

[3:04:06] I want to make a chart when this is all

[3:04:08] done so it's very easy because at

[3:04:10] neighborhood meetings sometimes it does

[3:04:11] get confusing trying to just explain it

[3:04:13] verbally.

[3:04:14] >> So a chart would be very helpful.

[3:04:18] >> Councelor Bogdan that brings up a

[3:04:20] question.

[3:04:22] >> We have to have this passed by October

[3:04:25] 1st.

[3:04:26] >> So would you be able to have a chart

[3:04:28] available to add to this so that it can

[3:04:31] just

[3:04:32] >> well adopt it all together? I would

[3:04:35] recommend not putting a chart in code

[3:04:37] because then if we have to update

[3:04:39] anything or state code updates then our

[3:04:40] code would be out of date. Okay.

[3:04:42] >> I was just thinking a chart we can push

[3:04:44] out on social media or in neighborhood

[3:04:45] meetings ADUs come up a lot that we can

[3:04:49] just easily reference and give people

[3:04:50] kind of a a quick cheat sheet in

[3:04:54] addition to the code.

[3:04:55] >> Gotcha. Okay. Thanks.

[3:04:58] >> Yeah. So, if there's no discussion on

[3:05:02] these, this is really just the only

[3:05:04] change here. Then, like I said, we'll

[3:05:07] just forward this on to development

[3:05:08] services who will include it in the

[3:05:10] zoning rewrite and then it'll be part of

[3:05:12] that package later this fall.

[3:05:17] We have so we have just this will be

[3:05:20] answered by the chart but basically the

[3:05:22] internal ADUs that were previously

[3:05:24] allowed by ADU the old ADU over actually

[3:05:27] have more restrictive Austri parking

[3:05:30] requirements than these new ads.

[3:05:33] >> Yes.

[3:05:36] >> All right. So

[3:05:38] I'll make a motion that we just bring

[3:05:40] this to a night meeting.

[3:05:42] >> Well, we'll just put it in the zoning

[3:05:44] reite and then it'll just be part of

[3:05:45] that. There just be one less planning

[3:05:48] application to push through.

[3:05:50] >> No, I think we're good. We're good.

[3:05:51] >> Yeah. I don't if you want to make a

[3:05:53] motion, but I think that was our intent.

[3:05:56] >> Okay.

[3:05:57] >> Perfect.

[3:05:59] >> Yeah. Nice. Nicely done.

[3:06:02] >> All right. Thanks everyone. Um if

[3:06:04] there's no object, we do not have a

[3:06:05] closed meeting. Correct.

[3:06:08] >> If no objection, we'll now adjourn. The

[3:06:09] province will council by unanimous

[3:06:11] consent.

[3:06:15] » Great. on Friday.

[3:06:17] >> Recording stops

[3:06:18] >> at 7:30. I mean 7 a.m.

[3:06:25] » Didn't you see that?

[3:06:29] » I just

Provo City Council Work Meeting | July 14, 2026

Transcript