[0:01] Good morning. It's August 11th,

[0:04] 2026 at 11:30 a.m. and we'll begin our

[0:07] council work session.

[0:12] » Oh, excuse me.

[0:17] » So, we'll first we'll start with a roll

[0:19] call. Councelor Whitlock.

[0:22] >> Councelor Whitlock.

[0:23] >> Gary Garrett,

[0:24] >> Becky Bogdan,

[0:26] >> and online

[0:32] Katrice, can you confirm that you're

[0:34] with us?

[0:47] » What time did Rachel say she would join?

[0:52] >> Rachel,

[0:53] >> she said she was going to She told me

[0:55] yesterday she was going to join.

[0:57] She said she was Travis. She

[0:58] >> Yeah.

[0:59] >> Did you see that, too?

[1:00] >> I did. Is Chavis

[1:02] >> Can you text her and see?

[1:05] Yeah, I texted her last night

[1:08] and I asked her. Um, [clears throat]

[1:13] what time should she come on?

[1:18] » I'll text Krice and see

[1:22] where she is. Okay.

[1:29] and then Craig who is

[1:31] >> sorry I'm here.

[1:32] >> Okay, thanks Katrice and then find out

[1:35] from Rachel

[1:37] maybe while you're at it just shoot um

[1:39] Craig a call and let him know not a call

[1:43] >> let him know that we're starting

[1:44] >> Craig is not going to be on right now.

[1:46] He's not going to be on till later.

[1:48] >> Do you know about what time?

[1:50] >> Around twoish.

[1:52] >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Katrice. All

[1:54] right.

[1:55] >> Yeah, he's going to be on around

[1:58] >> Yeah. two

[1:58] >> like one o'clock.

[2:01] >> Okay. One one o'clock.

[2:02] >> One.

[2:04] >> Okay.

[2:07] Um [clears throat]

[2:10] the first agenda item is to approve

[2:13] uh previous meeting minutes. They're

[2:15] listed on our agenda. July 8th council

[2:18] meeting. July June 9th council meeting.

[2:22] June 17th, I'm sorry, let me start over.

[2:24] J July 8th, 2025 council meeting. June

[2:28] 9th, 2026 council meeting. June 17th,

[2:31] 2026 council meeting. June 14th, 26 work

[2:36] meeting. July 14th, 26 council meeting.

[2:39] July 22nd, 26 work meeting. Are there

[2:43] any objections or [clears throat]

[2:46] requested changes for these meeting

[2:47] minutes?

[2:52] All right,

[2:54] then we'll um

[2:57] declare the minutes approved by

[2:58] unanimous consent.

[3:02] So our first business item is regarding

[3:06] a request from Taylor Terrace, the

[3:08] Taylor Terrace Homeowners Association

[3:10] for city acceptance, infrastructure

[3:12] upgrades, and financial assistance for

[3:14] its private water system. This will be

[3:17] presented by Lane Pierce, our water

[3:21] resources engineer. And

[3:25] hi,

[3:26] I'm Lane. Um, I work for Gordon for

[3:29] public works. Taylor Terrace is a small

[3:32] HOA up by the the Rock Canyon Temple

[3:35] just uh east of it. Um, and I guess I

[3:39] can click through these. I'll be very

[3:40] brief because we have the Shades HOA

[3:42] here. They would like to be they had a

[3:44] water break in their private main that enters their small culde-sac and

[3:49] they would like to become part of the

[3:51] city infrastructure. This is the the

[3:53] code that we have in Provo that allows a

[3:56] private entity to come and be part of

[3:58] the public infrastructure.

[4:01] Um they went got a contractor to fix the

[4:05] in order to become a part of the public

[4:06] infrastructure they have to meet our

[4:08] code meet our standards our water

[4:11] standards. in order to meet our water

[4:12] standards. They went out, got a

[4:15] professional bid on what it would cost.

[4:16] This is approximately what it would cost

[4:18] become um part of our system if you guys

[4:22] approve it and

[4:24] up to our standards, our

[4:28] pipe standards. I thought I had one

[4:29] more.

[4:31] I have one more. Yeah, there we go. And

[4:33] this is kind of a drawing of how we

[4:35] would do it. This is their like I said,

[4:37] it's kind of a little culde-sac or

[4:38] whatever you want to call little

[4:40] community. And this is this is the line

[4:42] that had a break in it. And what we

[4:44] would do the new fix would be to install

[4:47] the meters here and then the lateral

[4:49] would go to each uh each home. And Mark

[4:53] Doyle from the HO is here to talk a

[4:55] little bit more and give them a little

[4:56] more in-depth about the situation up

[4:58] there.

[5:00] >> Thanks.

[5:03] » Thank you. Excuse me. I'm nursing uh

[5:05] ankle surgery recovery, so I'm a little

[5:08] slow getting up here. Um, thanks for the

[5:11] time. My name is Mark Doyle. I've um we

[5:16] rotate responsibilities in our small

[5:18] HOA, so I've been serving as the

[5:21] president for the past couple years,

[5:23] which um we lived in Provo for 20 years.

[5:26] Uh raised our five kids here. My office

[5:29] is just on center street here, so we're

[5:31] big fans. Um, we have 22 homes in the

[5:34] HOA. Uh, this affects seven of them.

[5:37] Somehow when it was developed in the

[5:40] '7s, um, we nor the city are quite clear

[5:43] on what happened, but there's

[5:44] essentially an 8 in man, like a city man

[5:48] that goes about halfway into this

[5:49] culde-sac and from there the individual

[5:52] water lines like each of us would have

[5:53] on our house um, come off that. that was

[5:56] not really known to the next set of and

[5:59] by the way I don't live in uh in one of

[6:01] these seven ours is elsewhere um that

[6:05] was not known until infrastructure

[6:07] started to fail which is that the

[6:09] individual line but also the assessment

[6:13] is that the 8 in main also has is like

[6:17] ready to fail at any given time which I

[6:20] think Gordon Lane is that's like the

[6:22] size that's the standard size that runs

[6:24] throughout the city right So, that's

[6:26] [snorts] a a big concern. And we have um

[6:31] of the 22

[6:33] owners, about a third of those are fixed

[6:36] income um widows, just to give you like

[6:40] a profile. I don't know if that's

[6:41] interesting or not. And we've got school

[6:43] teachers and a county deputy sheriff.

[6:46] So, there's just a wide mix of

[6:47] individuals there. We've um feel like

[6:50] we're a pretty healthy HOA and we've

[6:51] done you know we try to do a good job in

[6:54] maintaining things that look well for

[6:56] the city from a you know exterior and

[7:00] grounds and everything but this uh this

[7:02] part has caught us off guard and there

[7:04] have been a lot of questions of how this

[7:05] kind of would have gotten approved in

[7:08] the first place. I think there's some

[7:09] broader concerns from what we understand

[7:10] as well. the meters actually are right

[7:12] up at the houses and instead of on the

[7:15] street and I think a concern with that

[7:17] is like statewide and even for city

[7:19] zoning having culinary water on the city

[7:22] side of the meter but on private like

[7:26] under private ownership is is an issue

[7:28] as well. I don't I don't um say that I

[7:32] understand the intricacies of that but

[7:34] that's a concern as well. So, we're

[7:35] looking to turn the uh ownership of the

[7:38] line over to the city. And in this case,

[7:43] there could have been an option where we

[7:44] just replace this huge line running into

[7:45] the culac, but that doesn't make as much

[7:47] sense. And Lane and Gordon have been

[7:48] great to to propose, you know, solutions

[7:51] if this were to happen to just have

[7:54] water lines go out to the city main like

[7:56] it is in the rest of the city and even

[7:57] in the rest of our development. So

[7:59] that's the um that's the request that

[8:02] we're m making both from a culinary

[8:06] water standard standpoint and a safety

[8:08] standpoint and honestly just to bring

[8:11] that part of the development back in

[8:12] line with with city code. Um including

[8:16] the the new the newer one that Lane

[8:18] referenced at the beginning. So those

[8:21] are I guess a couple of my talking

[8:22] points. I've never done this before. So

[8:25] >> great. So happy to field questions and

[8:28] all the

[8:28] >> So Mark, just to clarify then only these

[8:31] seven homes were connected to the uh to

[8:35] had their the private water system. The

[8:37] other homes west of these and the ones

[8:39] up around the corner are already part of

[8:42] the city's water system.

[8:43] >> Meaning they already have like the

[8:44] individual line that would go from this

[8:46] house to the meter to the street just

[8:49] probably like wherever you live.

[8:51] >> So it's just this little culdeac. It's

[8:53] just this little culde-sac and we have

[8:54] actually, you know, as you know, there's

[8:56] another little culde-sac up there. Mhm.

[8:57] >> Um I think I think this was the first

[9:00] one that was developed and maybe

[9:03] [clears throat] I don't know like it was so long ago and we don't have

[9:05] records of why they decided to do that

[9:07] or

[9:08] >> so there are what 20 homes

[9:10] >> 22 okay

[9:12] >> and the sorry the one other quick thing

[9:14] the port the financial portion so on

[9:16] average any of us including me if we

[9:18] were going to replace or fix the water

[9:19] line that's going to be a 7 to $9,000

[9:24] replacement and so we are as an HOA

[9:28] we're saying yeah for sure each owner is

[9:31] respons like is naturally responsible

[9:35] for that as anyone would be um and

[9:38] actually the the figures lane uh I think

[9:40] we're looking for

[9:42] um up to $100,000 because actually the HOA or the owner's portion of that

[9:47] would be a little more than the figures

[9:50] I know the specifics are important to to

[9:52] this group so we'll probably tighten

[9:53] those up a little bit but it'll be less

[9:55] actually than was on this Could you go

[9:56] back to that slide? Um, Kevin, the

[9:59] financial slide. So, you're saying the

[10:02] city portion requested would not exceed

[10:04] 100,000.

[10:05] >> Yeah, that's right. Because

[10:06] >> the HO Yeah. Mhm.

[10:09] >> Okay.

[10:10] >> Seven homes about seven or eight. So, we would split that so we know exactly

[10:15] what it is. But, yeah.

[10:17] >> So, our code states that you need to

[10:21] have these

[10:22] lines up to code before the city will

[10:25] take them over.

[10:26] Why are you asking the city to do

[10:28] something outside of code?

[10:31] >> Um,

[10:34] Brian,

[10:35] >> um, so those of you who are here in 2022

[10:39] might remember when we passed this

[10:40] section of the code. Prior to this

[10:42] section being passed in 2022, we didn't

[10:44] even have a methodology for taking over

[10:48] public ownership of private

[10:49] infrastructure. [clears throat] But we

[10:51] would frequently get um requests and as

[10:54] you might remember from that

[10:55] conversation, one of the concerns when

[10:57] we passed the section of code is that we

[10:59] didn't want to the city did not want to

[11:02] kind of make it easier for developers to

[11:05] reduce their own cost by doing private

[11:08] infrastructure that wasn't to city

[11:09] standards, but then forced it off on the

[11:11] city later. Right? And so which I'm not

[11:15] suggesting that that's the case because

[11:16] this is as he's described this is

[11:18] different than maybe when we usually see

[11:21] this but but that was the concern. And

[11:23] so the way the code this section of the

[11:25] code is written is it says if you want

[11:29] if you have private infrastructure you

[11:30] want to dedicate to the public and you

[11:33] come in city is going to decide what

[11:35] needs to be done to it. We're going to

[11:36] tell you what needs to be done to it. If

[11:38] you then decide it to do it entirely by

[11:41] yourself, it is purely an administrative

[11:43] process. Those kinds of questions would

[11:44] never even come to the council. The

[11:46] administration would just work. But

[11:47] there is a provision in in this section

[11:50] that says you can instead of paying for

[11:54] yourself, you can come to the council

[11:55] and ask the council for an

[11:57] appropriation. So, so he's following the

[12:00] process that is in that is laid out in

[12:02] the statute. That just makes it the

[12:04] council's decision now, right? So, your

[12:06] choices are pay for it yourself or ask

[12:09] for the council to appropriate the

[12:10] money.

[12:11] >> Kevin, can you go back one more slide?

[12:13] >> So, you're asking for the council to

[12:14] appropriate the money, but why won't you

[12:16] pay for it yourselves?

[12:17] >> I think we're asking the council to

[12:18] appropriate money for the portion that

[12:20] um 50 years ago

[12:23] either. The city shouldn't have approved

[12:27] the the design of this. They essentially

[12:29] put a city water man into private

[12:32] property to connect these individual

[12:34] lines on. None of us here have any idea

[12:35] why that happened. There's no record for

[12:37] why that happened

[12:38] >> because it would have been in 1975.

[12:40] >> Yeah, 75. I think that was when it was

[12:42] started. Right around the mid70s.

[12:44] >> And so we're saying um we're surprised.

[12:48] Maybe shouldn't have been. You're

[12:50] surprised. It's real money. Like no

[12:52] one's debating that the $100,000 is a

[12:54] ton of money could go to a lot of really

[12:56] important worthy causes in the city. But

[12:59] we're saying, can we make this a shared

[13:01] cost? Can the homeowners individually

[13:03] take on the portion of the cost that any

[13:05] of us in the city would be on the hook

[13:07] for to repair? But would the city in as

[13:10] part of this process um essentially

[13:13] repair or replace or change the layout

[13:16] of what essentially is like city level

[13:18] infrastructure that happens to be midway

[13:21] through the culde-sac but appreciate the question. Yeah, that's

[13:26] how I that's how I position it.

[13:28] >> Councelor Whitlock. So Mark, I'm

[13:30] wondering has the HOA

[13:34] uh what have they carried in reserves

[13:36] for water infrastructure and what have

[13:38] they like what have you done in the past

[13:40] to deal with this?

[13:43] >> Well, we've not other than sprinkler

[13:45] system which is a common property which

[13:46] we carry reserves for. Um we've not

[13:49] known that there was this issue of a

[13:52] joint city level line coming into the

[13:55] culde-sac. The assumption was until we

[13:57] there was a break we had to excavate

[13:59] that lines ran out to the city main. So, we've had reserves for a lot of

[14:04] things. We reserved and repaved the

[14:06] entire asphalt. We've painted, you know,

[14:08] we've kept things up and this was not

[14:10] something that we've kept reserves for

[14:12] in the past. So, unfortunately is

[14:16] >> Yeah.

[14:18] >> Sorry. I was going to just ask a

[14:19] followup is like if if the council

[14:21] funded a smaller share saying like say

[14:23] like the main and the tap to the city

[14:26] standard uh could the HO finance

[14:28] remainder like is there a number less

[14:29] than 116 like where did you come up with

[14:31] the 116?

[14:33] the the number that we came to was

[14:38] for in a in a normal like if again if

[14:41] any of us like you Jeff or if I have to

[14:43] replace our water line to the city

[14:46] unless it's something really strange

[14:48] that's going to cost 7 to$10,000

[14:51] and so we had the contractor um who I

[14:55] think does a number of city projects

[14:57] already kind of gave us a split of this

[15:00] would be this is kind of how I

[15:01] distribute the individual portion of the

[15:03] cost of this. Um, and that's the

[15:06] actually probably be more like $50,000.

[15:08] And this would be if we have to replace

[15:11] the this 8 in city level main to the

[15:15] street that's going to [snorts] be about

[15:16] $9 to $100,000. So that's really how we

[15:19] came up with that number. Um, sure. And

[15:23] totally you could if the city was like

[15:26] let's just say above zero. If you're

[15:28] like, we would cover this amount, then

[15:32] the HOA, we would have like to figure

[15:35] out how to put an assessment to the 22

[15:38] owners, which totally understood. That's

[15:40] something that HOAs do. So that's a mechanism, but I but just the [clears throat] nature of the like

[15:47] the bizarre nature of how this got

[15:49] installed and approved 50 years ago,

[15:53] we like to think that there's like a

[15:55] shared opportunity for the city and the

[15:57] HOA to say there are kind of portions of

[15:59] this that each of us could tackle and

[16:01] could we figure out how to do that? So

[16:05] >> Krice, I have a question. So Gordon,

[16:08] this you're up. This is a water line

[16:11] that is going to a culde-sac. Correct.

[16:14] >> Right. You you want to go back to the

[16:15] map for the drawing.

[16:16] >> So is this even a city asset because a

[16:18] lot of times you're I mean that's all

[16:20] private, right?

[16:22] >> So the blue is the existing system and that system's private as it goes

[16:28] through the culde-sac. So the way that

[16:30] line is set up is you can see those

[16:33] laterals going to each of the homes and

[16:36] at the very end there's a circle almost

[16:39] where that's where the leak and they

[16:41] can't really repair it because the pipe

[16:43] is so badly decayed that everybody else

[16:46] will be out of power. So it's out of

[16:49] water power just walked in. So

[16:51] [laughter] that just threw me off.

[16:53] >> Such impressive.

[16:56] You're okay. That's our new direct. So, the whole line needs to be replaced.

[17:00] So, the valve for the city is at by the

[17:03] driveway in the park strip. So, if we

[17:06] turn off the valve, everybody's out of

[17:08] water, all seven homes. So, we've

[17:10] allowed the water to keep going and the

[17:11] leak has continued. And so,

[17:16] did I answer any of your question or

[17:17] just made a math answer?

[17:19] >> I think you kind of made up your own

[17:20] answer, but okay. So

[17:25] this is the section that needs to be

[17:27] prepared.

[17:28] >> Correct.

[17:29] >> This this is a city street. This is a

[17:32] private street.

[17:33] >> Yes.

[17:34] >> So this would be a city asset then

[17:37] because this is not a city street,

[17:39] right? This is not going to anywhere

[17:41] else but

[17:42] >> just to those. So, so, so if we replace

[17:45] that pipe, we could own that pipe, but

[17:47] we'd have to have the HOA provide an

[17:49] easement for us so that we could go in

[17:51] there and maintain it. So, that that was

[17:54] what the initial bid was for was to

[17:56] replace that pipe. Since talking to the

[17:59] HOA, we think there may be a less

[18:02] expensive than just replacing that pipe

[18:05] and coming off of it. The less expensive

[18:07] route would be to put individual meters

[18:11] on in the park strip. You can see we

[18:13] have seven meters laid out and then run

[18:16] individual uh labels to each home. So

[18:19] that may be less costly than the numbers

[18:21] we're showing you, but we have not had

[18:24] that a bid for that yet.

[18:26] >> But but all in all, like my house, I

[18:30] have to service from wherever it comes

[18:32] in at the street.

[18:33] >> Yeah. to my home, right?

[18:36] >> Yeah.

[18:37] >> So, to me, when I'm looking at this,

[18:41] their city thing is right there at the

[18:42] edge of the street like mine would be

[18:44] and then you're going across maybe a big

[18:46] long driveway or a big long community

[18:50] shared space that's not city space to

[18:52] get your water infrastructure into your

[18:54] house. I to me that is a private not a

[18:58] public asset.

[19:01] >> Right. So, that's correct. That's

[19:03] totally true. It's like a private asset

[19:05] right now. I mean, the city

[19:07] >> one one of the I don't know if this is a

[19:09] challenge, Gordon Lee, you have to keep

[19:10] me honest about this, but one of the

[19:12] challenges right now, again, however,

[19:14] the city approved it. The meters at the

[19:16] house. So, you've got this conflict or

[19:18] you've got culinary water that

[19:20] technically is a city and a state

[19:23] responsibility that is on private

[19:25] property up to the house. Whereas the

[19:27] meters really how they should be like

[19:29] with your where you live and I live the

[19:32] meter should be out of the street. So

[19:33] that this side of the meter culinary

[19:36] water is the homeowner's responsibility.

[19:37] This side's the city. Right now we've

[19:40] got city responsibility for culinary

[19:43] water.

[19:45] >> So So let me try to explain what I think

[19:47] he's saying. I'm gonna walk through the

[19:48] map.

[19:49] >> Take this with you because I have two

[19:50] customers only.

[19:51] >> Yeah.

[19:53] >> Thank you. So if you can see this map

[19:57] today, this would not be legal to

[19:59] approve. The reason being is you now

[20:02] have a water system that services

[20:04] multiple entities. So technically they'd

[20:07] have to set up a water company that went

[20:08] out and tested this water that did all

[20:10] the state requirements, do all those

[20:12] things. And you you recall with u valley

[20:16] the same kind of thing. And we have this

[20:18] action in a lot of places in the city.

[20:20] So, this was legal back in the day, but

[20:23] it's not something that the state the

[20:26] state frowns on this kind of thing. It's

[20:29] not

[20:30] something we could legally approve. So,

[20:33] this is where every one of the physical

[20:35] meters are on this private line here.

[20:40] That answer,

[20:41] >> but the city shut off is out at the

[20:43] street, right?

[20:44] >> This is where we have a bow to shut off

[20:46] to their system.

[20:46] >> Not the meters though. The meters are by

[20:48] the houses,

[20:50] >> but they're still in a private property.

[20:52] >> Yeah. All all private private

[20:54] infrastructure, private gold sack or

[20:58] that is this is how that was determined

[21:01] back in the [clears throat] day.

[21:02] >> But Quell Valley was the same. Did we

[21:04] pay for Qual or did Quail Valley pay for

[21:06] themselves?

[21:07] >> Um, they paid for themselves. I don't

[21:10] believe we appropriated any money to

[21:12] them.

[21:13] >> I thought I thought we did unless we I

[21:17] know that Bill was because they had I

[21:19] mean that was a lot of infrastructure

[21:20] and they had a lot of

[21:22] >> there was something we did there. I I

[21:23] would have to

[21:25] >> I think we either appropriated some

[21:26] money or there were certain requirements

[21:28] that we ended up not making them do but

[21:31] I don't think we paid our crews

[21:32] [clears throat] might have done some

[21:34] work.

[21:34] >> I think we did some I think we did in

[21:36] kind

[21:37] replacing all the meters.

[21:39] >> Yeah.

[21:40] >> Some stuff like that. So there were some

[21:41] things we did do that help facilitate,

[21:44] but that I think was

[21:45] >> and they have like 150 homes, something

[21:47] like that.

[21:48] >> It was a lot more homes, so it was a lot

[21:49] bigger sub development. So anyway, this

[21:55] So what they're looking for is this

[21:58] looks like the design that we end up

[21:59] doing something similar to this so that

[22:02] this would reflect what's in all the

[22:04] other

[22:06] um [clears throat] parts of this

[22:08] development and what's standard for the

[22:09] city. It's just difficult for property

[22:13] owners to have

[22:15] um main [clears throat] lines in their

[22:17] development that they're maintained.

[22:18] That's not something we would do today.

[22:22] Thank you, Gordon. We have a couple of

[22:24] comments online. Um before we get to

[22:27] those, let me acknowledge that Rachel

[22:29] Whipple has joined us online as well and

[22:31] Travis Hoben in person and we welcome

[22:34] the mayor also. Uh so, Katrice, let's go

[22:37] to you first and then Rachel.

[22:42] My hand wasn't up.

[22:45] >> Okay, Rachel.

[22:48] » All right. Thank you. And I apologize

[22:50] for joining late. Um, so I was really

[22:54] surprised to see this in the packet. Um,

[22:58] in part because I just replaced my sewer

[23:01] line and it cost me personally $50,000.

[23:04] So, I was

[23:07] first off wondering if I was overcharged

[23:10] because this seems like a lot less,

[23:12] although we had to go full out into the

[23:14] street to do it. But I I really don't

[23:18] understand

[23:19] why the city would pay to upgrade or to

[23:24] fix

[23:26] this asset that is commonly owned in the

[23:29] HOA. That's private property. And I

[23:32] understand that this isn't something

[23:34] that we would approve. Now, you know,

[23:37] this was a a problem that was created

[23:40] under standards at a particular time.

[23:43] But the fact remains that that line

[23:46] going through the common property is is

[23:49] the HOA's responsibility, not the

[23:51] city's.

[23:55] » Thank you, Rachel.

[23:56] >> Is that something up like up for

[23:58] discussion or or is that for you to kind

[24:00] of talk amongst yourselves? We we'll

[24:02] come back to you. Travis has a question,

[24:03] too. Thank you, Mark.

[24:05] >> Thanks. And thanks for all the info. Um,

[24:07] sensitive to the tough situation you

[24:10] guys are in. I guess Becky is is kind of

[24:13] what you're saying like, well, why

[24:15] doesn't the city just why don't we just

[24:17] pay for, you know, up to the sidewalk

[24:19] basically and then from there on out

[24:21] that's not our responsibility to pay

[24:23] for. Is that kind of what you're because

[24:25] that's what everybody else is expected

[24:26] to do. Is that what you're saying?

[24:28] >> Well,

[24:30] yeah. It seems like and even so this is

[24:33] all private property. It's not in a

[24:34] public street and so normally you pay

[24:39] >> like Rachel just said but he pays from

[24:42] her house to the road basically.

[24:44] >> I'm pretty sure because mine's newer I

[24:46] have to pay to the meter but the sewer

[24:47] I'd have to pay for all the way up the

[24:49] street. So if my sewer were to die I'd

[24:51] have to dig up my yard plus all the way

[24:53] into the street till it hits in the

[24:54] middle. Is it are they in the middle of

[24:56] the street? They're about

[24:58] >> So So is the idea I'm just trying to

[25:00] understand your perspective. What you

[25:01] would kind of be looking for is like,

[25:03] "All right, well, we'll we'll pay to

[25:04] have the meters up at the road, but that

[25:06] line needs to be paid for by the

[25:08] residents. Is that essentially where

[25:10] you're at?"

[25:10] >> Well, even even so, yeah, wherever that

[25:12] meter's at, which we want them to be in

[25:14] the public right away, is why they're

[25:16] having them up there instead of in

[25:18] private space. it when that meter dies,

[25:21] when that line dies again, it's going to

[25:23] be responsibility for each one of those

[25:25] homeowners to pay all the way to the

[25:27] street.

[25:29] >> And your perspective, by the way, I

[25:31] missed your name at the beginning.

[25:32] >> Oh, sorry, Mark. Do

[25:33] >> Mark. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Your

[25:34] perspective is, well, this is kind of a

[25:38] problem that the city created 50 years

[25:40] ago when they approved this. Um, and so

[25:46] you guys kind of need to pay more to

[25:48] help fix it. I I know you're not saying

[25:50] that. I'm putting words in your mouth.

[25:51] You're being much more tactful than

[25:52] nice,

[25:53] >> but but kind of that perspective of

[25:55] like, well, this needs to be a shared

[25:56] cost to fix this issue.

[25:58] >> I guess where I'm struggling is I'm kind

[26:00] of I'm kind of getting where the council

[26:02] members are coming from that like, yeah,

[26:05] but you guys would have to pay to fix

[26:07] this regardless. If if the water if the

[26:10] water meters were up at the road right

[26:11] now

[26:13] and you guys needed to fix this issue,

[26:15] you guys would be paying. So, totally.

[26:17] the fact that it was built this way

[26:19] shouldn't really matter. That's so I'm

[26:21] kind of I'm kind of understanding where

[26:22] the council members are coming from.

[26:24] >> No, I mean, listen, the I'll say it's

[26:27] the minority view in my head, but like I

[26:29] think the questions are like they're

[26:31] really good questions and um but yes,

[26:34] our our take and also Rachel on the

[26:36] phone, first of all, I can't compare

[26:38] sewer to water and um that's a huge

[26:42] bill. So, I'm sorry for that. Water I

[26:44] think generally is cheaper, but we're

[26:45] not actually we are saying homeowners

[26:48] should pay their portion of running an

[26:50] individual line just like any of us

[26:52] would. Um we have this weird situation

[26:55] where meters that should have been on

[26:57] the street

[26:58] >> aren't okay.

[26:59] >> We have this weird situation. We've got

[27:00] an 8 in.

[27:01] >> You're saying the sorry the portion

[27:03] you're proposing that you guys pay is

[27:04] that part?

[27:05] >> Yes. The part that any of us would pay

[27:07] if we had to replace the water line.

[27:08] >> Does that change your perspective at

[27:10] all? Because

[27:11] >> because if they were installed in

[27:13] today's standards, they still have to.

[27:15] >> He's saying,

[27:16] >> "Will you take the mic?" Thank you.

[27:19] >> How do you turn it on? [clears throat]

[27:21] >> It should be on.

[27:22] >> It's already on.

[27:22] Can you hear me?

[27:25] >> Flip that button up.

[27:27] >> Hello.

[27:28] There we go. Okay. So, he's

[27:31] saying

[27:32] that they've installed these meters here

[27:35] in the 50s or 70s or whenever it was.

[27:37] >> The meters aren't Sorry, the meters

[27:38] aren't even there. They're actually at

[27:39] the house. Those are like the offshoots

[27:42] from the main about

[27:44] >> Gordon's saying the new leaders are

[27:46] going to be here.

[27:46] >> Yeah.

[27:48] >> And the new leaders are going to be

[27:49] here. So even if this was in today's

[27:51] standards, these guys would still be on

[27:53] the hook

[27:55] for all this,

[27:56] >> right? But if I'm understanding Mark

[27:57] correctly, he's saying we are willing to

[27:59] pay the portion from here to here.

[28:01] >> He's willing to pay the portion from

[28:03] like here to here, right?

[28:05] We're willing to pay the the the portion

[28:09] the the numbers that you saw there was

[28:11] when we were going to run oh sorry

[28:13] >> they're going to run a new 8 inch main

[28:16] to the middle again and do offshoots the amount of

[28:22] and so we're saying whether it's doing

[28:24] that or running individual lines there's

[28:26] an upfront cost that that we're asking

[28:29] the city to share part of that to kind

[28:31] of correct or bring to code or bring to

[28:33] what are culinary ary code that the city

[28:36] can share and the homeowners do the

[28:38] rest. And then to your point, you know,

[28:40] in 30 years when a water individual

[28:43] water line needs to be replaced, then

[28:46] the homeowner does that. The city's no

[28:48] longer like there there's no confusion.

[28:50] There's no weird setup. There's Yeah.

[28:53] And I just want I'm not to your point, I

[28:56] don't know what happened 50 years ago.

[28:57] Like we're not assigning blame

[29:00] responsibility city. I have no idea. But

[29:02] it was weird and messy and now there's other problems besides just the location. And I think um you

[29:12] know from a technicality standpoint,

[29:14] sure it's there's it's on private

[29:17] property

[29:19] as a city, do we do we do all sorts of

[29:22] projects and improvements that sometimes

[29:24] benefit fewer people than others? I

[29:26] think we probably do. Do we want all the

[29:28] projects to benefit the whole city?

[29:29] Yeah. the more we can do that, we we

[29:32] love that. Um, but yeah, but I think I

[29:36] think there's opportunity sometimes to

[29:38] say this is a bad design. It's actually

[29:41] like there's kind of this weird legal

[29:44] issue with like where culinary water is

[29:46] and there's an opportunity to to share

[29:48] the share the fix. So

[29:51] >> So sorry Gary, if I was fine, we'll go

[29:53] to Ch. Last one. Um, I guess in my mind,

[29:57] is there a way for these residents to

[30:00] just pay for from their house to the

[30:02] road and then the city's paying for

[30:06] everything at the road? I mean, to me,

[30:08] that would seem like that's what a

[30:09] typical resident if water line breaks

[30:12] between the road and their house,

[30:14] they're paying that portion. So, in

[30:16] fairness to these residents, and I I

[30:18] think what we're worried about is

[30:19] precedent here. We're not we're not

[30:21] saying we're we're not being sensitive

[30:24] to this specific plight of the the

[30:25] plight of these specific residents, but

[30:27] it's precedent, right? So, if we do it

[30:28] here, then do we get 10 more calls?

[30:30] Somebody says, "Well, hey, we got the

[30:32] same problem. Come and fix ours now."

[30:34] So, I think in fairness, wouldn't it be

[30:36] like, "Okay, well, you guys take care of

[30:37] from here to the road like you would

[30:39] normally take care of."

[30:40] >> And then of your new line of fixing that

[30:43] line or putting in the line, and then

[30:44] the city takes care of everything else.

[30:46] In my mind, that kind of seems fair. I

[30:48] don't know what that ends up being from

[30:49] a cost standpoint or whatever, but to me

[30:51] that seems like something I could get

[30:53] behind. Anyways, sorry. Thanks for your

[30:55] patience, Jeff.

[30:56] >> Yeah, no worries. I actually my

[30:57] question, one of my questions dubtales

[30:59] nicely on that point of precedence. I'm

[31:01] curious, this is a question from public

[31:02] works. Do we have a sense of how many

[31:04] other communities or developments are

[31:07] similarly situated within Provo?

[31:11] >> Probably not until it breaks.

[31:13] >> Yeah, maybe. Um, we have

[31:18] probably the ones that I'm aware

[31:20] probably 20 to 30 more. There's maybe

[31:22] even more than that. And um [clears throat]

[31:26] >> so yeah,

[31:27] >> we we developed quickly in the 50s and

[31:30] so there was a lot of developments and a

[31:32] lot of interesting ways doing things. So

[31:35] ones that are like this is probably the

[31:37] only one like I [clears throat] did not

[31:39] say that I I have not seen any that have

[31:41] been this

[31:43] kind of design. This is very unique

[31:47] but there are similar situations that

[31:49] will will pop up.

[31:53] >> Yes.

[31:54] >> Okay. I suspect they

[31:56] >> uh sorry I have another question for

[31:58] public works and probably you're the

[31:59] best one is so I'm curious

[32:05] what are the benefits that the city

[32:08] would get from doing this beyond kind of

[32:10] correcting this odd

[32:12] >> historical analys on a go forward basis

[32:14] what tangible or practical benefits

[32:15] would those be

[32:16] >> so so right now we're leaking water in

[32:19] that and the city's paying to do that

[32:21] water that's not going through any

[32:23] beater it's just leaking because if we

[32:25] shut them off, all the residents are out

[32:28] of water, including the one that's

[32:29] leaking. Uh, so there's not really a

[32:32] good way to manage that. We can't meter

[32:34] how much is leaking, but we know it's

[32:36] leaking every day, all the time. So, we

[32:39] would be saving money there. Um,

[32:43] you know, so, that there would be an actual

[32:46] monetary benefit to getting this done

[32:48] for us.

[32:49] >> Is there risk? Sorry. Is there Well, go

[32:51] ahead. That's exactly what I was going

[32:52] to ask is like is there risk mitigation

[32:54] for the city?

[32:55] >> Meaning are we creating a giant sinkhole

[32:57] between a development that by letting it

[33:00] leak 100 gallons a day type

[33:01] >> thing that I we've been monitoring it

[33:04] doesn't appear that that's happening. It

[33:05] appears to be following the water lines

[33:07] and sewer lines and just sink in the

[33:09] ground water. We're not having any as

[33:11] any challenges. Doesn't say that there

[33:14] could be something but um today it

[33:18] doesn't appear that we have that kind of

[33:20] a problem.

[33:22] Thank you.

[33:24] >> Rachel, do you have another comment?

[33:28] >> Um, yes. Yeah. I

[33:31] >> I just want to thank them for coming so

[33:34] that we could be aware of this problem

[33:36] that it's not only right here. Um, I

[33:39] think it was 10 years ago that we had to

[33:40] replace our water mane and we had to

[33:42] forego any travel for 2 years based on

[33:45] that. Um, I still I don't know that we

[33:50] should say that the city is at fault

[33:52] necessarily for approving this 50 years

[33:55] ago. I mean, if this was approved, it's

[33:57] because it was asked for. And so, the culpability

[34:03] spreads around to everyone. Um, it does

[34:06] matter that however we got here, this is

[34:08] where we are and it needs to be solved.

[34:11] Um,

[34:14] and while I appreciate that the city is

[34:16] losing water in an unquantified amount,

[34:20] um,

[34:22] it's losing that water because of a

[34:25] poorly maintained private asset. And I'm still

[34:32] not inclined to use the city monies to

[34:34] fix a private asset.

[34:37] Thanks.

[34:38] >> Thank you, Rachel. [snorts]

[34:41] When [clears throat] will we vote on

[34:42] this? When will this

[34:44] >> We're just seeking a motion today if we

[34:46] want to continue.

[34:47] >> Okay.

[34:48] >> If we want to carry it to a council

[34:50] meeting,

[34:50] >> right? Yeah. This one isn't one that

[34:51] you're obligated to see.

[34:54] >> Move to count

[34:55] >> forward. So, you can

[34:57] >> you can let it you can let it die. You

[35:00] can make the motion to

[35:02] >> affirmatively let it die or make a

[35:04] motion to take it to council. What would

[35:06] be helpful for me to know, Lane, is um

[35:09] to what extent we did help with the

[35:11] Quill Valley situation. A little more

[35:13] detail related to how we helped those

[35:16] homeowners, what expenses, and I know

[35:19] they're completely different situations,

[35:21] but if we can find some commonality here

[35:24] and understand, I I would be open to

[35:26] doing for this community what we did in

[35:28] Quell Valley, but I wouldn't want to do

[35:30] something here where Qual would come and

[35:32] say, "Well, you wouldn't do that for

[35:34] us." I would be interested to know a

[35:36] little more about what we did a couple

[35:38] of years ago. I can get that in.

[35:40] >> I would also be interested to understand

[35:42] a little bit more about these 20 or so

[35:44] other cases and see if we can have a

[35:46] proposal on a general framework like

[35:48] perhaps what councelor Hobin said about

[35:51] going to the private property line and

[35:52] we'll cover that as a general framework,

[35:54] but anything on the property we leave to

[35:56] the owners. Something like that I think

[35:57] would be helpful because I do agree that

[36:00] this is precedent setting and we want to

[36:01] be fair to all of these similarly

[36:03] situated properties.

[36:05] >> So is there a motion then to um

[36:09] councelor Hoben?

[36:10] >> Well I I do we need a motion? I mean you stated what you wanted.

[36:16] Um, yeah. I mean, my recommendation

[36:19] would be I guess I'll make a motion and

[36:21] we can figure it out, but that we come

[36:24] up with a framework like Jeff's saying,

[36:26] and I guess in my mind, I don't know if

[36:29] I jump jump to this, but the framework

[36:32] would be that the residents pay to the

[36:34] road and then the city pays for the

[36:35] portion at the road, you know, then

[36:37] putting in those new meters um and

[36:39] whatever else they need to do at the

[36:40] road. But I don't know what that costs

[36:43] look like. you know, I don't know how

[36:44] that splits the costs. I but um that's a

[36:48] framework I would like to look at. So, I

[36:49] guess the motion would be for us to

[36:50] explore that framework, understand what

[36:52] those costs would be to residents, what

[36:53] the costs be to the city, and then in

[36:56] addition, how many other situations

[36:58] around the city might be impacted in a

[37:00] similar way so that we can know what the

[37:03] implications are here and then I guess

[37:05] we can wrap in the request to understand

[37:08] what we did at Quill. So, I guess we're

[37:10] just making a motion to come back with

[37:11] more information that then we can use to

[37:12] make a better decision regarding a

[37:14] potential framework.

[37:15] >> Okay, sounds good. Is there

[37:17] >> as clear as mud?

[37:18] >> I'll I'll second that motion.

[37:19] >> Okay, and a second by councelor

[37:21] Whitlock.

[37:22] >> Um, so I'll call for a vote. Councelor

[37:24] Hoben,

[37:25] >> yes.

[37:26] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[37:27] >> yes.

[37:27] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[37:29] Bogden,

[37:29] >> no.

[37:30] >> Councelor Whipple,

[37:33] >> yes.

[37:34] >> And councelor McKay,

[37:36] >> yes. So that motion passes by a vote of

[37:39] five to one.

[37:41] >> Sorry.

[37:42] >> Um and Garrett, I would just like to to

[37:44] add though that this identified problem

[37:48] does need to be taken care of

[37:51] soon. And I I would like to also know

[37:54] from public works what their normal

[37:57] procedure would be when they've

[37:59] identified some sort of a leak on

[38:01] private property, how they approach that

[38:04] owner and get them to rectify the

[38:07] problem. Um

[38:09] so in with that information gathering

[38:12] for the similarly situated, I also want

[38:14] to know about similar leak problems and

[38:16] how long we leave these things

[38:18] outstanding and what kind of action the

[38:20] city would normally take.

[38:22] Okay. Thank you, Councelor Whipple.

[38:24] That's been noted and and so um to that

[38:28] end, if it could come back in two weeks,

[38:31] that probably would be helpful.

[38:34] >> Okay. All right.

[38:36] >> Thank you.

[38:37] >> And thank you, Mark, for being here

[38:39] today. Thank you.

[38:42] >> Next, we have a discussion regarding

[38:43] outdoor lighting standards. This will be

[38:46] presented by our intern, Britain

[38:48] Johnson.

[38:58] Okay, thank you, council. We're a little

[38:59] behind schedule, so I'll try to be

[39:01] brief. Um, but there was a request that

[39:04] came in uh hoping to examine our outdoor

[39:07] lighting code um to see how we could

[39:09] mitigate light pollution while

[39:11] prioritizing road and uh pedestrian

[39:14] safety on our roadways. Um and so I did

[39:18] some research on that and would like to

[39:20] share a little bit. Um these are some of

[39:22] the guiding tenets that I used in my

[39:24] research. These are five principles for

[39:26] responsible outdoor lighting. These are

[39:27] published by Dark Sky International and

[39:30] the illuminating engineering society.

[39:33] And to condense this even further, it's

[39:35] just using light only where it's needed

[39:37] and how it's needed and using the

[39:39] correct light to do so. So, if we could

[39:42] um go to exhibit A, please, on the

[39:44] ordinance.

[39:46] Um I'm just going to go over a couple of

[39:47] the proposed changes. Um we'll start

[39:50] with correlated color temperature,

[39:53] which is in section 03

[39:59] under general revisions. So, um color

[40:03] temperature is uh how warm or how cool a

[40:06] light looks to your eyes visually. The

[40:09] warmer it is, the lower on the color

[40:10] temperature scale. The bluer it is, the

[40:12] higher. And so 3,00 Kelvin is kind of

[40:17] the upper limit of the dark sky

[40:18] standard. And so anything um at 3,00

[40:22] Kelvin or below for outdoor lighting

[40:24] would be considered dark sky compliant.

[40:26] There is a trade-off with um introducing

[40:29] a captive color temperature, and it's

[40:31] that the warmer you go, the harder it is

[40:35] to render color both in our eyes and on

[40:37] cameras. So, for security footage and

[40:40] things like that, having a necessary

[40:42] like 3,000 is plenty, but having um a

[40:45] certain level of bless I guess to the

[40:48] light is important. Um the opposite end

[40:50] of that is that if it's super blue, it

[40:53] leads to some of the problems with

[40:55] atmospheric light pollution

[40:57] um and affects sarcadian rhythms for

[41:00] humans and wildlife among a bunch of

[41:02] other things. So, that would be that's

[41:03] what's currently in code. Um, if you

[41:05] could go back to the slides.

[41:09] Thank you, Kevin.

[41:18] All right, there we go. This is a scale

[41:20] to kind of give you a visual of what the

[41:22] different color temperatures look like.

[41:24] What's currently written is the second

[41:27] um of the three options. 2700K is u

[41:31] sufficient for most uses. However, our

[41:34] current street lights that have been

[41:35] being installed for the last couple

[41:36] years or so, um, according to the energy

[41:39] department, um, are 3,000 Kelvin, so

[41:42] they'd have to get new specs for all of

[41:44] their new lights if we did end up doing

[41:46] something a little bit more aggressive.

[41:48] Um, and this is the more conservative

[41:50] option, or we could do a hybrid of those

[41:53] two things, which we'll open to

[41:54] discussion. Um, back to the exhibit.

[41:58] Sorry, we'll be jumping back and forth

[42:00] in just a second. Um,

[42:03] the next big change to the outdoor

[42:05] lighting is requiring full shielding,

[42:08] which our current code requires cut off

[42:10] lighting. And if you could go up to 02.

[42:13] Oh, actually it's right here. Excuse me.

[42:15] Um, the definition for fully shielding

[42:18] is that the light has to be recessed

[42:21] into the fixture, which some of the kind

[42:24] of cobrahead street lights that we've

[42:26] seen throughout the city that are a

[42:27] little bit older are jut out. Um, and

[42:31] additionally, none of the light can go

[42:32] above the horizontal plane, meaning none

[42:34] of it can go up. Um, it all needs to be

[42:37] directed downward. Okay? And that, um,

[42:40] applies to anywhere in the code where it

[42:41] says cut off or shielded. It's now going

[42:44] to say fully shielded and full cutff.

[42:46] Okay? Um, and then the last um, oh, just

[42:51] a couple of other small changes to the

[42:53] code. If you could scroll down a little

[42:54] bit to 05, I believe.

[43:02] So, previously there was a a um a cutout

[43:06] for um lighting that met a certain

[43:09] historical or architectural style to

[43:12] look like it was older. Um it didn't

[43:14] have to be shielded. there are lights

[43:15] that are fully shielded and would meet

[43:17] the color temperature requirements that

[43:19] do still have that historical

[43:21] architectural style. So, we just kind of

[43:23] cut out that loophole. Um, and then

[43:26] lastly, um, are some exceptions to this

[43:29] code. So, uh, Christmas lights, those

[43:32] aren't going to be touched. Um,

[43:35] construction or emergency lighting,

[43:37] airport,

[43:38] um, sports lighting, and a few others.

[43:41] Um, with sports lighting, um, the limit

[43:43] for color temperature is going to be

[43:44] 5,700,

[43:46] uh, Kelvin as proposed. That's the upper

[43:48] limit for dark sky compliance. It allows

[43:51] cameras to render color really really

[43:53] well when they're on TV and so the

[43:56] players can see the fall. Um, last

[43:58] thing, I already said last thing, but

[44:01] the last last thing, um, if you keep

[44:03] scrolling down is about electronic

[44:05] display signs. So um in chapter six of

[44:09] our code, it talks about on premises

[44:12] electronic display signs and measures it

[44:15] in nits, which is a way to measure the

[44:17] surface brightness of the um the sign.

[44:21] We're just updating our code. If you can

[44:23] keep scrolling, sorry, it's exhibit B.

[44:32] There we are. Perfect. Thank you. So all

[44:34] we're doing is we're um using that same

[44:37] standard that which is 300 nits as the

[44:39] maximum at nighttime and 5,000 nits

[44:42] during the daylight um for electronic

[44:44] display signs that are off premises

[44:46] meaning not on the property. Okay. Um

[44:49] and then if you could go back to the

[44:50] slides I just have one quick picture to

[44:52] show and then we'll open for discussion.

[44:56] Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's a

[44:59] example of full shielding versus just

[45:02] shielded fixtures.

[45:04] Um, can we discuss that?

[45:07] Yes. And we're already making some of

[45:09] these changes. So, the dark sky

[45:11] compliant lighting for street lights has

[45:13] already been happening for the last

[45:14] couple of years. So, nothing's going to

[45:16] change on that front the way it's

[45:18] currently proposed. Then I went over

[45:19] some of those exceptions. Um, this

[45:22] picture I think gives a some what the

[45:24] practical impact might be of some of

[45:26] these changes. This is Moab, Utah's main

[45:29] street. This was before their dark sky

[45:31] policy and after. So you can see the

[45:33] road is actually not super illuminated,

[45:35] but the sky is. Whereas when the light

[45:38] is directed downward, the sky is much

[45:41] darker. However, the streets actually

[45:42] appear much more well lit and safer.

[45:44] >> That same time of day, same day of the

[45:47] year, whatever.

[45:48] >> Yep. You can see this building here and

[45:50] that building. It's just, I guess, moved

[45:52] a few feet, but yeah, same same time of

[45:55] night, everything. Um, and this color

[45:57] temperature is 2700K,

[46:00] just for reference. So, ours is even a

[46:02] little bit more white than that if

[46:04] you're concerned about it feeling too

[46:05] orange. Um, this is like the old Cobra

[46:08] head street light. It's the sodium bulb.

[46:11] And then this is the more

[46:13] >> this is the what our uh new street

[46:15] lights look like now.

[46:16] >> Yeah, I've seen those showing up in my

[46:18] neighborhood.

[46:20] >> Good.

[46:20] >> I hope that you've impro you've enjoyed

[46:22] the improvements. Um but these are the

[46:25] next steps. We can uh move this to a

[46:28] night meeting as currently proposed. We

[46:30] can amend the proposal or continue this

[46:32] to a future work. So that's all I have

[46:34] to say.

[46:35] >> You know, this issue was brought forward

[46:37] by three council members, councilors

[46:39] Whitlock, McKay, and Christensen. I'd be

[46:41] interested in hearing from councelor

[46:43] Whitlock or councelor McKay if this does

[46:47] what you had hoped it would do. What are

[46:49] some of your thoughts?

[46:50] >> Yeah, I So I can just speak for myself.

[46:52] I uh

[46:54] one of the things I I think is amazing

[46:56] about Provo is we're close to the

[46:57] mountains. We have some of these amazing

[46:59] natural resources and I think adding the

[47:01] stars to that is going to be amazing. It

[47:03] also when during the campaign I heard a

[47:05] lot from residents kind of complaining

[47:07] about light at night and making it

[47:08] difficult to sleep and going to sleep

[47:09] and so it has practical benefits. But I

[47:12] didn't want to look at something too

[47:14] aggressive and and wanted something that

[47:17] was sort of reasonable, moderate, not

[47:19] add costs to businesses or the city, but

[47:21] over the next 10 to 20 years, you'd see

[47:22] a substantial improvement. And I think

[47:24] this does a pretty good job with that.

[47:26] One thing, if it's okay that I add, all

[47:28] of this is not retroactive either. This

[47:30] doesn't apply to any existing lighting.

[47:32] This is only going to be going forward.

[47:33] So, new construction,

[47:35] >> remodels, replacements of old lighting,

[47:37] that's what it will apply to. Councelor

[47:39] McCay, do you have anything to add to

[47:41] what councelor Whitlock said?

[47:43] >> No, that was good.

[47:45] >> Okay. Councelor Bogdan,

[47:47] >> I have a couple of things. So, does this

[47:49] apply to like my outdoor lights on my

[47:52] house?

[47:52] >> Yes. As currently proposed.

[47:55] >> It's currently

[47:56] >> for if you once it needs to be replaced.

[47:58] Yes. Once the Go ahead.

[48:01] >> No, she's talking about like Christmas

[48:03] lights, right?

[48:04] >> No. No. Your porch. talking about my

[48:06] porch lights on my front and my

[48:08] >> back lights.

[48:10] >> Only if you replace them.

[48:11] Correct. I'm

[48:13] sorry. Thank you.

[48:14] >> Where do you even find my light maps?

[48:17] >> Um, we can I have several resources that

[48:20] maybe we could post on uh the city

[48:24] website or somewhere with with approved

[48:26] lighting standards. I've seen several

[48:28] other cities kind of provide an

[48:29] approval.

[48:30] >> You know, a lot of times like I've

[48:31] bought mine at Costco where they're only

[48:33] $30 a light. you start making these $100

[48:35] a light or $200 a light

[48:39] [laughter]

[48:41] >> that's a stinking concern though, right?

[48:44] >> Yeah.

[48:45] >> Then it starts adding all this light and

[48:47] one of the reasons why we have our power

[48:48] program that I keep on hearing over and over again is because people

[48:51] did want street lights.

[48:54] >> Um

[48:56] my other question would be how many of

[48:58] these do we have in stock?

[49:00] >> It was the opposite.

[49:09] How many of these do we have in stock?

[49:10] Like if we put this in code today, are

[49:13] you going to be stuck with 200 street

[49:15] lights that you can't use tomorrow?

[49:17] >> No, we have made changes for a long time

[49:20] ago. So everything inventory is new and

[49:23] in compliance. So we have been doing

[49:24] that sky for a few years now in terms of

[49:27] the street lights. But he said that the

[49:30] ones that we're installing now are 3,000

[49:32] and they need to be 2700.

[49:34] >> No, we are proposing the 3,000 or less.

[49:38] >> Oh, you are proposing. So 3,000 will

[49:40] >> 3,000 is what's currently in the

[49:42] proposed code. That 2700 is a more

[49:44] aggressive option that it's open to you

[49:47] if you would like to choose that. I just

[49:48] wanted to make known.

[49:50] >> 2700 is what was in the photo, not

[49:52] what's in the proposal.

[49:53] >> Oh, okay.

[49:54] >> Yeah. Sorry for the confusion.

[49:56] [laughter]

[49:56] >> Okay. because I don't want to be stuck

[49:57] with 200 lights that now we have nowhere

[50:00] to go. I would much rather use up the

[50:03] inventory and be, you know, that way as

[50:07] well.

[50:08] >> Okay.

[50:08] >> And councelor Boggin's first question

[50:10] is, are these more costly?

[50:11] >> Yeah, great question. They're not. So,

[50:13] the way that LEDs, at least modern LEDs

[50:16] work, is that the way to change the

[50:18] color temperature is to put a different

[50:20] level of phosphorus on the light that

[50:23] changes the wavelengths that actually

[50:25] come out of it. So there's no

[50:26] significant cost difference between a

[50:28] warmer color temperature light and a

[50:30] cooler one.

[50:31] >> Can we get that in our packet for when

[50:33] it when it

[50:34] >> per Yeah, absolutely. I'll write that

[50:36] down.

[50:38] >> Councelor Hogan, did you have other

[50:40] questions?

[50:41] >> Well, I guess I just wanted some clarity

[50:42] on [clears throat] what councelor Bton

[50:44] was asking. So like in my house, we can

[50:48] use my house for example, I have porch

[50:51] lights, but [clears throat] there's an

[50:52] overhang. They're under an overhang. So,

[50:54] >> they're not they're not going up. Um,

[50:57] there are some that are under like the

[50:59] eaves of the house.

[51:00] >> Mhm.

[51:00] >> I assume those would not be an issue,

[51:03] right?

[51:04] >> As long as the lights are directed

[51:05] downwards and recessed, then Yeah.

[51:08] >> But then I have one like right outside

[51:10] my door

[51:12] that lights up the area. There's,

[51:15] [clears throat] you know, there's an E.

[51:16] But I guess to me, I don't want to put

[51:20] something out there that leads to a

[51:22] bunch of a lack of clarity for residents

[51:24] and

[51:25] >> Okay, I think it's

[51:26] >> so like, okay, so so picture my backyard

[51:30] door or even my side door. I've got one

[51:33] that comes off the house. I wish I could

[51:36] draw this, but basically it's like at at

[51:39] door level, like it's at like height

[51:41] level. It's right here by the door, and

[51:43] it shines out this way. right now.

[51:45] There's there's eaves of the house, but

[51:47] that's further up. So, does that have to

[51:50] be pointed down or and then I also have

[51:54] a few flood lights in my backyard that

[51:56] we [clears throat] flip on like if the

[51:58] kids are playing in the backyard and

[52:00] those are higher up and those are a

[52:02] little bit

[52:02] >> more like kind of light the whole

[52:05] backyard

[52:06] >> and they're a brighter light, they're a

[52:07] whiter light.

[52:08] >> Anyways, I guess maybe the point I'm

[52:11] making is that we have to we have to

[52:13] clarify this. I think if if I'm not

[52:16] going to replace that light now because

[52:18] now I'm probably going to have to find

[52:19] something.

[52:20] >> But I never was planning to replace any

[52:23] ball. But

[52:24] >> one thing I guess I just want clarity

[52:26] around that for resident clarify. But as

[52:28] I read all the documentation, it was

[52:30] referring to like offremise

[52:33] lining. I don't clean any like people

[52:37] properly.

[52:37] >> Yeah, that was the guidance we gave of

[52:39] to try to minimize any requirements on

[52:42] the individual home. So,

[52:43] >> so it's off premise.

[52:47] » That's my understanding. I was a bit

[52:48] surprised by

[52:50] >> that.

[52:50] >> I can make sure that that's super

[52:52] specific. So, if I'm understanding

[52:53] correctly,

[52:55] >> we we don't want any kind of any of

[52:57] these kind of requirements to apply to

[52:59] single family homes or any kind of on

[53:02] premises.

[53:03] >> What are you providing? We're good.

[53:04] >> Yeah.

[53:05] >> So, what does premises mean? My

[53:06] property?

[53:07] >> Yes, that's my understanding.

[53:08] >> Anything on your own property?

[53:10] >> You can do whatever. Then what would be

[53:11] an off property off-remise sign? Would

[53:14] like the mall huge sign be underneath

[53:17] something?

[53:17] >> That falls under a different criteria.

[53:19] >> Yeah. Say well signs and lights are two

[53:22] different things, but and so we're kind

[53:23] of conflating the the terms, but we

[53:26] refer to signs as being either on

[53:28] premises or off- premises. Off- premises

[53:30] is the legal term for a billboard. It

[53:32] means they're advertising something they

[53:34] don't sell on the property where the

[53:36] sign is.

[53:36] >> Okay? An onremise sign is a sign in

[53:39] front of your business that advertises

[53:41] your business, right? So, so that's the

[53:44] sign piece of this. Then, and then we're

[53:47] and the second issue is just whether

[53:48] we're talking about lights. I I'd have

[53:51] to look because I don't I don't think

[53:54] off premise is the right phrase to use

[53:56] when we're talking about lights because

[53:57] parking lots are part of the premise and

[53:59] we do want to address parking lot. So I

[54:02] think we're more talking about maybe

[54:04] lights that are on structure residential

[54:07] structures versus off the structure.

[54:09] >> So we just need clarity on that. But we

[54:11] we'll we'll we'll look through make

[54:13] sure.

[54:13] >> Yeah. The intent was not to put burden

[54:16] or requirements on sink on homes.

[54:18] >> Yeah. And then the other thing I was

[54:19] going to make which I think Travis hit

[54:21] on when he was talking through it is

[54:23] that there's a difference between

[54:25] replacing the light and replacing the

[54:27] fixture. If you replace the bulb, you'd

[54:30] have to come into compliance with the

[54:31] color issue, but you wouldn't have to

[54:34] also fix the fixture definitely the

[54:37] intent.

[54:38] >> And so fixtures

[54:40] >> and existing fixtures are all in all in compliance. So it' only be for new

[54:45] fixtures be. But we'll

[54:47] >> but

[54:49] that's not even for residential.

[54:50] >> Yeah.

[54:50] >> Well, yeah, because I was going to say

[54:52] nobody's going to read this code.

[54:54] Nobody's going to understand this.

[54:55] Nobody's going to do this.

[54:58] It it it just seems too complex to start

[55:00] getting

[55:00] >> well. Well, and that's why I said

[55:01] because it's only for new construction,

[55:03] the developers are going to read it and and and planning is going to review

[55:07] it when they review the plan. So,

[55:08] >> the only time it's going to come up is

[55:10] when somebody's submitting a proposal

[55:11] for a new development or for a permit

[55:13] for a remodel,

[55:17] » we'll clarify that.

[55:18] >> Yeah, let's let's clarify that because

[55:21] >> if one of my residents or even if I got

[55:23] a zoning violation for the color of my

[55:25] light, I'd be really pissed.

[55:27] >> [laughter]

[55:28] >> I agree. I agree with you. And that was

[55:29] not at all. It's mostly as the city

[55:32] redevelops and we get new development,

[55:34] then we bring it more and more into its

[55:36] compliance. So, like I said, it's a

[55:38] long-term investment for I think a

[55:40] beautiful outcome in 10 to 20 years.

[55:42] >> So, I'll look for a motion to either

[55:44] continue clarifying and bring it back to

[55:46] a future work meeting or if that cl or

[55:49] if you want to have it clarified and

[55:51] bring it to a council meeting, we can do

[55:53] it that way, too.

[55:57] I Okay, I'll make a motion that it comes

[55:59] back to here to a work meeting because I

[56:02] would like to look at it and make

[56:03] refinements before it went to a council

[56:04] meeting. So, I make a motion that this

[56:08] ordinance comes back to council. What do

[56:11] we want to say in a month? Is that going

[56:13] to be

[56:14] >> honestly in two weeks? I think we can

[56:16] all

[56:16] >> two weeks would be good. Okay, bring it

[56:18] back in two weeks.

[56:20] >> Is there a second?

[56:21] >> I'll second that motion. Okay. Sounds a

[56:23] second by councelor Whitlock. With the

[56:25] motion by councelor Bogdan. I'll call

[56:27] for a vote. Councelor Whitlock.

[56:29] >> Yes.

[56:30] >> Councelor Garrett. Yes. Councelor

[56:31] Bogden.

[56:32] >> Yes.

[56:32] >> Councelor Hoben.

[56:34] >> Yes. With the caveat that t technically

[56:36] we are supposed to have discussion on

[56:38] the motion, but

[56:39] >> thank you.

[56:40] >> I don't think there is one for this, but

[56:41] I'm just saying.

[56:42] >> Thank you for reminding me.

[56:44] >> Councelor Whipple.

[56:46] >> Yeah, if there had been discussion, I

[56:47] would have said that. I'm completely in

[56:48] support of this and really glad to see

[56:50] it coming. Um, I don't actually see the

[56:52] need for a delay, but I will go with the

[56:54] group on that. So, I'll vote yes.

[56:56] >> And councelor McKay?

[56:59] >> Yes.

[57:00] >> Okay. So, that motion passes 6. I

[57:03] apologize for skipping over the

[57:04] discussion.

[57:06] All right. Thank you, Breton.

[57:08] [clears throat]

[57:10] Next, we have a resolution adopting an

[57:12] American Americans with Disabilities Act

[57:15] transition plan. This will be presented

[57:17] by one one of our engineers, David

[57:19] Mickelson. David, welcome.

[57:25] Thank you, council. Appreciate being

[57:27] here. Um, today I'm just presenting on

[57:29] the transition plan. So, I'm going to

[57:32] kind of go over some background of how

[57:33] we got here, why we need this, and then

[57:36] kind of our steps forward from this. So,

[57:38] um, a little background, ADA, um, the

[57:42] American Americans with Disabilities Act

[57:44] from 1990,

[57:46] um, requires all public entities to have

[57:49] a transition plan. Essentially, a plan

[57:51] that shows what's wrong in the city and

[57:53] how we're going to move into compliance.

[57:56] Um, this is not just physical

[57:58] facilities, which I think often we think

[58:00] of when we talk about um, ADA

[58:03] facilities. Um but this can extend to

[58:05] communications, public meetings, um

[58:08] trails, restrooms. There's a lot of

[58:11] things that are incorporated in ADA. So

[58:15] really the questions um that this kind

[58:17] of answers is not that is this building

[58:19] ADA compliant, but you know, can someone

[58:21] with a disability meaningfully access

[58:24] all of our services, our programs, you

[58:27] know, in a in a reasonable way? Um the

[58:29] plan details kind of some of this

[58:31] background information and talks about

[58:33] our responsibility as as the city. I'm

[58:36] going to just kind of briefly go over

[58:38] those. Um but our responsibility as

[58:41] provo city is to provide equal access,

[58:44] prevent discrimination,

[58:46] um make reasonable accommodations,

[58:49] provide effective communication,

[58:51] uh have a system for ADA compliance

[58:54] which includes ADA coordinators and a

[58:56] grievance protocol and then to develop a

[58:59] transition plan. So the plan that I have

[59:02] put together here and presenting um it

[59:06] is we we'll adopt it that's the motion

[59:10] is to to put this into place and accept

[59:12] it as the official plan. It is a work in

[59:14] a progress and so there is more that's

[59:17] needed here and I'll I'll discuss that.

[59:19] But so so what is this plan? This plan

[59:21] is basically our road map. Um because

[59:23] the city can't reasonably address all of

[59:25] our barriers that we have for ADA all at

[59:27] once. um this is basically a roadmap

[59:30] that says, "Hey, we're aware of these

[59:32] issues and this is how we're going to

[59:33] grow into compliance." Um and so it it

[59:38] not only details that, but kind of

[59:39] creates a mindset of, you know, how can

[59:41] we make this a better experience for

[59:43] those with disabilities here in the

[59:45] city.

[59:49] Um so there's two parts of this plan.

[59:52] I'm going super quick, so I hope there's

[59:54] questions. I may not need the full time.

[59:55] I apologize. Um there's two parts of

[59:58] this this plan that are kind of the

[59:59] major components. The self-evaluation

[1:00:01] and then the transition plan itself. The

[1:00:03] self-evaluation is an assist is an

[1:00:06] assessment of the city's existing

[1:00:07] programs, services, activities,

[1:00:10] facilities and practices and it's done

[1:00:12] to identify those potential barriers or

[1:00:14] existing barriers that we have in the

[1:00:17] city across all those things. Um so it

[1:00:20] really provides the information that

[1:00:22] helps fuel the plan. So some of the

[1:00:26] things so right now the plan the plan

[1:00:28] that's proposed includes assessments

[1:00:30] that have been done through parks and

[1:00:32] wreck as well as public works um while

[1:00:35] the other city program services will

[1:00:37] continue to be evaluated and we are

[1:00:39] actively working with those other

[1:00:40] departments to be able to help move

[1:00:42] through that process. Um but right now

[1:00:45] just parks and wreck and public works

[1:00:46] are included in this plan. The great

[1:00:48] thing is that this is a living document

[1:00:50] and so as we get those additional

[1:00:52] assessments and identify those needs,

[1:00:54] they can be added very simply. Um so

[1:00:57] with public works and parks, things that

[1:00:59] have been assessed are like site access,

[1:01:02] sidewalks, curb ramps, um parking lots,

[1:01:05] how to access from parking lots to

[1:01:07] facilities, building access, uh

[1:01:10] restrooms, and those amenities within

[1:01:12] the restrooms, and then recreational

[1:01:14] amenities like playgrounds, picnic

[1:01:16] areas, things like that. Um and so those

[1:01:19] evaluations that I have contained here

[1:01:21] in this plan help fuel what we're going

[1:01:23] to do about it. Um, and obviously that

[1:01:26] plan again will change and it'll evolve

[1:01:28] as we add additional information. Uh,

[1:01:30] the transition plan then takes this

[1:01:32] information and says here's how we're

[1:01:34] going to implement it. Um, and there's a

[1:01:36] number of ways that they're that can be

[1:01:38] implemented and changed and it kind of

[1:01:40] depends on the department and and what

[1:01:42] needs to be changed. Um, but I kind of

[1:01:44] broke it down where it's like some are

[1:01:46] done through maintenance and operational

[1:01:48] costs, right? Things that can be done

[1:01:49] very quickly and very uh relatively for

[1:01:52] low cost. Others are programmatic where

[1:01:55] programs or services that we offer may

[1:01:57] need to be adjusted or changed or um

[1:02:00] just other alternatives or accessibility

[1:02:03] options need to be provided for those

[1:02:04] things. And then there's the large ones

[1:02:06] which are going to incr include capital

[1:02:08] improvements may involve design um you

[1:02:12] know future budgeting and may take a

[1:02:13] longer time to implement those things.

[1:02:21] So, as far as the plan that we have

[1:02:22] here, parks and wreck, um I've included

[1:02:25] their kind of documentation, they have

[1:02:27] about a thousand items that were

[1:02:29] identified in their parks, and that's

[1:02:30] kind of appendex E, I believe. Um that

[1:02:33] added about 60 pages to the document.

[1:02:35] So, I chose not to add all of public

[1:02:36] works. We have about 15,000 identified

[1:02:40] issues, which would make this document

[1:02:41] very long. Um but those those items in

[1:02:44] that document um is maintained and we

[1:02:47] assess that. Um but our transition plan

[1:02:50] both for parks and wreck and and um

[1:02:53] public works involve those kind of three

[1:02:55] things working through with maintenance

[1:02:57] capital projects and those are detailed

[1:02:59] in the parks plan here and public works

[1:03:02] will continue to update our plan um as

[1:03:04] we move forward. What I have included

[1:03:06] for public works is kind of a a 10-year

[1:03:09] plan of what we have allocated for

[1:03:11] budget and what we intend to fix with

[1:03:13] that um each year.

[1:03:15] >> And that's the table one. Correct. Okay.

[1:03:18] And you have that Kevin, could you put

[1:03:20] that on the screen? Table one.

[1:03:23] >> No,

[1:03:27] it's going to be page

[1:03:31] 12.

[1:03:32] >> Thank you so much.

[1:03:34] Okay, keep going, David. Sorry.

[1:03:36] >> No.

[1:03:37] >> Um, though we we feel like this is this

[1:03:40] is and we feel that this is an important

[1:03:42] plan to have in place both for legality

[1:03:44] reasons, but also because we want to

[1:03:46] make sure that our city is accessible to

[1:03:48] everyone, right? We have a great city.

[1:03:50] We have a lot of wonderful services and

[1:03:52] facilities and we want to make sure that

[1:03:54] everyone can participate uh equally

[1:03:55] there. So going forward the most

[1:03:58] important thing is that um once this is

[1:04:00] in place this is a living document we

[1:04:02] will revisit this every few years to

[1:04:05] update um it is intended that this is

[1:04:08] also including sections where it's like

[1:04:10] hey here are the improvements we've done

[1:04:12] to highlight you know the the gains and

[1:04:14] the improvements that we've done. So

[1:04:16] over the years we'll add and our intent

[1:04:19] is over the next couple of months to

[1:04:20] include the rest of the city as

[1:04:22] evaluations are are performed and

[1:04:24] finished um to kind of beef up this

[1:04:27] document to include the whole city. Our

[1:04:29] you know all of our programs and and

[1:04:31] different departments that may have

[1:04:32] barriers that are identified. Um if we

[1:04:35] find things that aren't an issue, we'll

[1:04:37] note that. Um, but this document will

[1:04:39] live and breathe as we continue through

[1:04:41] the city as our capital improvements and

[1:04:43] maintenance upgrade our ADA compliance.

[1:04:46] So, the goal is to meet compliance and

[1:04:49] have everything fixed. Um, but I'm just

[1:04:51] going to tell you with with public works

[1:04:52] and our sidewalks, we'll never be there

[1:04:54] because we may fix a thousand things and

[1:04:56] a thousand will pop up again. So, this

[1:04:58] will be something that we we work on

[1:05:00] forever as a city to to slowly grow into

[1:05:04] compliance. Um

[1:05:07] so I think that um yeah and we recognize

[1:05:11] that not every improvement can be

[1:05:13] completed immediately. Not every

[1:05:14] deficiency requires the same solution.

[1:05:16] So ultimately this is more about

[1:05:18] compliance. It is about ensuring that

[1:05:19] residents and visitors with disabilities

[1:05:22] have meaningful access to the city

[1:05:23] program services, facilities and

[1:05:24] recreational opportunities. And that is

[1:05:27] all that I have for Thank you, David.

[1:05:29] Councelor Bogdom,

[1:05:30] >> I have a few questions. This one I know

[1:05:32] you can answer. I'm hoping. Anyway, um

[1:05:35] the one that I've heard is a big one is

[1:05:39] Freedom Boulevard where it curves into

[1:05:41] University Parkway.

[1:05:43] >> Okay.

[1:05:44] >> That corner that's on the souththeast.

[1:05:48] There's absolutely nothing there. And

[1:05:50] that's going from a collector or is that

[1:05:53] Oh, that's a big road.

[1:05:55] >> Is that right by Denny's?

[1:05:57] >> Right. Yeah, just north of Denny's.

[1:05:58] Right.

[1:05:59] >> Right there. There's no It's just grass.

[1:06:01] And so I think that was one thing that

[1:06:03] was brought up that were from some of

[1:06:06] our wheelchairs that like to travel

[1:06:08] around that that's a really busy

[1:06:10] intersection and there's no sidewalk

[1:06:12] >> to keep them safe right there.

[1:06:14] >> What is our long-term plan for that?

[1:06:16] >> That's a great uh question. So kind of

[1:06:20] into the details here with that, but

[1:06:21] we've identified about 200 miles of

[1:06:24] missing sidewalk within the city. And so

[1:06:26] as needs come up, if those are are along

[1:06:30] routes that are used by um individuals

[1:06:33] with accessibility needs, those

[1:06:34] obviously will bump up priority, but

[1:06:36] those are always great to have feedback

[1:06:39] and and give us. We've identified those

[1:06:41] locations and where we have missing

[1:06:42] sidewalk, but now it's just um

[1:06:45] allocating those funds and and

[1:06:46] programming that into our sidewalk

[1:06:48] installation plan um to get those in.

[1:06:51] >> So is that not in our 10-year CIP? Um,

[1:06:54] in this plan, I don't include the CIP.

[1:06:56] It's more of the maintenance stuff that

[1:06:58] I've included here. Um, CIP is kind of a

[1:07:01] year-to-year basis as we determine what

[1:07:03] those needs are and where we're

[1:07:05] installing new sidewalks. It also

[1:07:07] depends on allocated funds. With the

[1:07:10] 500,000 that we have each year for

[1:07:11] maintenance, that's what I've included

[1:07:13] in this plan because that's something

[1:07:14] that we've had um as a reliable source.

[1:07:17] And so that's what I focused our kind of

[1:07:21] transition piece that's included in this

[1:07:24] on.

[1:07:24] >> But we're also looking at chip hazards.

[1:07:26] So even Yeah.

[1:07:27] >> And that's included in the maintenance

[1:07:29] here as well. Yeah.

[1:07:30] >> Um and then a couple questions. I'm

[1:07:32] unclear on where these parks are. It has

[1:07:36] neighborhood. What is neighborhood?

[1:07:38] >> Great question.

[1:07:40] >> That's kind of what I was hoping parks

[1:07:42] would be here for. First neighborhood

[1:07:43] park is like

[1:07:45] >> a very grand revenge park where I used

[1:07:48] to live off

[1:07:49] >> off of 300 South.

[1:07:50] >> 300 South over

[1:07:52] >> it's just like a corner.

[1:07:55] >> So it's a real place and 300. It's just

[1:07:58] like a corner lot with the mountains

[1:08:00] next to that.

[1:08:02] >> It's like if you go if you go if you go

[1:08:04] >> and there's just a picnic table.

[1:08:06] >> Yeah. If you go out if you go

[1:08:07] >> on State Street in 900 East.

[1:08:09] >> Yeah. 2100 also road

[1:08:12] >> and what is roadside park

[1:08:15] >> and these may be may be something we

[1:08:17] need to update or include a map or

[1:08:19] something but that's it may be no

[1:08:21] include that parks uses internally or

[1:08:23] something

[1:08:24] >> there's still a lot of parks that I

[1:08:26] >> as you mentioned I know

[1:08:30] >> while you're checking Becky let's um go

[1:08:32] with a couple of comments online Krice

[1:08:35] would you like to go first and then

[1:08:36] Rachel

[1:08:38] >> yeah I just had a question for Brian Um,

[1:08:40] I'm glad we're doing this. It's It is

[1:08:42] overwhelming and I'm just wondering

[1:08:44] legally thinking about the financial

[1:08:48] aspect. So, financially legally what is

[1:08:51] required

[1:08:53] so we can know financially if this is

[1:08:56] going to doom us or not.

[1:08:59] >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Secondly, I'm also

[1:09:02] wondering legally

[1:09:04] like

[1:09:06] for example, does this mean we couldn't

[1:09:07] teach a skateboarding class at the rec

[1:09:10] center because everyone couldn't do a

[1:09:12] skateboarding class? Like I'm just

[1:09:13] wondering legally does this limit us

[1:09:15] that nothing can be done that everyone

[1:09:18] couldn't participate in. So I'm

[1:09:20] wondering about both those things.

[1:09:22] >> Yeah. So I'll answer the second one

[1:09:24] first which no I mean two things. One is

[1:09:28] this plan doesn't limit us in any ways

[1:09:32] that the law doesn't already limit us. I

[1:09:34] mean the the federal ADA law is already

[1:09:36] in place already binds us. This is

[1:09:38] actually a plan for how to come into

[1:09:40] compliance. And so

[1:09:44] uh so it's not imposing restrictions on

[1:09:47] us that don't already exist anyway. It's

[1:09:49] a presentation of how we're going to

[1:09:51] handle those restrictions. Secondly,

[1:09:54] with regard to your uh question about um

[1:09:58] uh the the programming, no, we're not

[1:10:02] required necessarily to um inherently

[1:10:06] automatically. We don't have to make a

[1:10:08] an upfront decision that we can't do

[1:10:10] programs because somebody might not be

[1:10:12] able to participate. What in it's the reverse though is that if we are

[1:10:17] offering a program and somebody wants to

[1:10:20] be able to participate who can't

[1:10:22] participate in the form we are offering

[1:10:24] it then there's a process by which they

[1:10:26] can request accommodations and we have

[1:10:28] to consider those but they have but and

[1:10:31] then there's all kinds of legal

[1:10:32] requirements about whether they're

[1:10:34] reasonable and that can involve cost and specificity and and who who the

[1:10:40] person is and stuff. There's a long

[1:10:42] process that we would go through to

[1:10:44] determine whether we had to make a

[1:10:46] change or not. But it's not just that we

[1:10:48] have to make a change no matter what.

[1:10:50] It's just that people can ask for it.

[1:10:51] Then we have to consider how to do it.

[1:10:54] Um with regard to the monetary uh um

[1:10:59] implications, again, there's nothing

[1:11:02] about this plan that's not addressing

[1:11:04] something that we're not already

[1:11:05] required to do. So, at some point the

[1:11:07] money is going to be spent, but there's

[1:11:08] also nothing about the law that says you

[1:11:11] have to do it all tomorrow. So, so this

[1:11:14] is ex uh exactly when you're going to do

[1:11:17] it. The the real um I guess the the the

[1:11:22] real basic answer to your question is

[1:11:24] what the law really requires is that we

[1:11:26] have the plan. We're actually subject to

[1:11:29] significant

[1:11:31] fines for not having the plan. So, if

[1:11:34] you're worried about money, the worst

[1:11:35] thing is not having the plan.

[1:11:37] >> Oh, [laughter]

[1:11:38] that's great. Thanks for that. That

[1:11:40] explains everything for me.

[1:11:43] >> Councelor Whipple.

[1:11:46] >> Yes. I was so happy to see this. Um, one

[1:11:49] of my neighbors that I care for very

[1:11:51] much is in a wheelchair and we have old

[1:11:55] sidewalks that have uplift and gaps and

[1:11:59] holes and this really affects her

[1:12:02] ability to move through our

[1:12:03] neighborhood. Um, and I became acutely

[1:12:07] aware of that when I was campaigning the

[1:12:09] first time on one of those stupid little

[1:12:10] knee scooters. and you feel every variation in the sidewalk and it

[1:12:18] can be a real problem. I know that we

[1:12:21] did this survey a couple of years ago

[1:12:23] just because I think until that point we

[1:12:26] didn't have a good handle on how many

[1:12:28] miles of sidewalks we had, what

[1:12:30] condition they were in. And my

[1:12:33] understanding was when that initial

[1:12:36] report which is is used in this was

[1:12:38] given to us um it became

[1:12:42] like just depressingly clear that the

[1:12:45] $500,000 a year for this modification

[1:12:49] repair and trip hazard was going to be

[1:12:51] really inadequate to addressing the

[1:12:55] existing problems especially when that

[1:12:58] wasn't actually taking into account the

[1:13:00] new sidewalks that need to be built.

[1:13:02] like counselor Bogdton brought up, you

[1:13:04] know, the missing one by what Boxfield

[1:13:07] and and everything else. So, I'm really

[1:13:10] happy to see that we have a clear plan

[1:13:13] and accountability to address these

[1:13:16] issues. I think this will will do a lot

[1:13:19] to help make our community better. And

[1:13:24] I'm also I mean even though I want it

[1:13:27] done really like sooner rather than

[1:13:29] later, I'm really grateful that there's

[1:13:31] not a deadline so that we can chip away

[1:13:34] at it in a fiscally responsible way

[1:13:37] instead of, you know, having to mortgage

[1:13:39] the house in order to get this little

[1:13:41] improvement done. Thank you.

[1:13:45] >> Thank you, councelor Whipple. Councelor

[1:13:47] Bogman, did you find your other

[1:13:48] reference? Did you have other questions

[1:13:50] on other parks? I got a text from a resident and she was asking about

[1:13:56] the Fox thing as well and I told her

[1:13:58] that was a conversation we have with the

[1:14:00] school board that was their

[1:14:02] responsibility to put in and they

[1:14:03] lowered on that portion.

[1:14:05] >> So yeah, I I got that.

[1:14:07] >> Okay, great. Thank you, Councelor

[1:14:08] Whitlock.

[1:14:10] >> So another question for you which I

[1:14:13] think you've fairly answered but I just

[1:14:14] want to poke on it a little bit. So

[1:14:17] based on my math, our the identified

[1:14:21] backlog and the rate at which we're

[1:14:22] improving is 33 years or some arrest

[1:14:24] which is pretty large. Is putting that

[1:14:27] in writing is that not exposing us to

[1:14:30] legal risk as having an unreasonable

[1:14:32] plan if there is some sort of issue.

[1:14:37] >> Um

[1:14:38] less risk than not putting them in

[1:14:40] writing.

[1:14:41] >> Um be again because what they really

[1:14:44] look at is whether you have a plan or

[1:14:45] not. Now, could DOJ come in and do a

[1:14:48] review and say your plan's unreasonable?

[1:14:51] Sure. But that would be a collaborative

[1:14:54] process. Okay.

[1:14:55] >> Whereby we would end where we would work

[1:14:57] together to fix the plan rather than

[1:14:59] just getting in trouble for not having

[1:15:01] one,

[1:15:02] >> which is more black and white. Does that

[1:15:03] make sense?

[1:15:04] >> Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for

[1:15:05] clarifying. I have a couple more

[1:15:06] questions. Um, so

[1:15:10] actually a comment just there's a

[1:15:13] discrepancy on the email address in the

[1:15:15] packet. We misspelled accessibility.

[1:15:17] It's spelled with an A, not an I. Just

[1:15:20] as a something to clean up before we

[1:15:21] finalize and send the plan. Also had a

[1:15:24] question about seemingly a couple number

[1:15:26] discrepancies that I noticed. Um on page

[1:15:30] 11 of the plan 85 packet

[1:15:33] it says there are um

[1:15:37] uh

[1:15:39] 321

[1:15:41] so sorry 3,121 meet current ADA

[1:15:44] accessibility standards and then just

[1:15:45] under cuss cost summary it says 3,393

[1:15:50] met ADA accessibility requirements. So,

[1:15:51] I didn't really understand why there was

[1:15:53] that discrepancy. And then there's a

[1:15:55] similar discrepancy with the total

[1:15:56] number of ramps.

[1:15:59] >> I see that

[1:16:02] um it may just have been updated at

[1:16:04] different times um as we've gone through

[1:16:06] and identified additional locations. We

[1:16:08] may not have just carried those numbers

[1:16:10] through.

[1:16:10] >> Okay. Well, I'd encourage us to be

[1:16:12] consistent before we finalize this. And

[1:16:14] then the other thing that I was going to

[1:16:16] point out is it says there's no fiscal

[1:16:17] impact but yet it commits us to a

[1:16:19] certain uh spending requirement all

[1:16:21] this. So I'm I'm wondering why it says

[1:16:23] that. Is it because essentially we've

[1:16:25] already appropriated these monies in

[1:16:26] other areas and so there's no net

[1:16:28] marginal incremental. Could you just

[1:16:30] explain that a little bit? Um, right. I

[1:16:32] because at least for public works, what

[1:16:35] I'm showing here with domain and

[1:16:36] schedule, um, because those have already

[1:16:39] been appropriated, they're not

[1:16:40] increasing any funds. Like this plan's

[1:16:42] not, um, requesting funds for at least

[1:16:45] public works or anything like that,

[1:16:47] right? We're just saying, hey, with the

[1:16:48] funds that have been allocated for this

[1:16:50] area of um, ADA compliance,

[1:16:54] this is what we're planning on doing. So

[1:16:56] there isn't any impact necessarily

[1:16:58] additionally than what RER is

[1:17:00] established.

[1:17:01] >> Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

[1:17:05] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[1:17:06] I I had the same reaction that Katrice

[1:17:08] did. I felt very overwhelmed at first at

[1:17:11] the enormity of cost and the number of

[1:17:14] projects. Um but also where ADA was

[1:17:18] enacted in 1990 and then amended in

[1:17:21] 2009.

[1:17:22] Um I was confused about but I think

[1:17:25] Brian has clarified

[1:17:28] the direction is that we have a plan not

[1:17:32] that they be completed within it just

[1:17:34] has to be a reasonable plan. So we've

[1:17:36] had a plan right this isn't a new plan.

[1:17:39] This is formalizing this is this is

[1:17:41] taking a formal step to we we've you

[1:17:44] know public works and parks both have

[1:17:46] been working not only on these plans but

[1:17:48] actually working off of them for quite

[1:17:50] some time. We're formalizing that this

[1:17:54] is the citywide plan and then we're

[1:17:57] gonna actually update it. So, this isn't

[1:18:00] the intended to be the end of the

[1:18:02] process. This is a

[1:18:03] >> we're we're setting what the base level

[1:18:06] is so that we can work on those.

[1:18:07] >> We'll see. Great. Thank you, Brian. Any

[1:18:10] other questions?

[1:18:12] So, Gary, I do know this is true because

[1:18:15] when we raised money

[1:18:17] for um the neighborhood program project

[1:18:20] that I did for the Lakewood Park, I had

[1:18:24] them move our playground equipment

[1:18:25] because it was underneath the high

[1:18:27] voltage power lines that was making the

[1:18:28] kids get kids skin vibrate. It was just

[1:18:31] awful.

[1:18:31] >> And when we did that, part of the

[1:18:34] expense had to be must have to be we had

[1:18:37] to have ADA access to the play.

[1:18:40] >> Interesting. So, and this was back in

[1:18:42] like 17. So, parks has been working on

[1:18:45] this. I do know that they've been

[1:18:47] working on it because when they redid

[1:18:49] Fifth West, when they put it through all

[1:18:50] the way to the Parkway, there was a

[1:18:52] bunch of ADA ramps added at that point

[1:18:54] in time.

[1:18:55] >> Okay.

[1:18:56] >> And then a bunch of residents saw that

[1:18:58] and got together and said, "Okay, how

[1:19:00] much will it cost us for sidewalk?" And

[1:19:01] the city paired with them to put

[1:19:03] sidewalk in front of their homes. So,

[1:19:04] this has been worked on at least for the

[1:19:06] last

[1:19:08] >> 94.

[1:19:08] >> Yes, Mayor Jkins. Thank you, Becky.

[1:19:10] >> Yes. And but every department has to

[1:19:12] have

[1:19:14] >> Oh,

[1:19:14] >> so it's not just parks, public works,

[1:19:18] but every department needs to contribute

[1:19:21] to this plan. So maybe they have plans,

[1:19:24] maybe they don't.

[1:19:25] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:19:29] » But we definitely have a lot of work to

[1:19:32] do to actually [clears throat]

[1:19:35] >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you

[1:19:37] again, David, for your presentation.

[1:19:38] This is on our agenda for tonight. Okay.

[1:19:41] >> So, thank you. All right. Next, we have

[1:19:44] a um if I assume Cody's nearby.

[1:19:50] If not, we'll take a break.

[1:19:52] >> He's right here.

[1:19:53] >> Okay. Next, we have a resolution

[1:19:55] approving the appropriation of $14,1711

[1:20:00] in the general fund for a contractual

[1:20:03] sales tax increment post performance

[1:20:05] payment to today's market. presented by

[1:20:07] economic development division director

[1:20:09] Cody Hill. Welcome Cody.

[1:20:11] >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you

[1:20:14] all for your time.

[1:20:16] >> Yeah. So, we have a um a budget request

[1:20:21] for an appropriation for this sales tax

[1:20:24] increment payment. Um, this was back in

[1:20:27] 2019 that the city made this entered

[1:20:30] into this agreement with Days Market

[1:20:32] whereby they would make improvements to

[1:20:35] their store location on Canyon and in

[1:20:37] exchange the city would remit a certain

[1:20:39] amount of um sales tax increment to

[1:20:43] them. Based on our calculations, the

[1:20:46] amount that they are going that are that

[1:20:48] they are able to receive this year is

[1:20:51] $14,1711.

[1:20:54] And in looking at their total, what they

[1:20:59] have acred, it looks like that they will

[1:21:01] meet their $100,000 cap next year um

[1:21:05] after receiving 8,000. And so that would

[1:21:07] be two and a half years early that they

[1:21:09] will have hit their cap. And once they

[1:21:12] do hit their cap, then the agreement

[1:21:14] will have expired.

[1:21:15] >> And when adjusting for inflation, um, so

[1:21:19] the cap amount on this, I'm not sure if

[1:21:21] I have that here. Yeah. So the cap

[1:21:22] amount on this is, um, or sorry, the

[1:21:26] base amount is $39,800.

[1:21:29] When adjusting for inflation, it's about

[1:21:31] 51,000. And so the difference between

[1:21:33] the 107,000 which is the total generated

[1:21:37] by today's market uh the last 12 months

[1:21:39] and that adjusted for inflation base

[1:21:42] amount it's an increase of 111%.

[1:21:45] So um very considerable increase in the sales tax revenue that day market is

[1:21:52] generating um after having made those

[1:21:54] improvements.

[1:21:56] And this just kind of shows the shows

[1:21:59] the um historic amounts of of sales tax

[1:22:03] revenues that we've received from

[1:22:04] today's market since um this agreement

[1:22:07] began in 2019 to 2020 that that year and

[1:22:11] you definitely see the weird COVID

[1:22:14] happening 2020 when there's a lot less

[1:22:16] revenue 2021 when there's stimulus money

[1:22:18] and everyone got a lot more. Um, but it

[1:22:21] really is tracking at about um 106

[1:22:23] 107,000 is is where it's stabilizing.

[1:22:27] And so

[1:22:29] >> questions for Cody.

[1:22:31] this is one of like four

[1:22:34] arrangements like this that we have in

[1:22:36] the city, right? I guess they come up at

[1:22:38] different times of the year.

[1:22:39] >> Yes.

[1:22:40] >> Okay.

[1:22:40] >> Yeah. So, there are four. This one has

[1:22:43] three years left, but like I said, I

[1:22:44] anticipate that they will get that um

[1:22:47] $8,000 payment next year and then it

[1:22:49] will sunset and then we'll have three

[1:22:51] left. And then there's also the um two

[1:22:55] other agreements that end in about three

[1:22:58] and then four years. And then Riverwoods

[1:23:00] is the other one and that ends in eight

[1:23:02] years.

[1:23:02] >> Okay.

[1:23:02] >> So, that one will be a long uh a little

[1:23:04] bit longer and they're not looking close

[1:23:06] to hitting their cap amount. So,

[1:23:08] >> and am I remembering that this is that

[1:23:10] tool that has expired that we can no

[1:23:12] longer

[1:23:14] enter into,

[1:23:15] >> right?

[1:23:15] >> Okay.

[1:23:15] >> Yeah. As a city.

[1:23:17] >> Okay.

[1:23:17] >> Correct.

[1:23:18] >> Other questions?

[1:23:20] >> I just have a comment. I think

[1:23:21] >> councelor Ba

[1:23:22] >> I think this shows the love of the

[1:23:24] northeast side for days market because

[1:23:26] that's amazing.

[1:23:27] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:23:30] Councelor Hoben,

[1:23:31] >> it is the best ever.

[1:23:36] See the love of the things,

[1:23:38] >> says the person who lives a mile away.

[1:23:41] Um,

[1:23:42] >> can you help me understand what how do

[1:23:44] we factor in inflation into these

[1:23:46] calculations? Do we do adjustments for

[1:23:49] inflation

[1:23:50] >> or were you just mentioning that as a

[1:23:51] side note?

[1:23:52] >> It's not part of the agreement. I I I

[1:23:54] provide that as contextual information

[1:23:55] so that you can see how um successful or unsuccessful a business is doing when

[1:24:00] accounting for inflation.

[1:24:02] >> Yeah.

[1:24:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:24:04] >> Yes. Thank you, Cody. This will also be

[1:24:07] on our agenda for tonight. Thank you.

[1:24:09] >> Thank you.

[1:24:10] >> All right. We'll now take a break and

[1:24:14] we'll reconvene at uh in 13 minutes at

[1:24:17] 110.

[1:24:21] » Precisely.

[1:24:27] » Recording stopped. Recording in

[1:24:30] progress.

[1:24:32] >> Thank you, Kevin. Okay, we'll we'll

[1:24:35] [clears throat] begin again our work

[1:24:37] session. Our next item number five is an

[1:24:40] ordinance amending the zone map

[1:24:42] classification of real property

[1:24:44] generally located at 1804 North Geneva

[1:24:47] Road from one family residential zone to

[1:24:49] the SDA or specific development plan in

[1:24:54] the Lake View Fields area zone in the

[1:24:57] Lake View North neighborhood. Presented

[1:24:59] by city planner Dustin Wright.

[1:25:01] >> Welcome Dustin. Yeah, thank you very

[1:25:03] much. So, take a look here. This is the

[1:25:06] property that the applicant is uh asking

[1:25:08] to be reszoned. It's just off a Geneva

[1:25:11] Road there. It's about a 10 acre parcel

[1:25:13] of land. And

[1:25:17] here's the proposal they're looking to

[1:25:19] do. Highlighted here in red is their

[1:25:21] property. Um so, it's a single family

[1:25:24] residential proposal there. about 33 34

[1:25:30] um lots. And as you can see the there's

[1:25:34] a property in between that'll be coming

[1:25:37] uh before you in the near future as well

[1:25:40] for the same uh reszone. And then um

[1:25:45] just on the north there that uh

[1:25:46] subdivision that's been in um all this

[1:25:49] is is part of the um

[1:25:54] so I don't know what happened there.

[1:25:57] right there. So, you can see over there

[1:25:59] on the right hand side, that's our

[1:26:00] general plan map. There's an appendix uh

[1:26:03] for the Lake View Fields

[1:26:06] um area um plan. So, so this will kind

[1:26:10] of it follows a little bit of a

[1:26:12] different uh street layout, but it's

[1:26:13] still that same single family

[1:26:15] residential lots. And so, um this is

[1:26:19] what they're looking to um amend to and planning commission's forward.

[1:26:24] positive recommendation to you. Are

[1:26:26] there any questions for me on this one?

[1:26:29] >> So, Dustin, the um I know the planning

[1:26:32] commission

[1:26:34] had recommended approval

[1:26:37] um with the condition that some could

[1:26:39] you go back to the previous drawing that

[1:26:41] some path in be included or what what

[1:26:43] was that? Yeah, I think um so if you can

[1:26:47] see

[1:26:48] here, there's a

[1:26:50] >> there was going to be a stub road to the maze property below.

[1:26:54] >> Uhu.

[1:26:55] >> Um the the maze don't want that stub

[1:26:59] there. So um they're looking to to get

[1:27:03] rid of that stub. I think the planning

[1:27:05] commission was uh describing having a a

[1:27:07] pedestrian

[1:27:09] >> connection. I don't think

[1:27:10] >> pedestrian instead of a road.

[1:27:13] >> Yeah. And I don't think it was going to

[1:27:15] be here. I think originally there was

[1:27:17] another step road coming to the church

[1:27:19] property there.

[1:27:20] >> Okay.

[1:27:21] >> Um so if a church were to go in there,

[1:27:23] then then maybe that would make sense to

[1:27:25] have a pedestrian connection.

[1:27:26] >> Okay.

[1:27:27] >> To that. So

[1:27:28] >> church took it out.

[1:27:29] >> Councelor Bogden,

[1:27:31] >> the church is out. They took it out,

[1:27:32] right? And I don't think Ben would

[1:27:34] appreciate a I know Ben. I don't think

[1:27:37] he'd appreciate a walkway if he doesn't

[1:27:38] want a stubbed road. Now, I haven't

[1:27:41] asked him for sure, but I don't think

[1:27:42] he'd appreciate people on his property.

[1:27:44] So, he owns the property just right up

[1:27:47] against this, and his brother owns the

[1:27:48] one just right below it. Right. So, who did the

[1:27:54] um drawing, the rendering? That's

[1:27:55] probably one before that has Ben's

[1:27:57] property and his brother's property in

[1:27:59] that.

[1:28:00] Is that just what it could be?

[1:28:04] >> Yeah, that one. Who did that one? So

[1:28:07] that's part of the appendix in the

[1:28:08] general plans that was done when that uh

[1:28:11] was created the SDP4 zone. Um

[1:28:17] >> do the owners know that this was done on

[1:28:20] top of their property?

[1:28:23] >> Yes, that was done years ago when the

[1:28:25] general plan appendix was put in there

[1:28:27] and it was just trying to more convey

[1:28:29] housing densities and lot types rather

[1:28:31] than actual road configuration.

[1:28:34] So [snorts] we think it's very

[1:28:35] consistent with that because the lot

[1:28:38] sizes are what we were looking for. In

[1:28:41] fact, this is better than what we've

[1:28:42] been getting in recent subdivisions.

[1:28:44] These are 8 to 10,000 square foot lots.

[1:28:46] You know how many 6,000 square foot lots

[1:28:48] we've been getting lately. So that feels

[1:28:51] good that they're following the intent

[1:28:53] of that map and the plan. So, the SD4

[1:28:57] zone is these 8,500 foot lots because I

[1:29:00] know when I did discuss it with the

[1:29:02] neighbors, they weren't happy, but they

[1:29:05] were okay that because they they say

[1:29:08] they've always told me for the last 10

[1:29:10] years that they have an understanding

[1:29:12] that they should have like the R120 cat.

[1:29:16] And so this was acceptable to themish

[1:29:21] as long as it doesn't go below that

[1:29:23] 8,500T

[1:29:24] lot. It so that's in stone. It wouldn't

[1:29:28] go to 6,000 or 7,000 foot less.

[1:29:31] >> Yeah, that's that's the minimum in that

[1:29:34] uh SDP4 zone that they're requesting. So

[1:29:36] if they wanted to go below that, they'd

[1:29:37] have to come back and reszone it to R16.

[1:29:40] >> And the church has been gone for years.

[1:29:41] There's no church there on the corner.

[1:29:43] The church owns the property, but

[1:29:44] there's no church on the corner. Um, so

[1:29:47] >> they still own the property.

[1:29:49] >> I if it has church and I believe they

[1:29:51] do. We can look at Do we can we do a

[1:29:54] quick partial look up?

[1:29:57] >> Is going to do a quick partial just

[1:30:00] saying

[1:30:03] » if there should be a church there in the

[1:30:05] future, a walk away would make sense.

[1:30:07] >> I don't know that there will because

[1:30:08] they took one out, right? Um, so I'm

[1:30:12] okay with not having a stubbed off road

[1:30:14] and I'm okay with not having a walkway.

[1:30:16] I I think if Ben is okay not having a

[1:30:19] stepped off road, he's okay not having I

[1:30:21] wouldn't want people on my property

[1:30:22] trespassing because there's a walkway,

[1:30:24] which is going to enhance, right?

[1:30:29] >> Thank you, councelor Bogden. Um, other

[1:30:31] questions for Dustin. And I'll mention

[1:30:34] that we've been joined online by

[1:30:35] councelor Craig Christensen as well.

[1:30:38] Other questions for Dustin?

[1:30:43] Okay. Thank you, Dustin. We'll see you

[1:30:45] tonight. This is on our agenda for

[1:30:47] tonight.

[1:30:48] >> Thank you.

[1:30:51] Next, we have an ordinance amending the

[1:30:54] zone map classification of real property

[1:30:56] generally located at 313 East 200 North

[1:31:01] from residential conservation, the RC

[1:31:03] zone to a highdensity residential zone

[1:31:06] in the walking neighborhood. Also

[1:31:08] presented by Dustin.

[1:31:14] So, yeah, here's this property. It's a

[1:31:16] halfacre,

[1:31:17] two parcels. The applicant is looking to

[1:31:20] demolish those uh home, single family

[1:31:22] home and a triplex and build a a 12unit

[1:31:26] town home project here in the Wala

[1:31:28] neighborhood.

[1:31:30] Uh so it's currently zoned in the

[1:31:32] residential conservation or RC zone. Uh

[1:31:36] so that zone doesn't allow new lots or

[1:31:38] parcels to be created. Uh so that's why

[1:31:40] they're going through a reszone uh

[1:31:43] process to um ask for the highdensity

[1:31:46] residential zone, the HDR zone. Um

[1:31:51] and here's their density. They're

[1:31:53] proposing 27 units, and that zone allows

[1:31:57] up to 50 units per acre.

[1:32:00] Um, so years ago, part of our general

[1:32:02] plan, um, we have a a neighborhood

[1:32:05] specific plan for the Walke neighborhood

[1:32:08] and the future land use map here is is

[1:32:12] part of that plan. I'll just kind of

[1:32:14] orient you here. So, here's the the

[1:32:16] property that the applicants requesting

[1:32:18] the reszone on. It's [clears throat]

[1:32:20] down in that yellow area in the plan in

[1:32:23] the WE plan. So that area is designated

[1:32:27] as something that would remain as um

[1:32:30] residential conservation. So they're

[1:32:32] trying to preserve the single family

[1:32:34] homes uh in that historic Pioneer

[1:32:37] neighborhood there. And then the plan

[1:32:40] was to put higher density

[1:32:43] um near the the northern portion of the

[1:32:46] neighborhood close to to Brigham Young

[1:32:48] University's campus so that it's more of

[1:32:50] a walkable uh student oriented um

[1:32:54] location there. So, so that's why that

[1:32:57] uh plan was kind of developed that way

[1:33:00] to take development pressure off of the

[1:33:02] rest of the neighborhood where where

[1:33:04] these single family homes were getting a

[1:33:06] lot of pressure to be um become student

[1:33:08] housing and and uh lose that character

[1:33:11] that's there. of the neighborhood, you

[1:33:13] know, worked with staff and stakeholders

[1:33:15] to create this plan to to help protect

[1:33:19] um the neighborhood from that and to to

[1:33:21] still allow for highdensity uh housing

[1:33:24] to come into this to the neighborhood,

[1:33:26] but to put it in the location that makes

[1:33:28] the most sense there. So, it's kind of

[1:33:30] an overview on

[1:33:34] that. And then here is kind of a concept

[1:33:37] of what they're proposing for those town

[1:33:39] homes. to be 12 12 units. Uh

[1:33:43] there and

[1:33:47] some elevations here as well just shown

[1:33:50] um

[1:33:52] shown that. But anyway,

[1:33:56] there they are. So, three stories,

[1:33:59] parking on the main level, and then the living space above. So, any

[1:34:04] questions on this one?

[1:34:09] Yeah. No, sir.

[1:34:13] >> Uh, yeah. I'm I'm curious.

[1:34:17] I apologize if I if this was in the

[1:34:18] packet, I missed it, but this home is

[1:34:20] How old is this home again? It's like

[1:34:23] It's quite old. Is it not correct?

[1:34:25] >> 1906 or something.

[1:34:26] >> 1906. Is there not like a historic uh

[1:34:31] >> Yeah. designation in that area? Um, so

[1:34:35] it is in the uh East Central Historic

[1:34:37] District. Um, but that's a

[1:34:39] >> but individual homeowners have to apply

[1:34:41] to be part of it.

[1:34:42] >> Um, so there so the the whole

[1:34:44] neighborhood is part of the district.

[1:34:47] Um, but it's an honorary district. It's

[1:34:49] not protected by our landmarks chapter.

[1:34:52] So they'd have to be on our landmarks

[1:34:53] register. Got it.

[1:34:54] >> The proy landmarks register for it to be

[1:34:56] protected. So, um, while it's in a

[1:35:00] historic district, it's not, uh,

[1:35:02] protected from,

[1:35:04] um,

[1:35:06] being

[1:35:07] >> redeveloped.

[1:35:08] Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you

[1:35:09] for helping me understand that.

[1:35:11] >> Hey, Gary.

[1:35:12] >> Yes. Go ahead, Councelor Christensen.

[1:35:14] >> So, just a quick question. Uh, Dustin,

[1:35:16] how long ago was this plan put into

[1:35:18] place?

[1:35:20] >> Uh, the neighborhood plan,

[1:35:21] >> the neighborhood plan was probably

[1:35:24] 2014.

[1:35:27] I think 2000 right after

[1:35:30] >> South Campus area master plan.

[1:35:32] >> Yeah. The the Walke neighborhood plan

[1:35:33] was uh 2014.

[1:35:36] >> Okay.

[1:35:36] >> Right in there. So

[1:35:38] >> we got

[1:35:40] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:35:46] » Councelor McCay.

[1:35:58] Katrice, are you there?

[1:36:00] >> So, my question is, they've only

[1:36:02] profered one year of owner occupancy.

[1:36:07] >> Um, they profered a year at planning

[1:36:09] commission. I think she mentioned she'd

[1:36:11] be comfortable with bumping that to two

[1:36:13] years um as a deed restriction for for

[1:36:17] those 12 units to be owner occupied.

[1:36:20] Um,

[1:36:21] >> okay. Without it being perpetually owner

[1:36:24] occupied and always ownership with no

[1:36:27] rentals long term forever, I'm not open

[1:36:30] to it because the whole problem is that

[1:36:35] the investors I mean investors are just

[1:36:38] upping all the prices and the only way

[1:36:39] for it to stay more accessible is to be

[1:36:42] owner occupied where the prices aren't

[1:36:44] inflated by investors.

[1:36:46] And um and if we're going to go against

[1:36:48] the neighborhood plan, which was

[1:36:52] put in very seriously with a lot of time

[1:36:54] and consideration, and people are very

[1:36:56] invested in it, I'm not willing to

[1:36:57] change anything without making it better

[1:37:00] all around, which I believe only owner

[1:37:03] occupancy

[1:37:05] in perpetuity achieve that.

[1:37:11] So Justin, that was the extent to which

[1:37:13] they were willing to offer go from one

[1:37:15] year to two years. There was no talk

[1:37:16] about perpetuity for owner occupancy.

[1:37:20] >> Um, not that I recall. I think she

[1:37:22] mentioned that, but that could be

[1:37:23] something you could discuss with her.

[1:37:25] Okay. Tonight, um, the other thing to

[1:37:28] mention is they did talk about a

[1:37:29] development agreement to cap the uh,

[1:37:33] density um because the HDR zone that

[1:37:37] they're requesting allows up to 50 and

[1:37:38] they were

[1:37:40] >> um, at 27, I think. So

[1:37:42] >> that and the building height, they're

[1:37:44] willing to put those into a development

[1:37:46] agreement as well.

[1:37:47] >> So what's medium density?

[1:37:49] >> Uh 30 units. Yeah. And the reason that

[1:37:52] they're asking for HDR as opposed to MDR

[1:37:55] or medium density residential um was

[1:37:58] mostly for the setbacks so that they can

[1:38:01] get this project to fit on that side.

[1:38:03] >> I see. Okay. Councelor Whitlock.

[1:38:06] So uh in this packet um it says that

[1:38:11] engineering review comment for this

[1:38:13] development reads our existing utilities

[1:38:14] cannot handle proposed HTR development.

[1:38:18] My question is is this yeah it's it's is

[1:38:23] it unusual for us to be asked to grant a

[1:38:25] zone change before we know whether the

[1:38:27] site can be served and how or am I

[1:38:29] misunderstanding the packet?

[1:38:31] >> Yeah. So when when we create these u

[1:38:34] general plans, the um public works is

[1:38:37] looking at those as far as um making

[1:38:39] sure they have capacity to to meet the

[1:38:41] needs of that plan. Um and so where this

[1:38:44] plan doesn't show higher density going

[1:38:46] in that area, they haven't planned and prepared for that. So I think that's

[1:38:50] where that comment's coming. So it's not

[1:38:52] saying that this particular project will

[1:38:54] create problems. It's saying that if

[1:38:56] this project creates a precedence for

[1:38:58] higher density, we will need to then

[1:38:59] plan for additionals infrastructure.

[1:39:02] >> Um, not 100% sure if that's accurate or

[1:39:04] if it's saying that they will have to do

[1:39:07] some upgrading on the site to to make

[1:39:09] that work.

[1:39:12] >> Mayor,

[1:39:13] >> thank you. I don't mean to speak for

[1:39:15] public works, but I've been in some

[1:39:17] meetings that where they've talked about

[1:39:18] different things like this. So, correct

[1:39:19] me if I'm wrong, but um sometimes is

[1:39:22] they have a certain number of sewer

[1:39:24] lines that they are able to approve in a year or something like that and

[1:39:29] they're all approved out. And so then

[1:39:32] when a development comes in and they

[1:39:33] say, "I need this many x amount."

[1:39:35] They're like, "Well, we already have all

[1:39:36] those like we don't have that capacity

[1:39:39] yet." And and so that can be part of it.

[1:39:42] could get public works here so that they

[1:39:44] can answer these questions if you want

[1:39:45] to because I don't want to just kind of

[1:39:47] guess what it might be unless you have a

[1:39:49] better

[1:39:50] >> I agree with Jeff. Yes, that needs to be

[1:39:52] addressed before we can make a decision.

[1:39:53] Do

[1:39:53] >> you want me to get

[1:39:54] >> No, I think that's uh that's a good

[1:39:56] point. Um it's like I said, yeah,

[1:39:59] they're looking at that that general

[1:40:00] plan and and what they're anticipating

[1:40:02] as what they can cover. Um would they be

[1:40:06] able to cover this? I guess I shouldn't

[1:40:08] speak for him, but um so if we can get

[1:40:12] them to to maybe answer that tonight.

[1:40:13] >> I I have another question. So the

[1:40:16] applicant said that the HDR is needed

[1:40:18] for its setbacks, not necessarily

[1:40:20] density. But it's interesting because

[1:40:21] I've talked to a few residents in this

[1:40:24] area who actually said, I feel like if

[1:40:25] we didn't have these setbacks, then we

[1:40:27] could actually fit in detached smaller

[1:40:30] single family homes like a cottage

[1:40:32] neighborhood or something, which I think

[1:40:33] the neighborhood would be much more

[1:40:34] amendable to. I'm just curious from a

[1:40:37] planning perspective, is the setback

[1:40:38] serving us here? Is it actually harming

[1:40:40] us and giving us a work or worse product

[1:40:43] >> in the HDR zone?

[1:40:46] >> In this area, walking area.

[1:40:47] >> Yeah, probably the walking area.

[1:40:49] >> Um,

[1:40:49] >> in this particular case, because my

[1:40:51] understanding is the reason why

[1:40:53] according to the applicant was saying we

[1:40:55] have to do it like this because the

[1:40:56] setbacks forces us to go more dense.

[1:40:59] >> So the the medium density residential

[1:41:02] setback is 20 ft. So they would have to

[1:41:04] push the building back 20 feet, which

[1:41:06] would then limit how much they'd be able

[1:41:08] to develop on the site and and meet the

[1:41:10] parking requirements. The HDR zone

[1:41:13] allows it to to I think be a 10-ft

[1:41:16] setback. So that gives them that

[1:41:18] flexibility to to be able to fit more on

[1:41:20] the site.

[1:41:22] >> Yeah. My point is if we had a like a

[1:41:25] option to have less setbacks, then you

[1:41:28] could have a viable MBR project here,

[1:41:30] which is what the neighborhood would

[1:41:31] want more. for that not a reasonable

[1:41:32] thing to conclude.

[1:41:34] >> Um I don't know that the neighborhood

[1:41:35] would want that more. We've heard quite

[1:41:37] a bit that

[1:41:38] >> Well, ignore the neighborhood part.

[1:41:39] That's a judgment based on the council.

[1:41:40] I'm just saying like do you think that like from your understanding the

[1:41:44] applicant if they had had smaller

[1:41:46] setbacks that they would have looked at

[1:41:47] another concept potentially

[1:41:50] >> um

[1:41:52] like if the if the medium density zone

[1:41:54] >> say MDR had 10 foot setbacks or 5 foot

[1:41:56] or there was some way there was some way

[1:41:58] like if you meet certain requirements

[1:41:59] there could be an exemption to the

[1:42:00] setback. Yeah. Then they would have

[1:42:01] asked for the medium density at that

[1:42:03] point. It'd still be the same project.

[1:42:05] It just be a different ask.

[1:42:07] >> Okay.

[1:42:07] >> But we'd still end up with that same

[1:42:09] thing. So that's why the um ask is for

[1:42:12] the the high density, but the deed

[1:42:14] restriction would limit the density and

[1:42:17] the height just because the HDR could

[1:42:19] >> because they could actually go a lot

[1:42:20] more dense than this with this zone.

[1:42:23] >> Yeah. If it were reszoned HDR and didn't

[1:42:25] have that, then they could come in with

[1:42:26] a new project plan showing something

[1:42:29] completely different than this concept

[1:42:31] plan.

[1:42:32] >> Thank you.

[1:42:34] Councelor Whitlock. Councelor

[1:42:36] Rachel.

[1:42:38] >> Yes. Um, this is an interesting one

[1:42:40] because this is my area. I've watched

[1:42:42] this project change multiple times over

[1:42:44] the years and it's given me a lot of

[1:42:47] thought about the residential

[1:42:49] conservation zone.

[1:42:51] This zone was put in place what like 25

[1:42:54] 26 years ago because of the degregation

[1:42:59] to these historic pioneer neighborhoods

[1:43:01] and it froze everything in place. So we

[1:43:04] have apartments next to duplexes next to

[1:43:06] single family homes. Um, but it leads to

[1:43:10] a lot of confusion for people who are in

[1:43:12] the area because looking at a house, you

[1:43:15] don't know if that house is a duplex or

[1:43:17] a triplex or a single family residence

[1:43:20] and looking up the zoning for it doesn't

[1:43:23] tell you either. It's whatever the use

[1:43:25] was or whatever the use had been legally

[1:43:28] established was at the time that the RC

[1:43:31] zone kind of froze everything in amber.

[1:43:34] But one of the problems we have with the

[1:43:36] RC zone is other than the confusion is

[1:43:40] it doesn't allow for

[1:43:43] new growth or change or creativity.

[1:43:48] People are forced to keep that same

[1:43:50] density for whatever they had. So there

[1:43:52] was one house I think it was like a

[1:43:54] forplex on 200 East terrible derelict

[1:43:58] thing. And somehow the people who bought

[1:44:02] it actually got money to tear it down

[1:44:03] and build in place the exact same number

[1:44:07] of units. But most of the old structures

[1:44:11] that we have in this area,

[1:44:13] the economics don't work to build it

[1:44:16] back with the same density. And so the

[1:44:19] RC zone has increased the dilapidation

[1:44:24] and the lowering quality of the housing

[1:44:27] stock in most of this area.

[1:44:32] Um,

[1:44:33] I think we as a council need to be

[1:44:36] looking at this carefully, how we can

[1:44:40] preserve the character of the

[1:44:42] neighborhood, but allow for

[1:44:46] the use of it to meet the demands of the

[1:44:48] people who are there now, not just the

[1:44:51] people who were there 20 years ago. Um,

[1:44:55] so this project meets some of the needs

[1:44:59] of our constituents. It meets the needs

[1:45:03] for more people to be able to buy a

[1:45:05] home, to invest in a great part of Provo

[1:45:10] where you can bike and walk everywhere.

[1:45:12] You're close to parks and stores. Like,

[1:45:15] this is a really great area. The single

[1:45:18] family homes or the duplexes that are

[1:45:20] being sold in this area are between 400

[1:45:23] and I don't know like 700 $800,000 and

[1:45:27] they need substantial work. This kind of

[1:45:29] project is the only way that

[1:45:33] new buyers entering the market are going

[1:45:36] to be able to buy a home that they don't

[1:45:38] then have to put in another $100,000 of

[1:45:40] repair work. And I appreciate an old

[1:45:43] home. I bought an old home and

[1:45:47] we spend a lot and it seems like we're

[1:45:50] always behind on the projects that we

[1:45:53] need to maintain it because it is old.

[1:45:55] Not everybody is going to make the

[1:45:58] stupid financial decision that we made

[1:46:00] to get an old home. So,

[1:46:04] I like aspects of this project. I like

[1:46:08] that it could increase homeownership in

[1:46:11] this neighborhood, which would be more

[1:46:13] stabilizing for the neighborhood. Um, I

[1:46:17] think that's a lot of the benefit that

[1:46:20] was intended

[1:46:22] with the neighborhood plan, but it does

[1:46:25] it in a way by changing the existing

[1:46:28] structures, which of course goes against

[1:46:29] the neighborhood plan. And so we need to

[1:46:32] be looking at the competing values

[1:46:36] that are there in the plan and they're

[1:46:38] in our general plan for the city which

[1:46:41] is newer than the neighborhood plan and

[1:46:43] in that case supersedes it and think how

[1:46:46] we can best accomplish those things and

[1:46:49] balance these goals. Um the one year um

[1:46:55] prohibition on renting I think is good.

[1:46:58] Two years I think would be better. I

[1:47:00] don't know about perpetual because those

[1:47:03] are again then restrictions on that

[1:47:06] individual owner's property right like

[1:47:09] if there were a restriction on all

[1:47:10] renting would that include for a family

[1:47:15] um going off to do a service mission or

[1:47:18] a sbatical or something where they're

[1:47:20] gone but they're coming back. So that

[1:47:22] would be a thing to think about with

[1:47:24] that perpetual restriction.

[1:47:27] Um, I know there are many people in the

[1:47:30] neighborhood who are opposed to this,

[1:47:32] but I also know that there are many

[1:47:34] people in the neighborhood who really

[1:47:37] want this and projects like this so that

[1:47:40] they can afford to stop renting in the

[1:47:43] neighborhood and buy homes and really

[1:47:46] continue to invest their lives and their

[1:47:49] families in our community.

[1:47:54] » Thank you. Councelor

[1:47:57] Whipple, great comments. Um,

[1:48:00] [clears throat]

[1:48:03] » okay. Um,

[1:48:05] >> okay. Let's have

[1:48:07] >> Okay. So, let's have Gordon answer the

[1:48:10] question relative to

[1:48:15] some of the pipe. So, there's capacity.

[1:48:18] I think we talked to their

[1:48:20] >> a little bit about how much pipe they

[1:48:22] need to do, but it's not in my mind it's

[1:48:24] not significant.

[1:48:27] >> Okay,

[1:48:28] >> they are the developer is the one Gordon

[1:48:31] that's going to upsize the pipes, not

[1:48:33] us.

[1:48:34] >> It's the developer

[1:48:36] >> and then we'll have capacity for sewer

[1:48:38] and water and storm water.

[1:48:39] >> Yes. Yes.

[1:48:41] >> Is it a problem for the rest of the

[1:48:43] neighborhood?

[1:48:44] >> No. No.

[1:48:47] Any questions?

[1:48:50] >> Thanks, Gordon.

[1:48:51] Um,

[1:48:53] >> getting back to your concept of were you

[1:48:56] thinking like an overlay zone for

[1:48:58] something in the walking neighborhood

[1:49:00] that they could have a 20ft step back if

[1:49:02] the neighborhood was more immunable to

[1:49:04] cottage type housing?

[1:49:06] >> Yeah. I I just think when I look at this

[1:49:08] project and from talking to some of the

[1:49:09] neighbors neighbors here,

[1:49:11] >> I I I I I really appreciate a lot of

[1:49:13] what council said, but I think that the

[1:49:15] risk you you look at with a development

[1:49:17] like this, you get investors to buy it,

[1:49:19] you get people who what I've done, which

[1:49:21] is you buy something, you enter in on,

[1:49:23] which is not a bad thing, but I'm just

[1:49:24] saying and then you big buy a bigger

[1:49:26] house and you hold on behind it and then

[1:49:27] you rent it out.

[1:49:28] >> And so I think that's the concern. But

[1:49:30] if they were more cottage neighborhoods,

[1:49:32] single family, detached, they maybe

[1:49:34] could be places where people could could

[1:49:35] live and raise a family. And so again,

[1:49:37] it's like we have a lot of this type of

[1:49:38] structure, like a lot of this type of

[1:49:40] offering in our city. We don't have

[1:49:43] smaller single family detached homes

[1:49:44] that people can afford. And I think I've

[1:49:47] heard the neighbor being more open to

[1:49:48] the ladder than this. That's an

[1:49:50] interesting concept that probably should

[1:49:53] be explored even in the neighborhood

[1:49:54] meetings to see if that's something that neighborhood would do, especially

[1:49:57] where this plan is about 10 years old.

[1:50:00] And we have heard from residents that

[1:50:02] they are moving out because it is

[1:50:04] transitioning to be more and more

[1:50:05] unstable. Um, but I agree with Katrice.

[1:50:09] I wouldn't there's there's a couple of

[1:50:11] things that I find really not okay with

[1:50:13] this and that's home ownership within

[1:50:16] perpetuity because this right here is

[1:50:20] where we're seeing a lot of the rentals

[1:50:22] and that is the reason why we're having

[1:50:24] the neighborhoods pushed back and why

[1:50:26] we're seeing so much of this. The other

[1:50:28] thing I don't like is the MDR zone

[1:50:31] because yes, [clears throat] we can go

[1:50:34] ahead and put that development agreement

[1:50:35] in play, but that expires the day they

[1:50:37] get their certificate of occupancy. So,

[1:50:39] in 10 years from now, they could tear it

[1:50:41] down and build

[1:50:42] >> something

[1:50:42] >> thousands more, and we don't have

[1:50:44] control over that. So, I really I I

[1:50:47] don't like any of I don't like I don't

[1:50:49] like any of it. And I would push back

[1:50:51] and say absolutely not.

[1:50:54] >> Bill Pepperoni has some comments.

[1:51:05] for getting this work.

[1:51:11] Um, the RC zone, I think, accomplished

[1:51:13] some important objectives the city had

[1:51:16] back in 2002, which was to kind of

[1:51:19] freeze things in place and give the city

[1:51:20] a timeout to reevaluate things. A lot of

[1:51:23] the questions that were raised go to

[1:51:26] whether or not it's time to re-evaluate

[1:51:28] those objectives and those goals.

[1:51:33] Um, and that's a valid point. It's now

[1:51:35] 24 years past when the RC zone was

[1:51:38] created.

[1:51:38] >> And Bill, can I can I I read a document,

[1:51:40] you can maybe tell me where it says

[1:51:41] this, where when the RC zone was put in

[1:51:43] place, it was actually intended to be

[1:51:44] temporary. It was it basically said

[1:51:45] there was some document I think it's the

[1:51:47] city's plan at the time that said the

[1:51:49] city will re-evaluate and and reszone.

[1:51:52] Is that do you recall that?

[1:51:54] >> I don't.

[1:51:54] >> I'll find it.

[1:51:56] >> Um,

[1:51:57] so I think some important questions have

[1:51:59] been raised in terms of what should we

[1:52:01] reevaluate.

[1:52:03] >> Um, I think though I am respectful of

[1:52:07] the Wii neighborhood who followed the

[1:52:09] Scamp South Kerry campus area master

[1:52:12] plan that basically said north of 500

[1:52:14] North go crazy. That's where density

[1:52:18] belongs, but please help us preserve

[1:52:21] what's south of 500. And those were a

[1:52:23] lot of the comments that came out that

[1:52:25] the planning commission that I'm sure

[1:52:26] you're going to hear again tonight. I

[1:52:28] think it is time for us to take a step

[1:52:30] back and reevaluate some things. The

[1:52:32] neighborhood plan has now been in place

[1:52:33] for over 10 years. Um, but I think doing

[1:52:37] that more strategically rather than spot

[1:52:39] by spot might make more sense. Thank

[1:52:42] you.

[1:52:44] >> Thank you.

[1:52:45] Yes, Councelor Christensen.

[1:52:49] >> Yes, I I would just add um I do not feel

[1:52:52] comfortable moving forward with this um

[1:52:55] without a more holistic approach. I

[1:52:57] really respect the neighborhood's wishes

[1:53:00] and the the plans. I would not want a

[1:53:02] city council coming into my neighborhood

[1:53:04] and changing my plan, even if it's

[1:53:06] newer. I think we owe this neighborhood

[1:53:09] the opportunity to take a much more

[1:53:12] holistic look. So, I I'm not in favor of

[1:53:16] approving this plan. I know it provides

[1:53:18] more housing. That would be good. I

[1:53:20] agree with Becky. I think it's

[1:53:21] problematic when you try and answer the the value of this on the back of

[1:53:27] restricting ownership. I think we're

[1:53:29] missing the bigger picture of I think we

[1:53:32] need a more holistic look at this

[1:53:33] neighborhood. I think Rachel brings up

[1:53:35] some good points. I realize it may be

[1:53:37] outdated, but taking a a spot approach

[1:53:41] to especially high density, I I would I

[1:53:45] don't uh I I I have a hard time

[1:53:47] supporting this given that the

[1:53:49] neighborhood is not behind a plan to

[1:53:52] really address this issue.

[1:53:55] >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Christensen.

[1:53:57] Unless there are any additional

[1:53:59] comments, we'll continue this discussion

[1:54:02] in our council meeting tonight. Thank

[1:54:04] you, Dustin. Thanks.

[1:54:06] >> I would just add really quickly to to

[1:54:08] Becky's point that once the MDR is

[1:54:11] approved, um I think it's very unlikely

[1:54:15] that they would just tear it down

[1:54:17] shortly after that to build something

[1:54:19] with higher density. But even if they

[1:54:21] did, they couldn't build thousands of

[1:54:23] units there, right? I I'm sure that was

[1:54:26] an exaggeration, but I just wanted to

[1:54:27] make sure that the record was clear on

[1:54:29] that. They would be capped at the number

[1:54:31] of units per acre. And if the density is

[1:54:34] what 50 units per acre and it's half an

[1:54:37] acre, then it would be capped at 25

[1:54:39] total units there. So that was all

[1:54:42] >> right, Rachel. But it's it's not a step

[1:54:44] up. A step up would be an MDR or an LDR.

[1:54:47] This is HDR. You're going from

[1:54:50] residential to HDR,

[1:54:52] >> right? I was I was just making it clear

[1:54:54] that it could never be thousands of

[1:54:56] units there. That's all.

[1:54:59] >> Thank you, Rachel.

[1:55:01] We'll move then to item seven, a

[1:55:04] resolution approving an interlocal

[1:55:06] cooperation agreement between Provo City

[1:55:08] and Springville City to share net

[1:55:10] benefits from the Springville Rising

[1:55:13] Development. This will be presented by

[1:55:15] Cody Hill, economic development

[1:55:17] director.

[1:55:22] » Thank you, Council Member Good. Thank

[1:55:23] you, council members. I'm presenting to

[1:55:25] you on a potential interlocal agreement

[1:55:28] between Provo City and Springville City.

[1:55:31] This is in connection with the

[1:55:32] Springville rising development. And

[1:55:34] before I get into it, I just want to say

[1:55:36] I had a legislative committee meeting

[1:55:39] today with Utah cities and towns and we

[1:55:41] talked about economic development

[1:55:42] issues. And a lot of issues we're having

[1:55:44] is with cities competing with each other

[1:55:46] for sales tax dollars. And I I think

[1:55:49] this is something that could be modeled

[1:55:51] in Utah throughout Utah where cities are

[1:55:53] not competing each other and going to

[1:55:55] the lowest. You know, we'll give you the

[1:55:57] most and we'll take the lowest amount to

[1:55:59] get this or that retailer in, but we'll

[1:56:02] cities will collaborate and work

[1:56:03] together and benefit have a shared

[1:56:06] benefit. I think this is a an

[1:56:08] interesting and and good positive

[1:56:10] direction. So, um I understand that

[1:56:14] you're familiar with the Springville

[1:56:15] rising. What they're looking for is a

[1:56:16] reszone of PIC zoning to um some

[1:56:20] residential and some commercial uh to

[1:56:22] enable that development to happen. A

[1:56:24] little bit of background is that Clyde

[1:56:26] Company used to have their headquarters

[1:56:28] and their all of their operations out of

[1:56:31] Springville. They've grown. They've have

[1:56:33] satellites out in other cities, but

[1:56:36] they're looking to consolidate that back

[1:56:37] into Springville, bring their

[1:56:39] headquarters there, and have a big

[1:56:41] development um kind of in line with that

[1:56:45] uh strategic direction that they're

[1:56:47] going. And this is on the very north end

[1:56:50] of Springville, our very south uh

[1:56:52] eastern edge right there, uh is where

[1:56:55] the the development would go. and and so

[1:56:59] because it's on both sides, Springville

[1:57:02] and Provo, and they're looking for us to

[1:57:04] reszone, um about 21 acres that could be

[1:57:08] potentially uh productive in light

[1:57:11] industrial. um they are looking for a

[1:57:13] reason and to I think to help ease the

[1:57:16] potential burden that Provo City might

[1:57:18] face uh to share the net revenues that

[1:57:21] both cities receive from property taxes

[1:57:23] and sales taxes um ac across the borders

[1:57:27] uh with each other. And so yeah, there's

[1:57:30] 21.6 acres in Provo City and 8.5 acres

[1:57:34] in Springville City. And you'll see that

[1:57:36] the balance of that development, the

[1:57:38] majority of the commercial is that's

[1:57:42] kind of what their site plan looks like.

[1:57:44] Here's all of the residentials with a

[1:57:46] little bit of retail. And here is um all

[1:57:48] of the the commercial uh elements of

[1:57:51] their uh plan, which you'll get more

[1:57:55] into with the planning aspect of the

[1:57:57] next two items. But um

[1:58:01] the residential components are in Provo.

[1:58:03] So, there's the 167 town homes, 90 condo

[1:58:08] units, uh, that are in Provo with a

[1:58:10] little bit of food and beverage retail,

[1:58:11] about 10,000 square feet, and then that

[1:58:13] majority of the,

[1:58:15] um, the retail and office space is in

[1:58:19] Springville. And so, what we're

[1:58:22] contemplating in this interlocal

[1:58:23] agreement is that the cities will look

[1:58:26] at what the net benefit is to both

[1:58:29] cities. So, we'll look at the sales tax

[1:58:30] that's generated in these uh 21.6 acres,

[1:58:34] and in that 8.5 acres, the sales tax

[1:58:37] that's generated, the property tax

[1:58:39] that's generated, and then we'll look at

[1:58:41] the costs. And then when we're looking

[1:58:43] at the costs, we're just talking about

[1:58:45] the public safety, estimated public

[1:58:47] safety costs, and those numbers were

[1:58:49] pulled from our um business license fee

[1:58:52] study that was just performed last year.

[1:58:54] There are costs embedded into that. So,

[1:58:56] a cost for police, for example, is um

[1:59:00] 400 $440 and the cost for fire is 380.

[1:59:04] And so, the assumed additional um burden

[1:59:07] for those. [clears throat]

[1:59:09] And we just looked at public safety

[1:59:11] because that is the majority of of a

[1:59:13] budget item for a city and there's not

[1:59:16] additional revenues associated with a

[1:59:18] fire or a police call. Um whereas

[1:59:21] utilities, water, and electricity,

[1:59:24] you're the more you use, the more you

[1:59:25] pay. And so we're looking at those costs

[1:59:29] um subtracted from the revenues, and

[1:59:31] then whichever city has the higher

[1:59:33] amount of revenue, they would just take

[1:59:36] the difference and and share half of it.

[1:59:38] So both cities end up with the with the

[1:59:40] same benefit from this development. And

[1:59:45] the

[1:59:46] um we Brian and I have emailed

[1:59:49] extensively over the last week about

[1:59:52] this um ironing out some some questions,

[1:59:54] some issues that have come up. Um one of

[1:59:57] them is triggering. When would this uh

[1:59:59] potentially be triggered and it would be

[2:00:02] triggered? And the agreement as it

[2:00:03] stands right now is once 90% of both the

[2:00:06] residential and the commercial uh is

[2:00:09] completed uh that's when the agreement

[2:00:12] would would trigger and begin uh sharing

[2:00:15] revenues and um yeah were there any

[2:00:18] other issues or you wanted to speak to

[2:00:20] Brian? I think that's the only one. You

[2:00:22] know, we So, I guess two issues. I would

[2:00:24] say if you reviewed this over the

[2:00:27] weekend, there was a new one uploaded

[2:00:29] because of the changes that we made. I

[2:00:32] would I don't think any of the changes

[2:00:33] that we made were substantive. It was

[2:00:35] more like clarifying. We put in a a an

[2:00:39] inflationary adjustment table. um we

[2:00:42] clarified the meaning of net income

[2:00:46] versus total revenue and some things

[2:00:47] like so it's all kind of clarification

[2:00:50] stuff the one the one that I had had

[2:00:52] some concerns about that I mentioned to

[2:00:54] Cody was the trigger because they said

[2:00:56] well if the commercial gets 90% built

[2:01:00] and the residential gets 85% built the

[2:01:03] agreement never triggers and we never

[2:01:05] get anything

[2:01:06] >> so that's that's been my biggest concern

[2:01:08] and Cody just forwarded me this uh a

[2:01:11] little bit ago go an email from um from

[2:01:15] Springville. It sounds like they're a

[2:01:16] little bit flexible. So, uh between now

[2:01:20] and tonight, Cody will try to Cody and I

[2:01:22] will try to adjust that a little bit.

[2:01:25] >> Whitlock. Yes.

[2:01:26] >> So, yeah, it's not just that scenario.

[2:01:27] It's a scenario where basically we're

[2:01:29] putting our revenue dependent on their

[2:01:30] leasing market,

[2:01:31] >> but they could build it all, but then

[2:01:33] still not lease the units, right? and

[2:01:35] then we would not get the revenue even

[2:01:36] though our homes were almost certainly

[2:01:38] due to finish our part and take on the

[2:01:40] cost prior to them leasing the 90%.

[2:01:42] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point, too.

[2:01:44] So, I mean, but they seemed Oh, sorry. I

[2:01:46] turned this off. Uh Cody can speak to

[2:01:49] this probably better than I can, but

[2:01:50] they seemed open to us. Wasn't one of

[2:01:53] the proposals even we could just change

[2:01:54] it to as soon as there's a building

[2:01:55] built on each side? They were okay with

[2:01:57] that. So, they seem pretty flexible

[2:02:00] about that. So, that's the one part that

[2:02:01] I would still change before tonight.

[2:02:04] Councelor Bogdan.

[2:02:05] >> So when I read it, it had a sunset date.

[2:02:08] It would expire in like 15 years. That's

[2:02:11] not okay with me.

[2:02:12] >> Okay. That was one of the issues that I

[2:02:14] raised. I asked Cody about it. He asked

[2:02:16] them about it. They said they didn't

[2:02:17] want it to last for longer than that.

[2:02:19] Spring don't convene. So

[2:02:21] >> then they need to then they need to make

[2:02:23] it more fair and they need to put more

[2:02:25] commercial units on our side and more

[2:02:27] housing on their side. If we're going to

[2:02:29] do this sharing, it needs to be in

[2:02:30] perpetuity forever. Not Not that. If if

[2:02:34] so, they need to come back with a new

[2:02:35] plan in my opinion because that's not

[2:02:37] fair on us. The other thing that bothers

[2:02:39] me is the school district and I realize

[2:02:41] that we cannot negotiate for them, but

[2:02:44] we are stuck

[2:02:47] educating all those kids with very

[2:02:50] limited

[2:02:52] property tax values coming our way.

[2:02:55] That's not fair either. So, it would be

[2:02:57] fair in my perspective if the school

[2:03:01] districts collaborated and if we

[2:03:04] collaborated or if they just went ahead

[2:03:06] and just split it 50/50. We get 50% of

[2:03:09] the retail, they get 50% of the the

[2:03:12] homes.

[2:03:15] >> Yeah. And I understand that that is

[2:03:17] [clears throat] that is a concern on

[2:03:18] this the sunset date. They are looking

[2:03:20] for something that's shorter. We can

[2:03:22] absolutely um adopt what you feel is

[2:03:26] best for Provo City and we can take that

[2:03:28] back to them and they can agree or come

[2:03:31] back and try and negotiate. But

[2:03:32] absolutely we want to do what's best.

[2:03:35] >> Is it common to do a sunset on an

[2:03:37] arrangement like this?

[2:03:40] I think in perpetuity going forever is

[2:03:44] probably a little bit ownorous and you

[2:03:46] know you don't know what's going to

[2:03:46] happen there in 50 years and so there

[2:03:50] probably it does probably I think make

[2:03:52] more sense to have a sunset date even if

[2:03:53] it is 50 years versus in perpetuity. So,

[2:03:58] Cody, the um I think one of the

[2:04:00] commissioners I'm sorry, Brian.

[2:04:02] >> Well, I need to double check this now

[2:04:04] that you said that, but when when Cody

[2:04:05] said that, it triggers and I think I

[2:04:08] need to look this up, but I think under

[2:04:09] state code, there's actually a 50-year

[2:04:11] limit on interlocal.

[2:04:12] >> Oh, there is. Okay.

[2:04:13] >> Okay. 50 though, not 15.

[2:04:15] >> Right. 50.

[2:04:16] >> Yeah. But that's that's close to

[2:04:18] probably what is a useful life of a

[2:04:20] development.

[2:04:20] >> That's what I was thinking.

[2:04:21] >> Interesting. Mhm. [clears throat] So, I

[2:04:24] think one of the commissioners raised

[2:04:25] this point, Cody, and a few residents as

[2:04:29] well. This is to Becky's comment about

[2:04:31] the school districts and the impact. Um,

[2:04:35] and what jumps out at you is is why

[2:04:38] Springville wouldn't simply look to have

[2:04:41] this property annexed into their city

[2:04:44] and control the entire Springville

[2:04:47] rising development um, which is 20% in

[2:04:51] Provo.

[2:04:53] What discussions have there been about

[2:04:55] that?

[2:04:58] >> Oh, sorry.

[2:05:01] » I'm sorry. Who's talking? It's Katrice.

[2:05:03] Way more.

[2:05:04] >> Go ahead.

[2:05:05] >> Way more than 20% is in Provo.

[2:05:10] » Isn't it 20% and 10%.

[2:05:12] >> I mean, as far as acreage goes, it's 20

[2:05:14] acres versus 9 acres. So,

[2:05:17] >> you see that red line? That red line

[2:05:19] shows you what's in

[2:05:20] >> We should annex it.

[2:05:24] » Yeah. Exactly.

[2:05:26] >> We should be annexing them.

[2:05:28] >> Yeah.

[2:05:29] >> Okay. the Provo Rising development.

[2:05:32] [laughter]

[2:05:32] >> Yeah.

[2:05:36] » So, did it come up in conversations?

[2:05:39] >> I have not had any conversations with

[2:05:40] that. I think is if Gordon were here, he

[2:05:43] could talk about utilities and and where

[2:05:45] utilities are coming from, where they're

[2:05:47] being supplied.

[2:05:48] >> Okay. Thank you, Cody.

[2:05:50] >> I'm sure that would have a big, you

[2:05:52] know, impact on whether it makes sense

[2:05:53] to annex or not is on who would be

[2:05:55] supplying those utilities, where the

[2:05:56] utilities are closest. Councelor

[2:05:58] Whipple.

[2:06:02] » Yeah, I just had questions about the

[2:06:05] property tax calculations. Um, I would

[2:06:09] imagine that the property tax rates are

[2:06:11] slightly different between Provo and

[2:06:13] Springville. And so the amount of

[2:06:15] property tax revenue we would be getting

[2:06:17] is different than they would be getting

[2:06:18] if it were their property. Um, and I was

[2:06:22] just wondering if Cody had looked into

[2:06:24] that when they were were looking at the

[2:06:26] revenue sharing deal.

[2:06:29] >> Yes. Yeah. So, the the property tax

[2:06:31] rates are based on the actual rates for

[2:06:35] the city of Provo and for the city of

[2:06:36] Springville. Um, right now Springville's

[2:06:39] property tax rate is 0.00179.

[2:06:45] Um, whereas Provos is 0.1678.

[2:06:50] And so Provos is um a [clears throat]

[2:06:52] bit higher than than spring bills.

[2:06:55] >> And is that because we have the library

[2:06:57] component? Like do we have more line

[2:06:58] items in our city property tax portion

[2:07:01] than they have?

[2:07:03] >> I believe so.

[2:07:04] >> Okay.

[2:07:07] Cuz I I liked the the idea of fairness

[2:07:10] that we had, right? Like in a low sales

[2:07:12] tax year but high property tax years,

[2:07:14] you know, we're giving them some of the

[2:07:15] property tax and high sales tax years.

[2:07:17] they give us some to equalize it. In

[2:07:20] principle, I think that sounds really

[2:07:22] good. Um, but we are providing services

[2:07:27] like the library in Provo that that we

[2:07:30] definitely need those property taxes

[2:07:32] for. Um,

[2:07:34] I I think it makes sense to increase the

[2:07:38] agreement period, the sunset to pretty

[2:07:42] much closer to the useful length of life

[2:07:44] of the development. Um, I don't know, 50

[2:07:48] years, but certainly 30 years I think I

[2:07:50] would be happier with. Um, I'm sure they

[2:07:52] would not be happier with that. But

[2:07:54] those are are my thoughts. Well, one

[2:07:58] more. I actually think this is a really

[2:08:01] good project. It's unfortunate that it

[2:08:03] straddles two cities so that we have to

[2:08:05] try to figure out something like that.

[2:08:07] But for the southeast area of Provo and

[2:08:10] that entrance to Springville, this is a

[2:08:12] great way to revitalize that whole area.

[2:08:16] And I don't want to kill this project

[2:08:19] because I think that's going to be good

[2:08:21] for that whole South State Street area.

[2:08:24] I'm I'm really happy that a local

[2:08:27] company, Clyde, is looking at doing this

[2:08:29] kind of reinvestment in its community.

[2:08:32] um like this is like

[2:08:35] instead of us doing our redevelopment

[2:08:38] agency and you know figuring out funds

[2:08:40] for it, it's a private company that's

[2:08:41] doing this that's building this really

[2:08:43] useful good project that supports

[2:08:46] commercial and residents. I I'm really

[2:08:49] happy to see it.

[2:08:52] >> Yeah, as I as I stated at the very

[2:08:54] beginning, I think it's great to to work

[2:08:55] cooperatively with your neighbors and have a sharing agreement that's that really shows equality. um in in the

[2:09:02] benefit. Um when I was with Midville

[2:09:06] City as their economic development

[2:09:07] manager, we tried to work with Murray

[2:09:10] City on a station area plan because the

[2:09:13] station was kind of bordered the two

[2:09:15] cities and they said, "No, we're

[2:09:17] actually not interested in that, but

[2:09:18] hopefully they'll get better people up

[2:09:20] there."

[2:09:20] >> Great comments. Thank you, councelor.

[2:09:22] Whitlock. Yeah, just to echo,

[2:09:26] I was in [clears throat] the

[2:09:26] neighborhood meeting where this was

[2:09:27] reviewed last week and I'll say

[2:09:30] generally very positive feelings from

[2:09:32] the neighborhood about this development.

[2:09:34] Uh, you know, there's a number of

[2:09:36] factors in that part of Provo that I

[2:09:38] know the residents care about. Uh, it's a food desert. There's very few

[2:09:42] places to go and grab places to eat or

[2:09:44] to shop. Um, the Spring Creek Elementary

[2:09:48] is sort of un is a it was on the list of

[2:09:50] schools they're looking to close because

[2:09:52] it's well below its cap and so the

[2:09:54] students would be helpful. The concerns

[2:09:55] were primarily around the fairness of

[2:09:57] this agreement. Um, Jennifer Cartridge

[2:10:00] from the school board was there also had

[2:10:01] questions about how property taxes would

[2:10:03] play into account raising similar

[2:10:04] concerns as you. And so I like this

[2:10:06] development. I'd like it to happen, but

[2:10:08] I have a lot of issues with this

[2:10:10] agreement of some of which we've named

[2:10:11] as some of which we could talk for 30

[2:10:13] more minutes about. Like I I don't

[2:10:14] understand why we're only including

[2:10:16] safety as costs when we're taking on

[2:10:18] road plowing, infrastructure

[2:10:20] maintenance, you know, road liabilities.

[2:10:22] Like anyway, there's a lot of details we

[2:10:24] could get into here, but that's my

[2:10:25] general feeling.

[2:10:27] >> Thank you, Councelor Whitlock.

[2:10:29] Any other comments? Councelor Bogden.

[2:10:32] >> So Gordon will be here tonight to answer

[2:10:34] the infrastructure stuff because I know

[2:10:36] that's one that a resident has brought

[2:10:38] up was where is that infrastructure

[2:10:40] coming from? Is it coming from Provo?

[2:10:42] Was it coming from Springville?

[2:10:44] So, I'd like that answered. Um,

[2:10:47] also, gosh, what was there? There was

[2:10:50] another one that they had. Oh, just to

[2:10:53] clarify, we cleaned up a lot of iron and

[2:10:55] we paid a lot of money to clean it up,

[2:10:57] right?

[2:10:59] >> How much money did we pay for this

[2:11:00] parcel to be cleaned up or how much are

[2:11:03] we expecting it to generate to come back

[2:11:05] for that cleanup funding?

[2:11:07] >> I can look into the small area plan

[2:11:09] which governs this area. I'm not sure

[2:11:11] that there's a dollar amount specific to

[2:11:13] parcels. Um, but I can give you some

[2:11:15] details about the remediation efforts in

[2:11:18] that area

[2:11:19] >> because that's also a concern. I don't

[2:11:21] know that Springville paid anything for

[2:11:23] remediation, did they?

[2:11:24] >> I'm not aware of that.

[2:11:26] >> And so, I think that we also need money

[2:11:28] coming back for that. I mean, we're It

[2:11:30] seems like they're getting a lot of

[2:11:31] benefit for

[2:11:33] a lot of benefit and it seems like we've

[2:11:36] done a lot to this area to bring it to

[2:11:38] where it is today.

[2:11:40] Yeah, they also would would note that

[2:11:43] they are also giving up there's a there

[2:11:46] was a used car lot and two restaurants

[2:11:49] on that site and they're removing it and

[2:11:52] to provide this development as well. So

[2:11:54] I think they they would note that we're

[2:11:56] also giving up some revenues that are

[2:11:58] existing now for a future benefit to

[2:12:00] both cities.

[2:12:02] >> Yeah, I don't think the city did much

[2:12:04] remediation at all. I think we passed

[2:12:06] that responsibility on to the people who

[2:12:08] bought properties from us.

[2:12:09] >> Okay.

[2:12:10] >> Is that how it works?

[2:12:11] >> Yeah. Like

[2:12:12] >> Okay.

[2:12:14] >> Man who built hallmation

[2:12:23] stuff.

[2:12:26] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[2:12:27] >> So, we don't necessarily have much skin

[2:12:30] in the game as far.

[2:12:33] >> Thanks,

[2:12:34] >> Cody. Why don't you continue with the

[2:12:36] next two items relative to this one is

[2:12:38] the zone map classification

[2:12:41] amendment and then the general plan map

[2:12:44] designation amendment. Let's just

[2:12:45] continue

[2:12:47] and um

[2:12:49] because they they kind of um oh

[2:12:53] >> oh sorry about that. Okay co Cody thank

[2:12:56] you. Yes, of course.

[2:12:57] >> Quick note, council,

[2:12:59] >> and maybe we want to do this after we

[2:13:01] hear Aaron and Brian jump in, but just

[2:13:03] as um Cody and Brian go back to

[2:13:07] negotiate development agreement, if the

[2:13:09] council does have very specific things

[2:13:11] they would like to see in that, motions

[2:13:13] would be helpful and maybe after hearing

[2:13:15] context from Aaron's items, that might

[2:13:17] be a better place to do that. Let's do

[2:13:19] that. But motions would be helpful as to

[2:13:22] negotiate.

[2:13:22] >> Okay. So, you'll hang out Cody here.

[2:13:25] Okay.

[2:13:25] >> Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[2:13:26] >> I'll be around.

[2:13:27] >> All right.

[2:13:28] >> And so let's turn the time to Aaron

[2:13:31] >> for the next two items. Same

[2:13:33] development, but one regarding the zone

[2:13:36] map classification and the other the

[2:13:39] general plan map designation.

[2:13:43] >> Okay. Um, so

[2:13:46] because these items are going to be on

[2:13:47] your agenda tonight, I won't go into

[2:13:49] like the full presentation. maybe just

[2:13:51] save this time for for questions that I

[2:13:53] could try to answer now or prepare

[2:13:54] answers for for this evening. But

[2:13:56] essentially, it's it's going from an

[2:13:58] industrial zone and general plan

[2:13:59] designation uh to a mixeduse designation

[2:14:02] and a mix between medium density zoning

[2:14:05] and some uh general commercial zoning uh

[2:14:08] to to fill the the kind of the vision of

[2:14:11] a Springville Risings project. Um, but

[2:14:14] if there's any specific questions I can

[2:14:15] try to answer now or or for tonight,

[2:14:19] >> councelor Van.

[2:14:21] >> Okay. So, when I read the development

[2:14:22] agreement,

[2:14:24] >> I guess first question I should ask, do

[2:14:26] you have any idea why they

[2:14:28] procrastinated giving that to us until

[2:14:32] >> um I think I think this council has

[2:14:34] gotten used to having development

[2:14:35] agreements at the time of the packet. In

[2:14:38] the past, that wasn't typical. So,

[2:14:40] typically in the past, councils have

[2:14:43] negotiated that development agreement at

[2:14:45] the time of the reszone hearing. Um, but

[2:14:48] this council has gotten used to having

[2:14:49] those up front. Um, so I don't know if

[2:14:51] it's a a delay on purpose, but just as

[2:14:56] they kind of worked out the details with

[2:14:58] our legal team, uh, a draft was ready

[2:15:00] when it was ready.

[2:15:01] >> So, to me, I still need to be able to

[2:15:04] read it and I still need time to read

[2:15:06] that. And I like those with the packet.

[2:15:09] I think that's what we've we've

[2:15:12] established is if you don't have things

[2:15:13] ready, then it gets continued.

[2:15:15] >> Well, it's not a requirement per se is

[2:15:16] what I'm saying.

[2:15:18] >> But what I'm saying is to me that

[2:15:21] creates a council that doesn't have time

[2:15:24] to review it and it's like a rubber

[2:15:26] stamp council and that's not the council

[2:15:27] that I'm comfortable with. I would

[2:15:29] prefer those documents earlier where we

[2:15:31] can review them and then of course we

[2:15:32] will have those conversations but we we

[2:15:35] will be prepared to have those

[2:15:37] conversations during these meetings.

[2:15:39] >> Yeah, Council Bugin that's a I mean it's

[2:15:41] a very valid concern. It's a little bit

[2:15:42] difficult with development agreements

[2:15:44] because of the way they work. Uh, I

[2:15:46] mean, in some ways,

[2:15:48] we're almost kind of dinging this

[2:15:49] developer for having prepared one

[2:15:52] because most developers don't prepare

[2:15:54] one at all until because the normal

[2:15:57] process for development agreements. And

[2:15:59] again, this is going to be contradicted

[2:16:01] in just a few minutes by Vesper, but

[2:16:03] Vesper, I'm going to actually have some

[2:16:05] introductory comments about Vesper about

[2:16:06] the fact that it's an super unusual

[2:16:08] case. Normally, we don't have any idea

[2:16:12] that a development agreement is even

[2:16:16] necessary until the developer is in

[2:16:19] front of the council and the council

[2:16:22] says, "Here are our concerns that we

[2:16:24] need you to address in order for us to

[2:16:26] feel comfortable with this reszone." And

[2:16:28] then normally in the meeting, the

[2:16:31] developer says, "Well, I'm happy to

[2:16:32] enter into a development agreement that

[2:16:34] says the following things." and you vote

[2:16:37] on a resolution that says we approve

[2:16:39] this reszone and authorize the mayor to

[2:16:41] negotiate a development agreement that

[2:16:43] says what the developer said in the

[2:16:45] meeting. That's that's actually the

[2:16:47] normal process. And usually the the

[2:16:50] council in 90% I'd say 80% of cases the

[2:16:54] uh council never even sees the

[2:16:56] development agreement because it just is

[2:16:59] an executive function taken after the

[2:17:01] meeting to memorialize what they said in

[2:17:03] the meeting. Now, sometimes we get

[2:17:06] developers who are a little bit more

[2:17:07] sophisticated and they they know that

[2:17:10] there's going to be a concern, so they

[2:17:11] try to address the concerns upfront and

[2:17:14] so they give a draft. Um, I I don't want

[2:17:18] to disincentivize them for doing that by

[2:17:21] saying if you do something that 80% of

[2:17:23] the other people aren't doing, you have

[2:17:24] to do it sooner. Does that does that

[2:17:26] make sense? Um, but I don't disagree

[2:17:28] that it was very last minute as far as

[2:17:30] giving you something to look at. And so

[2:17:32] I understand the concern about that, but

[2:17:34] I think it needs to be tempered with.

[2:17:36] Maybe we just need to have more

[2:17:37] discussion about what our development

[2:17:38] agreement process should be. But we have

[2:17:42] not in the past taken the approach that

[2:17:45] every time we learn at the last minute

[2:17:47] that you want one that we continue it

[2:17:49] until you can see it. Does that make

[2:17:51] sense? So most of the time you're never

[2:17:52] even seeing

[2:17:54] >> and sometimes there isn't even one,

[2:17:56] >> right? A lot of times there isn't one

[2:17:58] because we don't know.

[2:18:00] And this will go to comments that I was

[2:18:01] going to make in the in the vest

[2:18:02] meeting. We don't know that the council

[2:18:04] has concerns until they're actually

[2:18:05] standing in front of you and you state

[2:18:07] what your concerns are. So, usually the

[2:18:10] only reason we get one before that is

[2:18:11] because staff has concerns and they say,

[2:18:15] "We're not going to recommend approval

[2:18:17] if you don't do a DA that does the

[2:18:19] following things." Or they try to guess

[2:18:21] like sometimes like with the home

[2:18:23] ownership thing.

[2:18:24] staff has been pretty proactive uh

[2:18:27] sometimes over my objections to say we

[2:18:31] know that this is a big issue from the

[2:18:32] council so you should so you should

[2:18:34] react to it proactively instead of

[2:18:36] waiting until they tell you that it's an

[2:18:37] issue. Um so so sometimes we do get them

[2:18:41] beforehand but it's actually the rarer

[2:18:43] case not the more common case.

[2:18:45] >> Gotcha.

[2:18:46] >> Interesting. But so so my so my my

[2:18:50] personal

[2:18:51] uh feedback on what you just said is

[2:18:53] that instead of asking for them sooner,

[2:18:56] you should be really really really ready to continue things,

[2:19:01] right? because it's going to be hard to

[2:19:04] get them beforehand. But I think instead

[2:19:07] of feeling pressure to vote on things

[2:19:09] that you haven't seen, you should say in

[2:19:11] the in the meeting where you see it for

[2:19:13] the first time, you should say, "Great,

[2:19:16] here are the things that I'm still not

[2:19:17] satisfied with. Until those things are

[2:19:19] satisfied, I don't feel comfortable

[2:19:21] approving this. So, let's continue it

[2:19:22] until you address those things." That I

[2:19:25] think is actually the preferable method,

[2:19:27] >> okay?

[2:19:27] >> Over asking for demanding stuff further

[2:19:30] in advance,

[2:19:30] >> right? Just continue it here. Okay. So,

[2:19:33] I do have a problem with the the

[2:19:35] development agreement. It seems like

[2:19:37] when I read it, you can tell me if I

[2:19:39] read it wrong that they are saying that

[2:19:41] they are guaranteeing homeowner

[2:19:43] occupancy years after.

[2:19:49] » They're they are saying that they will

[2:19:51] have homeowner occupancy for two years

[2:19:54] after they get the certificate of

[2:19:55] occupancy. This isn't in perpetuity.

[2:19:57] This is just the first two years of

[2:20:01] occupancy.

[2:20:02] >> Correct.

[2:20:03] >> Okay. So that that I would I would say

[2:20:06] no. I I would say you need to do it in

[2:20:08] perpetuity.

[2:20:08] >> And that is absolutely great and perfect

[2:20:11] feedback for tonight to the developer

[2:20:12] about why you

[2:20:13] >> are they not watching any of this?

[2:20:15] >> I don't have any idea.

[2:20:18] >> So it's not every time the property

[2:20:20] changes hands

[2:20:23] right now. is the initial two-year

[2:20:24] period in that.

[2:20:25] >> Okay,

[2:20:26] >> that's how I read it.

[2:20:28] >> Okay,

[2:20:28] >> that was I think one of the things that

[2:20:30] I called out to you when I sent you the

[2:20:32] draft by email.

[2:20:35] >> Okay.

[2:20:36] >> Was there just remind me was there

[2:20:38] anything else that you called out by

[2:20:39] email?

[2:20:39] >> The other thing that the other thing

[2:20:41] that I mentioned when I emailed it to

[2:20:42] you is that the I think there's five

[2:20:45] paragraph five substantive par sub

[2:20:47] paragraphs to section four. three

[2:20:49] through five

[2:20:51] don't really say very much. They they're

[2:20:56] essentially versions of we'll try to do

[2:20:58] something to address something and but

[2:21:01] they don't they're not concrete at all.

[2:21:04] And so I called that out as being

[2:21:05] something that I wasn't sure if the

[2:21:06] council would be comfortable with.

[2:21:08] >> Then maybe that's something that we

[2:21:09] should consider continuing after we hear

[2:21:11] the presentations. Continue this until

[2:21:13] they specify what that is.

[2:21:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's that is

[2:21:18] entirely what in my view what tonight's

[2:21:21] meeting

[2:21:22] is about is the opportunity for you to

[2:21:24] tell them your concerns and what you're

[2:21:26] dissatisfied with so that they give a

[2:21:28] chance to to respond to because the

[2:21:30] development agreement is really just

[2:21:31] their prof. That's it's what they're

[2:21:33] saying they're willing to do right now,

[2:21:34] but they haven't gotten any feedback

[2:21:36] from you yet.

[2:21:36] >> So the continuence you would recommend

[2:21:38] in tonight's meeting,

[2:21:39] >> right? If

[2:21:40] >> not now, but in tonight's meeting,

[2:21:41] >> right? My recommendation would be you

[2:21:44] let them show up tonight. You let them

[2:21:45] make their presentation. You tell them

[2:21:47] any deficiencies that you see. They may

[2:21:50] be able to respond to those deficiencies

[2:21:52] on the spot, right? If and then we might

[2:21:55] be able to do a a hybrid version where

[2:21:57] we where we say you're approving a

[2:22:00] development agreement that comport that

[2:22:02] it will be changed to reflect what they

[2:22:05] promise in the meeting. more similar to

[2:22:06] the process that I described earlier,

[2:22:08] >> but I think we only had a chance to

[2:22:10] study the what they profered first. It

[2:22:12] was kind it came so late that I don't

[2:22:14] know that any of us have really had a

[2:22:15] chance to really look at it.

[2:22:17] >> Well, and and and again, I I wouldn't

[2:22:19] expect you to I would expect them in the

[2:22:21] meeting to walk very carefully through

[2:22:24] their profer and explain exactly what

[2:22:25] they're profering and then for then you

[2:22:27] to push back on the the meeting because

[2:22:31] and again this goes back to to the

[2:22:33] Vesper issue, right? Because development

[2:22:35] agreements are negotiated with the

[2:22:36] council, not with the administration.

[2:22:38] Your chance to negotiate it is in the

[2:22:40] meeting.

[2:22:44] » Thanks.

[2:22:46] >> Does it make u better sense necessarily

[2:22:50] to have the these two items presented

[2:22:54] first followed by the um

[2:22:58] interlocal agreement or the way it is

[2:23:00] here?

[2:23:02] Um, well, I was thinking that as when

[2:23:04] Cody came to the stand. I think for the

[2:23:05] public, it makes more sense to do the

[2:23:08] proposal before the entry level.

[2:23:10] >> Okay?

[2:23:10] >> Because then they're seeing what's being

[2:23:11] proposed before we discuss the revenue

[2:23:14] portion of it.

[2:23:15] >> Okay?

[2:23:17] >> And as long as they're noticed on the

[2:23:19] same agenda, it doesn't matter what

[2:23:20] order you.

[2:23:22] >> Okay? I think one note about that is

[2:23:25] from what I've understood about this

[2:23:27] whole development is if the interlocal

[2:23:30] agreement isn't there then the general

[2:23:32] plan zone's probably not true

[2:23:34] >> favorable right true

[2:23:36] >> yeah so you may

[2:23:38] what you may what you may want to do is

[2:23:40] read all three of them into the into the

[2:23:42] agenda have Erin present first about

[2:23:45] what the meeting is then have Cody

[2:23:46] present about what the proposed

[2:23:48] interlocal is but not vote on any of

[2:23:51] them until you've heard all three of

[2:23:54] them and then vote on the interlocal

[2:23:55] first.

[2:23:55] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:24:02] » Yes. Council Red.

[2:24:03] >> Yeah. I mean it's interesting because

[2:24:07] I'm what I'm hearing is we as a council,

[2:24:10] we like this bill and we'd like to make

[2:24:11] happen, but we have a lot of concerns

[2:24:12] with this agreement. And it's weird to

[2:24:15] kind of take these items tonight

[2:24:18] when that's the crux of the issue and

[2:24:20] we're not in a place where we can make a

[2:24:23] decision because we're negotiating with

[2:24:24] another party.

[2:24:27] I mean, so the alternative is I guess

[2:24:28] again because and I I get that too

[2:24:30] because you're going to have public

[2:24:31] comment about something that you're not

[2:24:33] even So the alternative is if you know

[2:24:36] right now without having the applicant

[2:24:39] here to tell you their answers to your

[2:24:41] questions exactly how you want the

[2:24:44] development agreement changed. You could

[2:24:46] make motions about what you want changed

[2:24:50] about it and then you could continue the

[2:24:52] item and then staff would have direction

[2:24:54] based on your motions. go back to the

[2:24:57] developer and say council doesn't want

[2:24:59] to hear your item until the development

[2:25:00] agreement says the following things.

[2:25:02] >> Well, I think I think more of the

[2:25:04] concern that I was hearing is we have to

[2:25:07] have that interlocal agreement with

[2:25:09] Springville in place first before the

[2:25:12] rest of it makes sense. And right now I

[2:25:14] think there's concerns with that

[2:25:16] interlocal agreement between us and

[2:25:17] Springville.

[2:25:19] Is am I am I following the right path

[2:25:22] here?

[2:25:22] >> I think so. Yeah. And so it doesn't make

[2:25:25] any sense for us to to negotiate a

[2:25:27] development agreement if that makes no

[2:25:30] sense if our interlocal agreement isn't

[2:25:32] going to pass. And it seems like we have

[2:25:35] a a lots of questions and issues with

[2:25:38] that interlocal agreement at this time.

[2:25:41] >> Yeah, if I could

[2:25:43] >> if I could jump in

[2:25:47] >> Oh, go ahead.

[2:25:51] » If I could jump in. I um I didn't get a

[2:25:55] chance to weigh in at the end of the uh

[2:25:57] the Springfield discussion, but I I too

[2:25:59] have major concerns about the interlocal

[2:26:01] agreement and so I think Becky's

[2:26:03] bringing up some very valid points. I

[2:26:04] just wanted to weigh in.

[2:26:07] >> Thank you, Craig.

[2:26:08] >> For my clarification, just so I'm Were

[2:26:11] there issues with the interlocal besides

[2:26:13] the trigger point and the length of it?

[2:26:15] >> I I like I can answer one.

[2:26:18] >> Okay, councelor Woodlock. So, and again,

[2:26:20] maybe I'm misunderstanding, so maybe I

[2:26:22] don't know if Cody left, but the way I

[2:26:23] read the interlocal agreement was

[2:26:24] basically Okay. It's basically like net

[2:26:27] benefit minus costs. Whoever has the net

[2:26:30] benefit then pays 50% of the other

[2:26:32] >> side. That's kind of how it works,

[2:26:33] right?

[2:26:34] >> Yes.

[2:26:34] >> So, my concern is that like my

[2:26:36] understanding is we all know that

[2:26:38] residential housing costs more to a city

[2:26:41] to maintain than businesses,

[2:26:42] >> right? Yet, we exclude all of the costs

[2:26:45] of

[2:26:47] the true I think I calculated 7x

[2:26:49] basically because we're only counting

[2:26:51] safety. We're excluding all the costs of

[2:26:53] supporting those homes. And so, we could

[2:26:55] actually get a bad sales tax here where

[2:26:57] we're actually paying to spring bill.

[2:26:58] And that to me just fundamentally

[2:27:00] doesn't make sense when you look at

[2:27:01] what's actually happening in reality.

[2:27:03] So, that's so I just have like a really

[2:27:05] big concern with the fundamental

[2:27:06] structure of the agreement. I think your

[2:27:09] point is valid, but it's not as extreme

[2:27:11] as you may be thinking because of the

[2:27:13] way this has been proposed. Most of it's

[2:27:15] going to be private maintenance.

[2:27:17] >> These are private roads going through

[2:27:18] >> all in HOA.

[2:27:20] >> Yes. So I I don't I think you have a

[2:27:22] valid point, but it's just not as

[2:27:24] extreme.

[2:27:25] >> Maybe not 7X,

[2:27:26] >> right? Exactly.

[2:27:28] But

[2:27:28] >> I was assuming we were taking on

[2:27:29] maintenance of the streets, the plowing,

[2:27:31] the sidewalks, the

[2:27:32] >> That's not the case. The storm drain.

[2:27:35] What like what do we What are our costs?

[2:27:38] But it I mean I imagine it's more on

[2:27:40] safety, right?

[2:27:40] >> Yes. But it's not going to be snow

[2:27:43] plowing except for the public streets

[2:27:45] and there's only the ones on the

[2:27:46] perimeter. But to Becky's original

[2:27:49] point, I think that if there's not an

[2:27:51] interlocal agreement, we probably don't

[2:27:53] want the zone change. Correct. So that's

[2:27:56] why that's what gives that the higher

[2:27:58] priority.

[2:27:58] >> Well, isn't isn't that what we were kind

[2:28:00] of saying? That's what Erin was saying

[2:28:02] that the zone change, the general plan

[2:28:04] amendment, none of it makes sense unless

[2:28:05] this interlocal agreement goes forward.

[2:28:08] >> So to me, if council has issues with the

[2:28:12] interleal agreement, it probably makes

[2:28:13] sense to just continue the other two

[2:28:15] items

[2:28:16] even now and give everybody a a heads up

[2:28:20] and then we can that gives us a chance

[2:28:23] to look at their development agreement

[2:28:24] just in case and then we can have those

[2:28:26] conversations after we get this passed.

[2:28:30] But to Lilia's point, it's really

[2:28:31] helpful for them tonight to hear what

[2:28:33] your objections are to the inter goal.

[2:28:35] >> Yes.

[2:28:35] >> And spec I would articulate it in

[2:28:38] principle. I would like the true cost of

[2:28:41] service to be represented in the

[2:28:42] interlocal agreement.

[2:28:43] >> Okay. And then I like I I I shouldn't

[2:28:46] say I correct what I said earlier. I

[2:28:48] think at the highest level formula it

[2:28:50] makes sense. Net benefit split 50/50. I

[2:28:53] just don't think we're properly

[2:28:54] accounting for the costs is my point.

[2:28:56] And then I agree with the duration as

[2:28:57] being a major concern too.

[2:28:59] But I think my question would be how

[2:29:01] much of the cost do you want included

[2:29:04] because to represent reality like as

[2:29:06] close to reality as possible so that we

[2:29:08] are truly so that the principle which I

[2:29:10] think we're all agreeing on and maybe

[2:29:11] that's where I would start with the

[2:29:12] negotiation with Springville is we are want this to be fair. We want

[2:29:17] each side to benefit equally relative to

[2:29:18] the cost they're taking on. And that

[2:29:20] would I would try to make the formula

[2:29:22] represent reality as much as possible.

[2:29:23] And I don't think we're there.

[2:29:24] >> So all ongoing maintenance that will be

[2:29:26] city responsibility. That's what you

[2:29:28] have to say

[2:29:29] >> or both.

[2:29:30] >> And you're looking for actuals, not

[2:29:32] estimates.

[2:29:33] >> I mean, modeling is modeling is fine

[2:29:35] just as long as it's also takes it into

[2:29:38] account.

[2:29:38] >> I think the concern on my side is just

[2:29:40] that we can get so granular that the

[2:29:42] cost of actually figuring out what the

[2:29:44] costs are is more than the transfer is

[2:29:47] going to be.

[2:29:48] >> Yeah. And I think that's a totally fair

[2:29:49] point. I just think we know roughly what

[2:29:51] the large categories are and then we

[2:29:52] could add assumptions into those C. I

[2:29:54] mean, that's what we're doing with

[2:29:54] police. You're doing like a cost per

[2:29:56] call assumption. Mhm.

[2:29:57] >> Yeah. I just when I ran some scenarios,

[2:29:59] I could I could just easily see years

[2:30:01] where we're actually paying out to

[2:30:03] Springville and I think that just

[2:30:04] fundamentally doesn't make sense.

[2:30:08] » Yeah. So,

[2:30:10] understanding your concerns is very

[2:30:12] helpful and then also um providing

[2:30:15] proposed solutions to it is helpful for

[2:30:18] me.

[2:30:18] >> Tell me if you think I'm wrong. By the

[2:30:20] way, if you think I'm making inaccurate

[2:30:21] statements, I'd love to hear it. I'm

[2:30:23] just trying to articulate the site as

[2:30:24] clearly as possible. I'm not going to

[2:30:26] say you're wrong. I'm just saying that.

[2:30:28] >> No, but I'm saying if you think like for

[2:30:29] example, if you think that we are not

[2:30:31] going to actually take on more costs in

[2:30:33] reality and that Springfield actually is

[2:30:34] going to take on more costs and

[2:30:35] >> then then I'd like to hear that. But my

[2:30:37] understanding just based on residential,

[2:30:41] home, school district, all the things

[2:30:42] that you have, it tends on that to be

[2:30:45] far more costly than businesses.

[2:30:47] >> Yeah. I I'm again I'm not saying you're

[2:30:49] wrong. My concern is administering the

[2:30:51] agreement and the more complex it is,

[2:30:53] the harder it's going to be to

[2:30:54] administer, the longer it's going to

[2:30:56] take and the [clears throat] the net

[2:30:58] benefit of of that might not outweigh

[2:31:01] the cost and the effort of of getting

[2:31:03] that exact number. So, if we want to

[2:31:04] include um additional costs that are

[2:31:08] larger into this, a couple is I'm

[2:31:11] totally fine with that. We want to get

[2:31:13] granular and not make estimates for what

[2:31:16] the costs are, but really get in and

[2:31:19] have the police and fire sit over their

[2:31:21] data and the aggregate number of calls.

[2:31:24] >> You could even you could even just do a

[2:31:26] per home estimate that more represents

[2:31:28] the true cost to the city on a per

[2:31:30] basis.

[2:31:32] >> The person that's going to probably

[2:31:33] administer I respect that.

[2:31:35] >> But Jeeoff, I think first we need to

[2:31:36] figure out where the utilities are

[2:31:37] coming from. Are they coming from us?

[2:31:39] Are they coming from Springville or are

[2:31:40] they going to be split? Miss Springville

[2:31:41] gonna cover their their portion and

[2:31:43] we're gonna cover ours.

[2:31:44] >> Yes.

[2:31:45] >> Okay. So, Gordon's gonna have to but do

[2:31:47] we have sufficient utilities for

[2:31:52] Iron to go ahead and just fish down here

[2:31:55] or is this going to be like a huge

[2:31:57] undertaking?

[2:32:00] >> That's Gordon.

[2:32:01] >> Okay. Okay. So, we're providing water,

[2:32:04] sewer, garbage,

[2:32:06] um storm water, and electricity all to

[2:32:09] the portion that's for Provo

[2:32:13] >> and main street maintenance or

[2:32:17] the main streets main arteries. Yeah.

[2:32:18] >> Because there's how many how many public

[2:32:20] streets are in this?

[2:32:21] >> Aaron, would you put up the site plan?

[2:32:29] So point to the city streets Aaron the

[2:32:32] wider right so U do controls that then

[2:32:35] our city streets are just uh mountain

[2:32:37] Vista and Sierra Vista

[2:32:41] >> so just those two

[2:32:42] >> roads in between and the accesses to the

[2:32:44] different units and commercial spots are

[2:32:46] all private

[2:32:47] >> even that big one

[2:32:49] >> in the middle

[2:32:50] >> the central one and the east west one

[2:32:52] those would be private

[2:32:53] >> really

[2:32:54] >> it's just the curvy mountain vista and

[2:32:58] then Yeah, correct.

[2:32:59] >> It's basically what we already have.

[2:33:07] » A quick question. So, Becky mentioned

[2:33:10] sewer and electric and everything like

[2:33:12] that, but we weren't including that in

[2:33:14] the calculation because those are

[2:33:16] services for which we already are

[2:33:19] recouping the cost of providing it,

[2:33:21] right? Like we charge the residential

[2:33:24] for their trash cans, for electricity

[2:33:26] and everything like that. Is that right?

[2:33:30] >> That's correct. Plus, we're collecting

[2:33:32] impact fees for those things. I would

[2:33:34] hate to split with Springville our

[2:33:35] impact fees.

[2:33:36] >> So, let's be careful about how we

[2:33:39] >> calculate this.

[2:33:40] >> Yeah. And just to to be clear, the

[2:33:44] existing public roads that we already

[2:33:47] have an obligation to plow aren't

[2:33:50] changing, and the new ones that are

[2:33:51] going to be added will be private roads,

[2:33:53] and we won't have an obligation to plow

[2:33:54] them.

[2:33:55] >> Correct.

[2:33:56] >> Okay. Thanks,

[2:33:58] >> mayor.

[2:33:59] >> I was just going to say in reference to

[2:34:01] the school district, they would like to

[2:34:02] have more students. They are losing

[2:34:04] funding because they don't have

[2:34:06] >> students. This would increase property

[2:34:08] tax. This would

[2:34:10] >> and and it's not going to the reason

[2:34:12] that they sometimes get frustrated if

[2:34:13] we're adding students is if we are

[2:34:15] giving a tiff because then we're taking

[2:34:17] that increment.

[2:34:19] >> This has none of that. This is school

[2:34:21] district is not going to be bothered.

[2:34:23] Well, I can't speak for them, but this

[2:34:24] is not going to take money away from the

[2:34:26] school district.

[2:34:26] >> Well, but aren't property taxes included

[2:34:29] in the net benefit calculation?

[2:34:32] >> Yes.

[2:34:32] >> So, so but it's just our portion of the

[2:34:35] school district will always get their

[2:34:36] portion that and they're they're not in

[2:34:38] the Okay.

[2:34:40] >> And they would get the rate of pupil

[2:34:42] unit in addition. So, I I just I don't

[2:34:44] know that would be I'm not saying we

[2:34:47] shouldn't add that all the costs and

[2:34:48] benefits from that into it. I'm just

[2:34:50] saying that more of a benefit than

[2:34:52] >> I think it is a good point, but what I

[2:34:53] was looking at is you get more property

[2:34:55] tax off of a business than you do off of

[2:34:57] a home,

[2:34:58] >> right? And so Springville is necessar

[2:35:01] they're not educating unless they go out

[2:35:04] of area to Nebo School District. They're

[2:35:07] not educating any kids and they're

[2:35:09] getting all that all those taxes. I

[2:35:11] completely agree. I just I think we have

[2:35:13] to consider what else would go here.

[2:35:15] Also, I I mean

[2:35:18] >> Yeah. It's a delegate. It's a delegate

[2:35:20] balance because we're we're trying to

[2:35:22] negotiate

[2:35:24] the best deal for the city but and not

[2:35:26] kill the deal. So that's the balance,

[2:35:27] right?

[2:35:28] >> And the school district has to negotiate

[2:35:30] their deal with them. But you know if

[2:35:32] we're looking at interlocal agreement

[2:35:33] that was my point is you know maybe

[2:35:36] that's something they need to consider

[2:35:38] is a nebo provo negotiation as well

[2:35:43] because this is going to be a provo

[2:35:46] spring negotiation for our portion

[2:35:50] >> and based on my analysis it's about 33%

[2:35:52] more productive to have this mixed use

[2:35:54] in this area versus the PIC what could

[2:35:57] potentially be developed and that is if

[2:35:59] it was there right now. um the burning

[2:36:01] hand is what to in the bush. We don't

[2:36:03] know what would develop in this area or

[2:36:06] when. So

[2:36:07] >> yeah, I think it's a good point.

[2:36:10] >> So we will have the interlocal agreement

[2:36:12] discussion tonight

[2:36:15] first and and then we'll go from there.

[2:36:19] >> Makes sense?

[2:36:20] >> Okay.

[2:36:22] Any other comments?

[2:36:25] >> Okay.

[2:36:26] >> All right. Thank you, Erin. Sorry, I was

[2:36:29] trying to unmute. Um, I'm planning on

[2:36:31] being there tonight, but if I'm not able

[2:36:33] to speak for some reason, I want to be

[2:36:36] echoing the concerns that Jeff has

[2:36:38] raised. So, just know that you're

[2:36:40] doubling his vote there.

[2:36:43] >> Still just one

[2:36:43] >> bubble. You're at one and a half Tim.

[2:36:47] [clears throat]

[2:36:47] >> Yeah. Is that

[2:36:50] » So, let's see. Um, [clears throat]

[2:36:54] Rachel, it's it's number seven on the

[2:36:56] agenda. You have you have the agenda,

[2:36:58] right?

[2:37:03] » So, just

[2:37:04] >> Yeah, I've got it. I I'll be watching

[2:37:06] it. We'll see how it goes.

[2:37:08] >> On that note, Gary, those were supposed

[2:37:10] to be at the beginning. I just noticed

[2:37:12] that mistake. The Springville needs to

[2:37:14] be the beginning for both Craig and I so

[2:37:18] that we can get off and do

[2:37:21] >> Councelor McKay. They are towards the

[2:37:23] beginning originally. Um item.

[2:37:28] So we have items two, three, four,

[2:37:32] and then five.

[2:37:34] >> The chair notes I'm looking at say it's

[2:37:36] 15 and 16.

[2:37:38] >> Oh yeah,

[2:37:39] >> it's item seven right now.

[2:37:41] >> It's seven, eight, and nine right now.

[2:37:42] >> Okay, good.

[2:37:44] >> Yeah, it got bumped up.

[2:37:46] >> That works. Thank you.

[2:37:49] >> Okay, very good. All right, we'll take a

[2:37:53] break.

[2:37:54] and reconvene at 2:30 in 7 minutes.

[2:38:01] » Recording stopped.

[2:38:09] » Recording in progress.

[2:38:12] >> Okay, we'll reconvene our council work

[2:38:14] session.

[2:38:16] Yeah.

[2:38:19] >> Our next item is a discussion regarding

[2:38:31] the Vesper Amphitheater. We'll turn the

[2:38:33] time to Brian Bales. Bailis,

[2:38:37] the Vesper project manager. We welcome

[2:38:39] others.

[2:38:44] » Brian, welcome.

[2:38:47] >> [clears throat]

[2:38:52] » Perfect. Um, I was told, Kevin, are we

[2:38:57] um are we going to have other people

[2:38:59] begin the presentation or am I am I

[2:39:01] going to start? I was told that there

[2:39:03] might be a few other people that would

[2:39:04] be presenting before us.

[2:39:08] Have you

[2:39:10] >> Okay, fantastic.

[2:39:13] there.

[2:39:16] >> And so,

[2:39:21] is there a way to share my screen?

[2:39:37] » Perfect.

[2:39:39] And just so you know, um, Brian and

[2:39:41] members of your team, um, three council

[2:39:43] members are joining us via Zoom today

[2:39:45] who are traveling. Craig Christensen,

[2:39:49] >> Rachel, Whipple,

[2:39:51] >> and Katrice M.

[2:39:55] Everybody's here.

[2:39:59] » Fantastic. Thank you. We appreciate the

[2:40:00] opportunity to to present. Um,

[2:40:05] okay. How do I minimize that guy? There

[2:40:08] we go. Okay, I think we're ready.

[2:40:16] Okay. Yes. And the laser pointer. No.

[2:40:21] How do we Is there a way to show our

[2:40:24] screen on there?

[2:40:27] >> So, we can share the presentation on

[2:40:30] Zoom what it looks like, but this screen

[2:40:32] is connected to this computer.

[2:40:36] That actually complicates Can their can

[2:40:38] their presentation be emailed to you and

[2:40:40] you could pull it up for them and flip

[2:40:41] through for them?

[2:40:43] >> Yes.

[2:40:45] Was it like 200 megs

[2:40:47] >> like at least

[2:40:49] >> do we have ability to use a flash drive

[2:40:51] to trans to trans

[2:40:56] » computer?

[2:40:58] I think we want to see his presentation

[2:41:00] especially it's a big part of

[2:41:02] >> I agree.

[2:41:03] >> Can you zoom in on your

[2:41:05] >> computer? Can you just bring up

[2:41:15] if we share the screen on yours then I

[2:41:17] can open Zoom here

[2:41:19] >> and make this

[2:41:21] >> right now sharing screen so people

[2:41:28] » let me help you set up the screen share

[2:41:30] there and then yeah that's a great idea

[2:41:32] guys

[2:41:34] >> yeah I'm Sorry.

[2:41:39] » No, it's fine. Technical limitations

[2:41:42] should be communicated.

[2:41:44] >> All right. Well, if if it falls on

[2:41:46] somebody, it falls on me, Travis, not

[2:41:47] these guys. They'll be great to

[2:41:48] communicate. Oh, no worries.

[2:41:51] It should be good to on my computer.

[2:41:54] It's saying the same thing like that.

[2:41:56] [clears throat] I'm also sharing.

[2:42:02] Can you see his screen from my computer?

[2:42:13] » Oh, wonderful.

[2:42:14] >> Fantastic.

[2:42:16] >> Solution.

[2:42:18] >> Thank you.

[2:42:19] >> Good job.

[2:42:20] >> All righty.

[2:42:22] Okay. Um, we are so excited to be here.

[2:42:25] This has been a long road to get here

[2:42:27] and um there's been a lot of information

[2:42:29] um shared and we're just excited to be

[2:42:31] in front of you having this

[2:42:32] conversation. I think if there were a

[2:42:35] couple of objectives we hope to

[2:42:36] accomplish today, it would be to walk

[2:42:38] away um from this conversation with a

[2:42:41] very clear understanding of what

[2:42:43] additional information is needed for you

[2:42:44] to feel comfortable making this making

[2:42:46] this very very important decision for

[2:42:48] Vasper. Um so we've got a lot of new

[2:42:50] information to share with you. Um, and

[2:42:52] so we'll we'll get right into it. Um, we

[2:42:56] appreciate the countless hours and

[2:42:57] attention and careful consideration

[2:42:59] you've already given the project. You

[2:43:01] guys have read a lot of emails. Uh,

[2:43:03] you've looked at a lot of things to get

[2:43:05] to where we're at. We recognize this is

[2:43:07] a significant and consequential proposal

[2:43:09] and we appreciate the responsibility

[2:43:10] that places on each of you. Vesper is a

[2:43:13] big bold project. It has the potential

[2:43:16] to affect PROBO in meaningful ways. We

[2:43:18] understand that a project of this scale

[2:43:20] deserves careful scrutiny and we also

[2:43:22] believe that that scrutiny has made the

[2:43:23] project better. The project before you

[2:43:25] today is meaningfully different from

[2:43:27] where we started. Community input has

[2:43:29] mattered, city staff input has mattered,

[2:43:32] council feedback, our conversations with

[2:43:34] doorum and other interested parties have

[2:43:36] also resulted in meaningful changes. Um,

[2:43:39] we have made significant adjustments to

[2:43:41] the project itself and strengthened the

[2:43:43] commitments and protections around it.

[2:43:45] We want to show you where those changes

[2:43:47] have led us. Um, we see today um not

[2:43:50] simply as a presentation, but we hope to

[2:43:52] accomplish two things. To show you where

[2:43:54] Vesper stands today and to learn where

[2:43:56] your concerns, questions, or additional

[2:43:58] work still remain. We want to leave

[2:44:00] today with a better understanding of

[2:44:01] what each of you needs in order to

[2:44:03] determine the best path forward. We have

[2:44:06] prepared a structure so we can work

[2:44:08] through the issues in a logical order.

[2:44:10] At the same time, we want this to be

[2:44:11] interactive and flexible. We will pause

[2:44:13] at the end of each major section for

[2:44:15] discussion. And if something needs

[2:44:16] clarification as we go, please jump in.

[2:44:19] If there is an issue that you want to

[2:44:20] spend more time on, we're prepared to do

[2:44:22] that. First, we want to show you where

[2:44:25] Vesper stands today, how it has changed.

[2:44:27] Then we'll walk through the major public

[2:44:29] benefits and the physical transformation

[2:44:31] of the property. We would like to review

[2:44:33] the important economic and fiscal impact

[2:44:35] of Ves Vesper. From there, we want to

[2:44:37] work through the substantive issues,

[2:44:39] traffic, parking, sound, scale, and

[2:44:41] long-term protections. We will then talk

[2:44:44] specifically about the development

[2:44:45] agreement and the distinction between

[2:44:46] what is being committed to now and what

[2:44:48] appropriately remains subject to later

[2:44:50] technical review. After we after we've

[2:44:53] worked through Vesper itself, we want to

[2:44:54] shift separately to the real estate

[2:44:56] purchase agreement. We know each of you

[2:44:58] have strong views about that

[2:44:59] transaction, and we specifically want

[2:45:01] your feedback on it. We want to make

[2:45:03] sure we first understand the project

[2:45:04] itself before we finally get into the

[2:45:06] real estate discussion and let that kind

[2:45:08] of take over the meeting. Finally, we

[2:45:10] want to identify any remaining concerns

[2:45:12] that the work and work that needs to

[2:45:14] happen from here.

[2:45:16] So, the vision for Vesper has come from

[2:45:18] the ownership leadership team. The

[2:45:20] technical information we're presenting

[2:45:21] has been developed with experienced

[2:45:23] local professionals in architecture,

[2:45:25] engineering, legal, finance, and venue

[2:45:27] operations. As we move through the

[2:45:29] specific topics, we will introduce the

[2:45:31] members of the team who have led that

[2:45:33] work and we'll help them uh and we'll

[2:45:35] let them answer the detailed questions

[2:45:37] that you might all have. With that

[2:45:38] framework in mind, I'd like to start by

[2:45:40] showing you where Vesper stands today

[2:45:42] with the project what the project how

[2:45:43] the project has changed through this

[2:45:45] process and what the project before you

[2:45:46] now actually looks like. So these um

[2:45:50] before we get into the individual

[2:45:52] issues, it's important to share where

[2:45:53] the project stands today compared to

[2:45:55] where we started. The project before you

[2:45:58] today is materially different from the

[2:46:00] original concept. The review process has

[2:46:02] resulted in meaningful changes to the

[2:46:04] actual project framework, not just the

[2:46:06] presentation. The original amphitheater

[2:46:08] was 25,000 capacity, which has been

[2:46:10] capped today at 20,000. That is a 20%

[2:46:13] reduction in maximum capacity. We have

[2:46:16] also narrowed the uses that can occur on

[2:46:18] the property. Rather than creating broad

[2:46:20] future development rights, the

[2:46:21] development agreement defines the uses

[2:46:23] that are permitted and ties the property

[2:46:25] to the Vesper project and its supporting

[2:46:27] uses. Parking has also been constrained.

[2:46:30] Instead of allowing surface parking to

[2:46:31] simply grow with demand, surface parking

[2:46:33] is capped at 15 acres that has pushed us

[2:46:36] toward a more thoughtful transportation

[2:46:38] strategy using internal queuing,

[2:46:40] rightsized on-site parking, off-site

[2:46:43] parking, shuttles, ride share, and other

[2:46:45] transportation options. The conservation

[2:46:47] component has become more specific. We

[2:46:49] now have defined obligations around

[2:46:51] undeveloped property, restoration,

[2:46:54] revitation, public trails, and permanent

[2:46:56] conservation. Traffic and parking have

[2:46:58] also been moved from a concept

[2:47:00] discussion to an enforceable

[2:47:01] requirement. Before large-scale

[2:47:03] operations can begin, the project must

[2:47:05] have an approved traffic and parking

[2:47:07] operations plan and obtain the

[2:47:09] applicable city and agency approvals.

[2:47:11] More broadly, many of the exceptions

[2:47:13] that began as project intentions are now

[2:47:15] being incorporated into an enforcable

[2:47:17] development agreement.

[2:47:19] I want to emphasize that these are not

[2:47:21] simply refinements to how we are

[2:47:22] describing Vesper. Rather, these are

[2:47:24] changes to the actual rights, limits,

[2:47:26] and obligations that will govern the

[2:47:27] project. Vesper remains a bold project.

[2:47:30] We have we have tried to make it we have

[2:47:32] not tried to make it small or

[2:47:34] insignificant. What we have tried to do

[2:47:35] is responsibly bound the project while

[2:47:37] preserving the things that make the

[2:47:39] opportunity meaningful. And so um I

[2:47:42] guess before we before we move on to the

[2:47:44] public benefits and the individual

[2:47:45] technical issues and the financial the

[2:47:47] fiscal impacts, are there any changes um

[2:47:50] on this sheet that you would like us to

[2:47:52] clarify or are we are we generally on

[2:47:54] the same page?

[2:47:59] I'm not okay with a lot of things, but I

[2:48:01] mean to ask this is pretty broad,

[2:48:04] especially when we got materials

[2:48:06] yesterday

[2:48:08] night that we haven't had time to look

[2:48:09] at.

[2:48:10] >> Yeah.

[2:48:11] >> Why? Why is that?

[2:48:12] >> Why is what

[2:48:13] >> that we got these materials yesterday

[2:48:15] instead of uh last week?

[2:48:16] >> Um well, because we were finalizing that

[2:48:20] uh financial the fiscal and economic

[2:48:22] impact study. um that information was

[2:48:25] coming in as recently as like yesterday.

[2:48:27] So we were working through those issues

[2:48:29] with Benj Becker to make sure that that information was accurate.

[2:48:32] >> So the date stamp on that for the 24th

[2:48:35] of July is not accurate.

[2:48:36] >> That is not accurate. No. So that was

[2:48:39] the when the original report was

[2:48:41] prepared, but there's been a lot of

[2:48:42] interaction since then that we've had to

[2:48:44] verify and clean up and make sure was

[2:48:46] accurate.

[2:48:47] >> So I'm not I haven't had time to review

[2:48:50] that yet.

[2:48:51] >> Yeah. And I'm not going to tell you that

[2:48:53] everything on here is going to be okay.

[2:48:55] I've got to have time to prep before I

[2:48:57] can

[2:48:58] >> Yeah, we're not asking for you to say

[2:48:59] everything is okay, Becky. Absolutely.

[2:49:01] That's that's that's not what we're

[2:49:02] asking for today. We just wanted to see

[2:49:04] if there were any inconsistencies that

[2:49:06] you saw there that you wanted to have um

[2:49:07] a specific discussion about. In other

[2:49:09] words, councelor Bogden, issues,

[2:49:12] questions that you expect to raise

[2:49:14] today, are are they included in these

[2:49:15] topics or are there other things that

[2:49:18] you anticipate might not be included

[2:49:20] here?

[2:49:22] >> Yes, there are questions that I would

[2:49:24] have with these topics. Yes.

[2:49:28] » How how much of your pre uh

[2:49:32] >> ho how long is your presentation?

[2:49:34] >> Um quite a bit,

[2:49:35] >> I would say. Yeah. I mean,

[2:49:37] >> then I would say let's go ahead and get

[2:49:39] through the presentation and

[2:49:41] >> we can see what it addresses, what it

[2:49:42] doesn't address. That's just my two

[2:49:44] cents. I'm only one of seven council

[2:49:45] members, but I would say let's see what

[2:49:47] you have to say and then I think that'll give Becky an idea of what's not

[2:49:51] covered and

[2:49:52] >> Okay, so let's let's do it then. That's

[2:49:54] great. Um, we start with the fiscal

[2:49:56] impact, Becky. That's the report that

[2:49:58] was submitted yesterday. Um, so at a

[2:50:00] very high level, these are the numbers

[2:50:02] that we are just going to walk through

[2:50:04] really quickly. Um, we've actually had

[2:50:05] some pretty extensive conversations with

[2:50:07] um, Cody Hill on the on the community

[2:50:10] development side. Um, and we've kind of

[2:50:12] coordinated a little bit on those

[2:50:13] numbers to make sure we weren't looking

[2:50:14] at things inaccurately. That was part of

[2:50:16] the coordination that needed to happen,

[2:50:17] Becky, and that was one of the reasons

[2:50:18] why the delay took place. But these are

[2:50:20] the highle assumptions. So, we've got

[2:50:22] $540 million. Um, let's see. At the most basic level,

[2:50:29] Vesper represents more than 540 million

[2:50:31] of initial uh private construction

[2:50:34] investment in Provo. Piper Sandler

[2:50:36] estimates that construction activity

[2:50:38] could generate approximately 864 million

[2:50:41] in total economic impact based on a

[2:50:43] multiplying factor. Um that's very

[2:50:46] consistently applied. That's where you

[2:50:47] get that 864 million. So these are the

[2:50:49] two two numbers. 840 million is based on

[2:50:52] direct construction costs and the 864

[2:50:56] million is based on a multiplying factor

[2:50:57] that that is typically and generally

[2:50:59] accepted as an industry standard um for

[2:51:02] the construction impacts that had that

[2:51:03] they have on the general region. Um the

[2:51:06] fiscal impact to Provo um Piper Sandler

[2:51:10] projects uh the number that I think is

[2:51:13] most relevant to the council is the net

[2:51:15] fiscal impact to Provo. Piper Sandler

[2:51:17] did not simply calculate the taxes the

[2:51:19] project could generate. They also

[2:51:21] modeled additional city expenses

[2:51:23] associated with the project and the new

[2:51:25] population expected to result from the

[2:51:26] employment it creates. After accounting

[2:51:29] for these projected costs, the their

[2:51:31] analysis concludes that Vesper would

[2:51:33] generate an average positive net fiscal

[2:51:35] impact to Provo of approximately 2.3

[2:51:38] million per year. And over a 30-year

[2:51:41] period, 30-year analysis period, that

[2:51:43] equates to approximately 67.2 2 million

[2:51:46] of cumulative net benefit to the city.

[2:51:49] The analysis also assumes that event

[2:51:52] specific police, fire, and emergency

[2:51:54] service costs attributable to Vesper are

[2:51:57] reimbursed by Vesper rather than

[2:51:58] becoming an ongoing burden for on the

[2:52:00] city. As with any 30-year projection,

[2:52:03] these are estimates, not guarantees. The

[2:52:06] analysis relies on the project's current

[2:52:07] land use phasing, employment, and

[2:52:10] financial assumptions, and actual

[2:52:12] results will depend on how the project

[2:52:14] develops and operates. But the

[2:52:16] conclusion of the analysis is clear.

[2:52:18] Under the current project assumptions,

[2:52:19] Piper Sandler expects the economic

[2:52:21] activity and new revenues generated by

[2:52:23] Vesper to substantially exceed the

[2:52:26] incremental costs to Provo. Um, so these analyses kind of looked at both

[2:52:33] the property tax impacts. So that's one

[2:52:36] kind of component that they look at to

[2:52:37] come up with the total $2.3 million and

[2:52:39] then they look at the point of sales

[2:52:40] impacts as well. And so that's where you

[2:52:42] come up with that $2.3 million of

[2:52:45] additional uh net fiscal benefit to

[2:52:47] Provo. So um, what questions h how do we want to break this down? Do we

[2:52:53] want to get into the specifics of this

[2:52:54] or are we good to just keep moving

[2:52:56] forward?

[2:52:58] >> A [clears throat] quick question. Did

[2:52:59] you do the the fiscal impact for ORM as

[2:53:03] well because it's so close?

[2:53:05] >> We did not. No, we did not do the fiscal

[2:53:08] impact to ORM. These would be regional

[2:53:10] impacts. So, I would say it's all

[2:53:12] inclusive in these numbers. Um, so there

[2:53:14] would be a there would be an impact to

[2:53:16] Provo. This was specific to Provo.

[2:53:18] Excuse me. The $2.3 million is specific

[2:53:20] to Provo. and uh and then there would be

[2:53:22] additional impacts to ORM and the in the

[2:53:24] surrounding region. But no, we did not

[2:53:26] look at ORM specifically. These are just

[2:53:27] provo numbers.

[2:53:29] >> But you did have some numbers for the

[2:53:30] county as I recall in there.

[2:53:32] >> Yep.

[2:53:35] >> So, do you have a breakout of this?

[2:53:37] >> Well, that this this is provos in in

[2:53:40] this um study. They had some numbers for

[2:53:42] the county as well where they I think it

[2:53:44] was $6 million regionally that they

[2:53:46] projected. So, of that 6 million, 2

[2:53:48] million is for Provo. The other four

[2:53:50] million would be for other parts of the

[2:53:52] county, right?

[2:53:53] >> If I Don't quote me on that. I might

[2:53:55] have.

[2:53:56] >> Right. But 2.3 is broken down into

[2:53:59] property tax and

[2:54:00] >> Oh, you mean where's that all come from?

[2:54:02] >> Yeah. Where's the breakdown?

[2:54:03] >> I think it's in there.

[2:54:05] >> It's in the report. Yeah. We didn't we

[2:54:07] didn't get into that level of detail,

[2:54:08] but I can pull up the report and we can go through that.

[2:54:10] >> Well, we

[2:54:12] like I said, I haven't had time to go

[2:54:13] through it. I'm sure there's other

[2:54:14] counselors that haven't either. And so

[2:54:17] we probably should, like Travis said, go

[2:54:19] through it and then give us time to

[2:54:21] digest it and go through it because

[2:54:22] there will be more questions once we see

[2:54:23] those breakdowns.

[2:54:24] >> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

[2:54:30] Okay.

[2:54:32] Um

[2:54:35] Okay,

[2:54:40] so let's jump into um the next section

[2:54:43] then.

[2:54:45] Um

[2:54:47] so that would be section four. So this

[2:54:50] is the property transformation and

[2:54:51] public benefits section of the of the

[2:54:53] project. So um before we talk about the

[2:54:56] amphitheater, I think it's important

[2:54:57] that we start with the property itself.

[2:54:59] This is not an untouched portion of

[2:55:02] Provo Canyon. It is a longdisturbed

[2:55:04] gravel operation at one of the most

[2:55:05] visible gateways into into the canyon.

[2:55:15] The opportunity is to reclaim and

[2:55:17] improve a disturbed property rather than

[2:55:19] develop a pristine canyon landscape. One

[2:55:21] of the fundamental opportunities with

[2:55:23] Vesper is to take a disturbed property

[2:55:25] in such an iconic and important location

[2:55:27] and create something significantly

[2:55:28] better than what exists today.

[2:55:31] Vesper um so this is the transformation.

[2:55:34] So this is the site today and then this

[2:55:36] is what um the new rendering uh the new

[2:55:39] rendering um that we've got for the site

[2:55:41] which really as you'll notice a lot of

[2:55:44] the structures and and facilities don't

[2:55:47] change that much. The change has been in

[2:55:49] the site plan to really accommodate

[2:55:50] traffic and access to the site. Um those

[2:55:53] are the most important parts as well as

[2:55:55] traffic and some other things. So we'll

[2:55:56] get into the specifics of the site but

[2:55:58] Vesper is not simply placing a venue on

[2:56:00] the site. It creates an opportunity to

[2:56:02] fundamentally improve the character and

[2:56:04] function of the property. The project

[2:56:06] would reclaim large portions of of of

[2:56:08] the disturbed site. It introduces

[2:56:10] restoration and reveation. The

[2:56:12] architecture is intended to respond to

[2:56:14] the canyon setting rather than ignore

[2:56:16] it. The project creates a more

[2:56:18] intentional gateway experience at the

[2:56:20] entrance to Provo Canyon. The project

[2:56:23] public trails, pedestrian connections,

[2:56:25] conservation, and landscape restoration

[2:56:27] are part of a broader site plan. The

[2:56:29] venue itself is only part only one part

[2:56:31] of the transformation. We want the

[2:56:34] council to evaluate the complete site

[2:56:36] outcome, not simply the stage um and

[2:56:39] audience area. The goal is to take a

[2:56:41] heavily altered industrial site and

[2:56:43] convert it into a place that both serves

[2:56:45] public and cultural function. The

[2:56:47] question we have been trying to answer

[2:56:48] is not simply whether an amphitheater

[2:56:50] can fit here. It's whether this property

[2:56:52] can be transformed in a way that

[2:56:53] improves the Canyon Gateway, creates

[2:56:55] meaningful public benefits, and does so

[2:56:58] with long-term protections.

[2:57:01] We think the difference uh between what

[2:57:03] exists today and what can exist here is

[2:57:05] one of the most important parts of the

[2:57:06] Vesper story.

[2:57:09] >> Um yeah, Becky,

[2:57:10] >> go back to that slide.

[2:57:13] Can you go back? Yeah. Okay. So, our

[2:57:15] property there, you can see

[2:57:20] » you can see the road that looks like

[2:57:22] it's a dirt road currently today. What

[2:57:25] What's going on with that?

[2:57:27] >> What's going on with the dirt road

[2:57:28] that's right here?

[2:57:30] >> Yes. And it goes up. What are you doing

[2:57:32] with that? I can't see that portion on

[2:57:35] your drawings.

[2:57:37] >> So, this is what this is what the

[2:57:38] overall site plan, Becky, looks like.

[2:57:40] Um, so we're kind of jumping into that

[2:57:42] this part of the presentation, but let's go ahead and get there. Um,

[2:57:46] there's a flat portion of the property

[2:57:48] that is ideal for additional parking up

[2:57:50] there on that site, Becky. So, that that

[2:57:52] allows us that that's not a gravel road.

[2:57:55] It's a paved road, and it allows us to

[2:57:57] get additional traffic and parking up to

[2:57:59] that site.

[2:58:00] >> So, are we basically doing like a switch

[2:58:01] back and a parking lot and a switch back

[2:58:03] in a parking lot up there?

[2:58:04] >> Uh, no, it wouldn't be a switch back. It

[2:58:06] would be climbing It would be climbing

[2:58:08] from from right here. It would be

[2:58:10] climbing from the parking uh the parking

[2:58:12] field up to that up to that site.

[2:58:14] >> How come we've cut it [clears throat]

[2:58:15] off? How come I can't see like the full

[2:58:17] >> Oh, because because the parking solution

[2:58:20] and event management system, this is a

[2:58:21] big part of this conversation and it

[2:58:23] just is is taken up on that uh to get it

[2:58:26] to fit.

[2:58:27] >> Is there a way that we can get what you

[2:58:29] see going further up that hill?

[2:58:33] like could you get us a more of a a

[2:58:36] better site of what's going on up there?

[2:58:39] >> Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Um, is the orange

[2:58:42] that you see there is that that's the

[2:58:44] parking you're talking about or would

[2:58:45] there be additional parking beyond that

[2:58:46] orange?

[2:58:47] >> No. No, that's all the parking.

[2:58:49] >> The orange comprises all of the parking,

[2:58:51] Travis. Yeah, that right now shows 14

[2:58:53] acres of surface parking on the site and

[2:58:56] we're um in the development agreement.

[2:58:58] We've committed to not exceeding 15

[2:58:59] acres.

[2:59:01] That's a there's a current road that

[2:59:02] goes up that on the Provo City side.

[2:59:05] >> Yeah,

[2:59:06] >> there's a there's a current road that

[2:59:07] goes up that side already.

[2:59:09] >> Dirt, right?

[2:59:09] >> Yep.

[2:59:10] >> That's what I was talking about. That's

[2:59:11] a dirt road already. And so what I can't

[2:59:13] see is that an acres worth of parking

[2:59:15] that you have up that dirt road. I can't

[2:59:18] even see how that that looks. That's

[2:59:20] part of why I wanted the elevations. I

[2:59:22] wanted to see what was going on with

[2:59:24] that.

[2:59:24] >> Yeah.

[2:59:25] >> That hillside.

[2:59:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's

[2:59:26] >> And I can't I can't see that in any of

[2:59:28] the rendering. I I appreciate the

[2:59:30] renderings because I did ask for them. I

[2:59:32] think it was Craig and I that asked for

[2:59:33] them,

[2:59:34] >> but I can't see what's going on in any

[2:59:36] of this. And then if we go back,

[2:59:38] >> some of the stuff that was pointed out

[2:59:40] to me through

[2:59:41] >> my communications with ORM city council.

[2:59:44] >> Uhhuh.

[2:59:44] >> We've got that roundabout there and then

[2:59:46] we've got a flyway. Nope.

[2:59:49] >> The round the other roundabout right

[2:59:51] there.

[2:59:51] >> Yeah. Then we've got a flyway coming

[2:59:53] from their parks and stuff like that.

[2:59:55] One of the concerns they had is Vesper

[2:59:58] people parking at their parking lots and

[3:00:01] walking across that flyway, right?

[3:00:03] >> What What have we got in plan for

[3:00:05] protecting some of those or parks? And

[3:00:07] why why do we have that going over that

[3:00:09] far anyway?

[3:00:10] >> This this fly over.

[3:00:12] >> Yes, it's starts here

[3:00:16] at this roundabout parks and it flies

[3:00:19] over there. Right.

[3:00:20] >> Right. That's just to get access to that

[3:00:22] parking structure there, Becky. in order

[3:00:24] to get so there will not be access

[3:00:27] there. So part of one of one of the UD

[3:00:29] do uh one of the UD do concerns that

[3:00:31] they've had Becky is the left turns. So

[3:00:33] if you're coming if you're coming out of

[3:00:35] Provo and Oram and you're going up 189

[3:00:38] taking a left turn into the Canyon View

[3:00:40] Park um as well as Mount Tanogus Park,

[3:00:42] those are problematic left turns. And so

[3:00:45] one of the things that UD do has

[3:00:46] consistently said all along is they

[3:00:48] would like to if possible get rid of

[3:00:50] those left turns. And so right now the

[3:00:53] left turn to get into Canyon View Park

[3:00:56] goes away the way that it exists right

[3:00:58] now, which it would be located about

[3:01:00] right there. And we've we've met

[3:01:01] extensively with the ORM city council

[3:01:03] and the provo and the mayor uh Karen

[3:01:05] McCandless here the last couple of

[3:01:07] weeks. So we've been able to clarify a

[3:01:08] lot of this information with them,

[3:01:10] Becky. Um but right now if you were

[3:01:12] coming in and you wanted to go over to

[3:01:13] the Canyon View Park, you'd come in uh

[3:01:16] on Vesper. Probably the better exhibit

[3:01:18] is to go to this one.

[3:01:20] Okay. Okay. So, essentially what you're

[3:01:22] doing is you're you're it's a it's an

[3:01:24] ancillary benefit of this is you're

[3:01:27] creating a left-hand turn into the park.

[3:01:29] >> That's right.

[3:01:30] >> This it's not to accommodate the Vesper

[3:01:34] >> um no

[3:01:35] >> concert traffic.

[3:01:36] >> No.

[3:01:36] >> Okay.

[3:01:37] >> No, it's not to accommodate the V vesper

[3:01:39] concert traffic. And ORM ORM ORM has has

[3:01:42] liked the fact that I mean we we've been

[3:01:44] communicating with ORM some of the

[3:01:45] things that they need on their park. One

[3:01:47] of the concerns that they've had, the

[3:01:48] two two major concerns that they've had

[3:01:50] is just policing. So, we've kind of had

[3:01:52] conversations with them about policing

[3:01:53] and and making sure we're patrolling and

[3:01:56] we're offsetting their additional costs

[3:01:57] to this. The other big concern that

[3:01:59] they've had is just what happens to the

[3:02:00] park if they have in the event of a

[3:02:03] concert and they have a they have a

[3:02:05] wedding or something, a reception there,

[3:02:06] what happens? And so we've been

[3:02:08] coordinating with them to say we would

[3:02:10] probably just rent the entire park out

[3:02:12] as one potential solution is that we

[3:02:14] would rent the park out for the nights

[3:02:15] that we have those major concert events

[3:02:17] and then we would just manage all of

[3:02:18] that. We would manage the parking. We

[3:02:20] would manage we would use their facility

[3:02:22] to allow people to arrive. Yeah. So all

[3:02:24] of those things are very much on the

[3:02:25] table. Spencer.

[3:02:26] >> So that's their their parking issue is

[3:02:29] that you would just rent it out and then

[3:02:30] allow your people to park and then cross

[3:02:32] that

[3:02:32] >> correct

[3:02:33] >> flyway. That that flyway is really

[3:02:35] important, Becky. That's another I would

[3:02:36] say of the two most important things

[3:02:38] that UD do has consistently said, it's

[3:02:40] getting rid of those left turns.

[3:02:42] >> Well, number one, it's safety and

[3:02:44] efficiency. Those are the two major

[3:02:45] priorities by far and away. Then, as

[3:02:47] kind of a subtitles or or kind of

[3:02:49] details, additional details to the

[3:02:51] project, it's number one, getting rid of

[3:02:53] those left turns into both of those

[3:02:54] parks. And then number two, it's making

[3:02:56] sure we have a pedestrian crossing to

[3:02:59] get from Provo River Trail and and the

[3:03:01] Bonavville Shoreline Trail and some kind

[3:03:03] of a crossing over 189 safely into the

[3:03:06] site. So those are those are all

[3:03:07] important components to this and that's

[3:03:08] where you see that dashed green line

[3:03:10] right there. Becky, that's an important

[3:03:12] part of this overall project. Spencer

[3:03:14] >> Ryan, just let me reiterate, UD do

[3:03:16] really doesn't want lefts or rights that

[3:03:19] are crossing the road. So they wanted us

[3:03:22] to work with ORM city and even to the

[3:03:26] point that Oram city on their very far I

[3:03:30] don't know if you call that north or

[3:03:31] east of where the pond is just above the

[3:03:34] pond where you enter their park to the

[3:03:37] point that they want us to try to

[3:03:39] connect our on ramp so that there isn't

[3:03:43] a lefthand turn going up to Heber from

[3:03:45] that position. So the really is this is

[3:03:49] kind of a global effort to work with Orm

[3:03:52] City and us to try to help take away all

[3:03:56] of the left and right-hand turns that

[3:03:58] were cross traffic.

[3:04:02] So um Becky, that that overpass is one

[3:04:05] of these public benefits that we're we

[3:04:07] were going to kind of get into the

[3:04:08] details of. Sorry, Commissioner Bogdan.

[3:04:11] Uh Council Member Boggden. Um, so that

[3:04:14] overpass right now we're currently

[3:04:15] planning on it be being three lanes.

[3:04:17] of traffic. One of the

[3:04:19] middle lane would be birectional. So one

[3:04:21] lane would be going, one lane would be

[3:04:24] coming and then the middle lane would be

[3:04:25] birectional based on the traffic flow.

[3:04:27] So on the way in you would have two

[3:04:29] lanes of traffic coming in and then on

[3:04:30] the way out you would have two lanes of

[3:04:31] traffic going out. The third the fourth

[3:04:33] component to that would be the

[3:04:35] pedestrian crossing. So we would have uh

[3:04:37] hikers and bikers that could get back

[3:04:39] and forth across that bridge very very

[3:04:41] easily which again from Vesper getting

[3:04:43] them over to those two parks. There's a

[3:04:45] lot of really cool amenities that are

[3:04:46] over there and likewise we think people

[3:04:48] will be coming from those parks over to

[3:04:49] Vesper. So those connections are all

[3:04:51] very very critically important for what

[3:04:52] we're what we're talking about with the

[3:04:54] site.

[3:04:55] >> Um so uh Becky you you did you did also

[3:05:00] ask about the elevations. um we would

[3:05:03] like to those were in the report. These

[3:05:06] are these are the elevations and it

[3:05:08] doesn't show on the lefth hand side

[3:05:09] there where that where that um where

[3:05:11] that parking lot is that additional

[3:05:12] parking lot would be you know right over

[3:05:14] here or something like that. So we can

[3:05:15] absolutely do a better job of showing

[3:05:17] where that's at. This exhibit does kind

[3:05:20] of show it. Um again this cuts the site

[3:05:24] in in half north to south. And so let's

[3:05:27] spend a few minutes looking at this

[3:05:28] exhibit because it contains a lot of

[3:05:29] information that I feel like is really

[3:05:31] important, but it does show that parking

[3:05:33] lot kind of um uh up the hill there. Um

[3:05:36] and so that's what that would look like.

[3:05:38] Um the reason why this elevation is so

[3:05:40] important because it does kind of show

[3:05:42] the distance. You know, that road is

[3:05:44] loud out there. Um if you go out there

[3:05:46] and you look at the the the decibel

[3:05:48] reading from the road, it's it's hard to have a conversation at the

[3:05:52] Canyon View Park when you're sitting at

[3:05:53] the pavilion across across the way

[3:05:55] there. Um, and so we want we felt like

[3:05:58] that was important to be able to have

[3:05:59] that that elevation separation from the

[3:06:01] road. And so you come up to the parking

[3:06:03] and you've got the surface parking

[3:06:04] there. Then you've got additional

[3:06:06] structures here which would include all

[3:06:08] of the concessions and the merch uh will

[3:06:11] call some of those types of of uses.

[3:06:13] Then you'd have a plaza that would be

[3:06:15] again significantly screened and

[3:06:17] buffered from the road. And then you'd

[3:06:19] have this is where the stage would be

[3:06:20] located and then the stage and the

[3:06:22] amphitheater would be from there. So

[3:06:24] right now we are asking for an exception

[3:06:27] um of the height restriction up of up to

[3:06:31] 125 ft for the fly loft and performance

[3:06:34] related uh operations of the project. So

[3:06:37] this elevation again I think really

[3:06:39] clearly shows you know the amphitheater

[3:06:41] itself uh maybe exceeds the 125 foot

[3:06:44] height just a little bit. Um but then it

[3:06:46] really provides a lot of space needed to

[3:06:48] separate us from the road and the other

[3:06:50] ambient noise with the river and some of

[3:06:52] those other things to get up to the

[3:06:53] actual amphitheater itself. So the

[3:06:54] performers aren't being impacted by the

[3:06:56] road and some of those other noises. Uh

[3:06:58] so it's a great experience for the

[3:06:59] guests and the performers.

[3:07:01] >> Brian, why is that an exception? What's

[3:07:03] the current height requirement? The

[3:07:05] current height for SC3 right now is 75

[3:07:08] ft.

[3:07:08] >> Okay. So,

[3:07:09] >> so we we are committing because one of

[3:07:12] the concerns again from the public and

[3:07:13] other folks has been one of the things

[3:07:15] that we are committing to is to restrict

[3:07:16] that further from 75 down to 50.

[3:07:19] >> So, right now in the development

[3:07:20] agreement, our height for all buildings

[3:07:22] with the exception of these these

[3:07:24] structures that we just talked about are

[3:07:26] 50 feet.

[3:07:27] >> And that that includes the hotel, that

[3:07:28] includes everything that we've talked

[3:07:30] about the any of the retail, any of

[3:07:31] those any of those types of uh any of

[3:07:33] those types of uses. hotel, retail, um

[3:07:36] maintenance buildings, all of that. 50

[3:07:38] feet will be the height uh limitation

[3:07:40] except for again the fly loft. And then

[3:07:43] this structure is um is uh it's kind of

[3:07:47] like you can take it off, you can expand

[3:07:49] it in the in the summer months and then

[3:07:52] in the winter months you can take that

[3:07:53] off. So it's it's uh that structure

[3:07:56] right there might need to be adjusted

[3:07:57] and be a little bit higher than the 50

[3:07:58] ft requirement. So, we can go up to 125

[3:08:01] ft on that structure as well, just so

[3:08:03] that it's not impacting the guests view

[3:08:05] of the performers as you get into the

[3:08:07] amphitheater. Jeff,

[3:08:09] >> what what is the height from the road

[3:08:12] elevation to that first uh basically the

[3:08:15] level of the parking lot?

[3:08:17] >> I would say it's 30 feet, although I

[3:08:19] don't know that I have that number right

[3:08:21] off the top of my the tip of my tongue.

[3:08:23] >> Okay.

[3:08:24] >> Um but yeah, we could we could get that

[3:08:25] number.

[3:08:26] >> Probably pretty close to 30 feet.

[3:08:28] >> Thank you. Yeah,

[3:08:28] >> Gary. I think it's also helpful that the

[3:08:30] 50 feet is limited to three stories.

[3:08:33] That's that's helpful.

[3:08:34] >> Yeah, that's a great point, Bill.

[3:08:37] >> So, where's the bottom trail from here?

[3:08:39] Finish that out right there.

[3:08:40] >> That's a great question, Becky. Let's

[3:08:42] jump to uh let's jump to that. That's

[3:08:45] kind of buried uh deep in the slide here

[3:08:47] in the slide deck. No, it's not.

[3:08:51] Okay. So, in this area, in this general

[3:08:56] area right here is kind of the ridge

[3:08:57] line that comes down from KF Peak. Um,

[3:09:00] and so the Bonavville Shoreline Trail up

[3:09:03] south of the site comes right here and

[3:09:04] then it it ducks over and goes down and

[3:09:07] connects all the way up to to 189.

[3:09:09] >> Can we go back to the other because

[3:09:11] looking at the sky view down that's why

[3:09:13] I wanted elevations, right?

[3:09:14] >> Oh, if we could go back to the elevation

[3:09:18] on the other one that you just had.

[3:09:19] >> It's not on that sheet. It would be on

[3:09:21] the other side of the ridge. You

[3:09:22] couldn't see it from that location.

[3:09:24] >> So, it's not even where you can see it.

[3:09:26] >> Not even visible. No, it's not even

[3:09:28] visible on the

[3:09:30] >> Is there going to be any trail system

[3:09:31] that's going to be on this?

[3:09:32] >> Absolutely. Yeah, we have that in the

[3:09:34] development agreement. We have

[3:09:35] significant amounts of of restoration

[3:09:37] and trails that we're talking about

[3:09:39] doing. So, this this maybe is the heart

[3:09:42] of the conversation and we'll get into

[3:09:43] the specifics of this with the council,

[3:09:45] but um the administration the mayor and

[3:09:48] the administration really kind of beat

[3:09:49] us up in terms of kind of negotiating

[3:09:52] the terms of the purchase and sales

[3:09:54] agreement. And part of that was she

[3:09:56] said, "Look, I'm going to try to get um

[3:09:59] as much as I can from the developer in

[3:10:01] this in this in this process, but then

[3:10:03] really it's a city council." I think she

[3:10:05] heard the the the conversation loud and

[3:10:07] clear. I don't want to speak for you,

[3:10:08] mayor, but it's like um Becky, I think

[3:10:10] it was you that focused on it. Maybe

[3:10:12] Jeff, I I can't remember all the folks,

[3:10:14] but in previous meetings, it's been

[3:10:15] something that it's like, hey, look, the

[3:10:16] council needs to have a vote and a say

[3:10:18] in this purchase agreement and how that

[3:10:20] works. And so, right now, again, our

[3:10:23] proposal is that we would be acquiring

[3:10:26] 66 acres from the city in order for all

[3:10:28] of this to work. And as part of that

[3:10:29] commitment, we would be putting anything

[3:10:32] outside of the the footprint of Vesper

[3:10:34] into a conservation easement, a deed

[3:10:36] restricted conservation easement, which

[3:10:38] is like a double layer of protection. So

[3:10:40] that's currently in the development

[3:10:41] agreement right now. And the way that would work is this is probably a

[3:10:45] good exhibit to kind of explain this. We

[3:10:48] would not be um so this is this is the

[3:10:51] city property in blue there. That's the

[3:10:53] property there on the upper side of the

[3:10:55] page. And then this is the property that

[3:10:56] we will be that we will be acquiring.

[3:10:58] The light blue then is the footprint of

[3:11:00] where Vesper sits. And so anything that

[3:11:03] you can see there and then the red

[3:11:05] outline shows the existing disturbance

[3:11:07] that has happened in the area over the

[3:11:09] previous generations or decades or

[3:11:10] whatever. And so all of Vesper fit fits

[3:11:13] within that footprint. And then any of

[3:11:15] this additional property that we will we

[3:11:17] will be purchasing from Provo but not

[3:11:19] developing as part of Vesper, we would

[3:11:21] be putting into a conservation easement.

[3:11:22] And that's that's this exhibit here. So

[3:11:25] our commitment in the development

[3:11:26] agreement is that up to 50% of the

[3:11:29] property that we would be purchasing

[3:11:30] from Provo City. So of that 66 acres we

[3:11:34] would be putting and this is the math

[3:11:36] right here. Um

[3:11:41] sorry I'm getting all jumbled around. Uh

[3:11:44] it's right here.

[3:11:48] Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. Here we go. Okay.

[3:11:52] So of the 66.47 47 acres that we would

[3:11:56] be acquiring from Provo City. 39.99

[3:11:59] acres of it um would be we would

[3:12:02] transfer 39.99 acres in terms of this

[3:12:05] property here which is up Provo Canyon

[3:12:07] up near Vivian Park. We would transfer

[3:12:09] that as as a trade for the property and

[3:12:12] we would put all of that into a

[3:12:13] conservation easement. And then of the

[3:12:16] site that we would be acquiring the 66

[3:12:17] acres, we would we would voluntarily be

[3:12:19] putting 33 acres of that back into a

[3:12:22] conservation easement. So, as you look

[3:12:24] at this 39 acres plus the 33 acres of

[3:12:27] the Vesper site, that gets you to the

[3:12:29] 73.22 acres. So, there's a net increase

[3:12:32] in city ownership or active conservation

[3:12:35] of 6.75 acres. So, it's a net increase.

[3:12:38] >> What exactly? Do you have a map that

[3:12:40] shows what exactly would be in a

[3:12:42] conservation easement?

[3:12:43] >> Uh, no. Right now, our commitment is 50%

[3:12:46] of the site that we're acquiring from.

[3:12:48] You don't have the specifics on how much

[3:12:52] you're going to utilize and how much is

[3:12:53] going to go back into it?

[3:12:55] >> Well, it will be it will be a minimum of

[3:12:56] 33.23 acres, but the act exact location

[3:12:59] we can't finalize until we've complete

[3:13:01] the design of the project.

[3:13:03] >> Okay. And then who is it that holds the

[3:13:06] conservation easement? And who is it

[3:13:08] that has so is it you with the who how

[3:13:13] does that exactly work? Is it Provo City

[3:13:16] that's going to be the landowner at that

[3:13:17] point? And then we're going to have a

[3:13:18] conservation easement with someone else.

[3:13:21] >> Um I I think all of those things are

[3:13:22] open. Those are all possibilities. Um I

[3:13:25] don't know that we have the specifics

[3:13:26] >> and then you guys pay the however much

[3:13:28] it is the cost to put it in the

[3:13:30] conservation.

[3:13:31] >> Conservation. Correct.

[3:13:32] >> I think I think that needs to be

[3:13:34] >> stated Yeah.

[3:13:36] >> Explicitly.

[3:13:36] >> Yeah. Because it's pretty vague.

[3:13:38] >> We've tried to be as clear as we can.

[3:13:40] These are all good points. So I think

[3:13:42] making sure it's clear who the

[3:13:43] conservation easement is with is an

[3:13:45] important consideration. And then um

[3:13:47] >> who holds the easement and then who

[3:13:49] holds the property, right?

[3:13:50] >> And then who holds the property

[3:13:51] >> and who's going to pay for that? Because

[3:13:54] what was it, Marcia? What how much did

[3:13:56] we pay for this Lake Canyon when was it?

[3:13:58] Well, it wasn't as they raised 10,000.

[3:14:00] >> Was it 10,000? Yeah.

[3:14:02] >> Yeah. I mean, somebody

[3:14:05] can comment on

[3:14:08] >> Yeah. Slate Canyon Conservation Nation

[3:14:10] is unique because it's city- owned

[3:14:12] property and so we're going through a

[3:14:14] city a public benefit process. Whereas

[3:14:17] this, if it was owned by a private

[3:14:19] entity, it enters into a different

[3:14:21] process wherein the land owner would

[3:14:23] have to pay or someone else would have

[3:14:25] to put the cost to put that part of the

[3:14:27] parcel into the easement and pay for

[3:14:29] those development rights. And then the

[3:14:31] easement would have to be held by a

[3:14:33] third party. So, whoever the land owner

[3:14:35] is would have to figure that out, figure

[3:14:38] out the cost of what the land would be,

[3:14:40] appraise it, and then pay for the

[3:14:41] easement. So, I don't know if the city

[3:14:45] would be a partner in that if they're

[3:14:47] the land owner. We wouldn't I don't that

[3:14:50] would all have to be details figured

[3:14:52] out. We wouldn't be the land owner if

[3:14:54] they bought it, but then they would have

[3:14:55] to be the ones responsible to go through

[3:14:58] the whole process of putting it back.

[3:15:00] Then they would set the terms of the

[3:15:01] ement with whoever then was holding the

[3:15:03] ement

[3:15:04] >> well

[3:15:05] >> and agree on the cost of the

[3:15:07] >> well and then it would be is it public

[3:15:08] benefit if you guys put in a

[3:15:10] conservation ement right people couldn't

[3:15:12] necessarily hike on it if that's so I

[3:15:15] think I think those are terms that we

[3:15:16] need

[3:15:16] >> they need to be clarified

[3:15:18] >> yeah our intent Becky is that we want

[3:15:20] Vesper to be a really important trail

[3:15:22] head for everything that the forest

[3:15:24] service is doing south and I guess all the way around the property. So from

[3:15:29] our perspective right now, the gun range

[3:15:31] significantly limits the ability to

[3:15:33] provide hiking and opportunities up in

[3:15:35] there. And so all of these changes would

[3:15:37] be changes that would have to be worked

[3:15:38] together. And and we want to be a trail

[3:15:41] head for people to access all of those

[3:15:43] trails.

[3:15:43] >> But it's a private trail head race.

[3:15:45] >> It's it's it would be it would be a

[3:15:46] private trail head that would have

[3:15:48] conservation easements and deed

[3:15:50] restrictions on them. And we would want

[3:15:51] the public to use them. Absolutely.

[3:15:53] >> Well, that I think that needs to be a

[3:15:55] part of the specifics in the development

[3:15:57] agreement. We feel like it is, but if it

[3:15:59] needs to be clarified,

[3:16:00] >> I think it needs to be clear.

[3:16:03] >> Yeah.

[3:16:05] >> Those are all things that we can add

[3:16:07] clarifications to.

[3:16:11] » Jeff, councelor Whitlock.

[3:16:12] >> Yeah, I just uh had a couple questions

[3:16:14] here. So, yeah, I appreciate seeing this

[3:16:17] overview slide of the economic develop

[3:16:19] economic impact.

[3:16:21] >> Um, I haven't had a chance to go on the

[3:16:23] numbers of the most recent materials you

[3:16:24] send.

[3:16:24] >> Yeah. But I'm wondering, do you know or

[3:16:27] have any idea yet about how many

[3:16:28] household uh carrying incomes this uh

[3:16:32] project would offer?

[3:16:33] >> There was an estimate um there was an

[3:16:35] estimate in there based on a quick

[3:16:38] analysis that they looked at to say of

[3:16:39] those living in Provo, how many of how

[3:16:41] many of those residents work in Provo?

[3:16:43] >> No, I'm more asking like I imagine it's

[3:16:45] a lot of part-time jobs. I'm talking

[3:16:46] about like full-time salary jobs paying

[3:16:48] a livable wage for Provo.

[3:16:49] >> Correct. And they make an assumption

[3:16:51] there of what that number is. Yeah.

[3:16:52] >> Okay. Okay. Do you know that number off

[3:16:54] the top of your head?

[3:16:54] >> I I want to say it's uh it's like two

[3:16:57] 200, but I don't know that for a fact. I

[3:16:59] think it was like 24% of the total

[3:17:01] employee uh employ uh jobs that are

[3:17:04] created of the 900 and whatever that

[3:17:06] number is. Let me just pull it up again

[3:17:08] really quickly. It's I think 957

[3:17:10] jobs.

[3:17:11] >> Yeah, 957 jobs.

[3:17:12] >> Um I think I think about 20 to 24% of

[3:17:14] those are full-time local jobs. And then

[3:17:19] so I you you said that on the rendering

[3:17:22] you showed 14 acres it's on on ground

[3:17:25] parking

[3:17:26] >> correct.

[3:17:26] >> Do you know how many stalls that is?

[3:17:28] >> Yes.

[3:17:30] >> Um

[3:17:32] is there a way for us to just take a

[3:17:34] step back and focus on traffic and

[3:17:36] parking kind of together?

[3:17:37] >> Sure.

[3:17:37] >> I think if we could if we could do that

[3:17:39] and then come back to to your question

[3:17:41] um Commissioner Wlock or Council Member

[3:17:43] Wlock, I think that would be maybe a

[3:17:45] good way to approach it. Um there's a

[3:17:47] lot of questions on traffic and parking.

[3:17:50] Um so I think I think from my

[3:17:51] perspective I' I'd like to be able to do

[3:17:53] that. So if that's okay. Um I think the

[3:17:56] assessment that's really important to

[3:17:58] analyze is just how does the traffic get

[3:18:02] to Vesper? Um shoot.

[3:18:06] Uh I thought it would show up the slide

[3:18:07] that I was on. Let me see if I can get

[3:18:09] that to show up. Okay. So the the

[3:18:12] question becomes um it looks like Rachel

[3:18:14] has has a question. Rachel, if uh if we

[3:18:16] can if we can talk about traffic and

[3:18:18] parking um and then maybe if if that

[3:18:20] addresses your question, would that be

[3:18:22] okay? Or did you want to did you want to

[3:18:23] chime in right now?

[3:18:27] » That's fine. You can go ahead. I'm

[3:18:29] writing down my questions so I won't

[3:18:30] lose them.

[3:18:31] >> Okay, perfect. Great.

[3:18:33] >> Okay. And how much time do we have? When are you guys out of here? What?

[3:18:37] >> So, let's target uh 4 for the

[3:18:40] presentation.

[3:18:40] >> Okay.

[3:18:41] >> But then technically we can go till

[3:18:42] 4:30.

[3:18:43] >> Okay. Uh another item was continued.

[3:18:46] Okay.

[3:18:46] >> So more interaction with um you close

[3:18:50] meeting

[3:18:51] >> at 4:30, right?

[3:18:52] >> At 4.

[3:18:53] >> How how long has that been?

[3:18:55] >> Yes, we have. It's

[3:18:58] [snorts]

[3:18:59] >> So I think we can do that from 4:30 to 5:20.

[3:19:04] Maybe. Let's do four. Let's do 420

[3:19:07] >> because we we can eat during the um

[3:19:10] during the close session.

[3:19:13] Okay, thank you. So, we have till 4

[3:19:15] o'clock. So, to present

[3:19:17] >> Okay, we'll we'll get through traffic in

[3:19:19] probably 5 to 10 minutes. Um, the way

[3:19:21] that this works is we've got 10% right

[3:19:24] now. Um, our traffic engineering and and

[3:19:27] the analysis that's been done is we've

[3:19:28] gone and looked at several different

[3:19:29] events to say what is the range of

[3:19:31] traffic that's coming from Provo Orum

[3:19:34] versus coming from Heaper. And right now

[3:19:36] we can show we could justify in the

[3:19:38] traffic analysis as high as 35% coming

[3:19:42] from Heber kind of that side because if

[3:19:44] you could imagine if you're up in Davis

[3:19:45] County um or somewhere near I80 and

[3:19:48] you're like hey I'm looking at traveling

[3:19:49] south to Vesper on a Friday afternoon at

[3:19:52] 4:30 5:00 it's going to be very very

[3:19:55] challenging very difficult lots of

[3:19:57] traffic. So it it a lot of that a lot of

[3:19:59] times that traffic can take you up over

[3:20:01] parleys. When I'm coming down from Davis

[3:20:03] County, that's where it takes me a lot

[3:20:04] of times uh to get down into Provo. Um

[3:20:06] so we could we could see this number

[3:20:08] going significantly higher than the 10%

[3:20:10] that's currently being proposed right

[3:20:12] now. But that's the number that we feel

[3:20:13] like is conservative and it would only

[3:20:15] get better um from there. Then 90% the

[3:20:18] other 90% would come then from ORM and

[3:20:20] Provo. And that traffic is likewise

[3:20:23] split with a 45 universe 45% traffic

[3:20:26] coming up university and a 55% coming up

[3:20:29] 8th north. So that's kind of the way

[3:20:31] that the traffic arrives at the site

[3:20:33] right now. Um I think it it it needs to

[3:20:36] be talked about um that right now we

[3:20:39] have 3.5 people 3.5 people per vehicle

[3:20:44] showing up at the site. Um and so that's

[3:20:46] the assumption that UD do has agreed to.

[3:20:48] Um, that's the number that we're that

[3:20:50] we're coming that we're coming that

[3:20:51] we're kind of finalizing as the parking

[3:20:53] stalls that are necessary. And that

[3:20:55] number, again, we're kind of in in in

[3:20:57] current um review of those numbers and trying to figure out all these

[3:21:01] specifics right now. Um, but if you take

[3:21:03] the 20,000 and you divide that by the

[3:21:05] 3.5, that gets you to 5,700 stalls. So,

[3:21:09] we're we're looking to be somewhere

[3:21:11] between 4,500 stalls right now and 5,700

[3:21:15] stalls. Right now, Provo City's

[3:21:18] ordinances suggest that we would need

[3:21:20] about 5,100 stalls. So, that's kind of

[3:21:22] the number that we're looking at is

[3:21:24] somewhere in that range. And so, as you

[3:21:26] look at that, when you look at any event

[3:21:29] of of this type of magnitude, this data

[3:21:31] comes specifically from USANA. So, this

[3:21:34] data that we're getting in terms of when

[3:21:36] people arrive at an event, this comes

[3:21:37] from USANA. So, right now, we've got

[3:21:40] three hours before the event, you've got

[3:21:41] 6% of the population that shows up. um

[3:21:44] two hours before the event you've got an

[3:21:46] additional 12% 25% shows up an hour

[3:21:49] before and then um that that you know

[3:21:52] this is the hour before the event start

[3:21:54] is 38%. And so right now uh and then

[3:21:57] again some additional traffic that comes

[3:21:58] in to the site after after the event

[3:22:01] starts because people are running late

[3:22:02] or they don't want to deal with the

[3:22:04] traffic. Um, so then what we did is we

[3:22:06] analyzed this and said, "Okay, of this

[3:22:08] traffic that's arriving at the site, the the most critical part of it is is a

[3:22:13] maximum capacity event." So all winter

[3:22:16] long, our events are much much smaller.

[3:22:18] A maximum capacity event in the winter

[3:22:20] is 8,000 people. We can't fit any more

[3:22:22] than 8,000. We're not really even

[3:22:24] analyzing that because those traffic

[3:22:25] impacts are going to be negligible. They

[3:22:27] really will not be very significant for

[3:22:29] an 8,000 person event. um as you start

[3:22:31] getting into the 14, you know, 18 20,000

[3:22:34] person events, that's where this number

[3:22:36] starts to come in. And so this is the

[3:22:38] split in terms of the specific traffic.

[3:22:41] We we haven't looked at the specific

[3:22:42] traffic. What we did is we kind of

[3:22:43] equated these numbers to what is the

[3:22:45] impact in terms of time. So if you're

[3:22:47] getting off of 8th North on I-15, what

[3:22:50] is the impact in time to get to the

[3:22:52] mouth of the canyon? And then it's the

[3:22:53] same way as you're getting off of

[3:22:55] another one of the cross streets,

[3:22:56] whether it's Center Street in Orum or

[3:22:58] University Avenue, getting up to

[3:23:00] University Parkway to come up to the

[3:23:02] site. Um those are the delays that we've

[3:23:04] looked at and we're still finalizing

[3:23:06] this as late as last night. This um the the traffic the way that it works

[3:23:11] right now is if you're getting off of

[3:23:13] I-15 to get to the mouth of the canyon,

[3:23:15] that delay right now uh without any

[3:23:17] delays is about 5 to 6 minutes. And then

[3:23:20] if you add the PM peak hour, so you're

[3:23:22] talking about the traffic, that delay

[3:23:24] takes about eight minutes to get to the

[3:23:26] mouth of the canyon. So the impacts that

[3:23:28] we would be talking about putting on

[3:23:29] these roads in the event of a maximum

[3:23:32] capacity event in the PM peak of 1100

[3:23:34] vehicles that equates that 38% equates

[3:23:37] to,00 vehicles on 8th North. That is

[3:23:39] that equates to an 8m minute delay on

[3:23:41] 8th North in addition to the PMP the

[3:23:44] normal PMP traffic that would be there.

[3:23:46] So that's the event that's that's the

[3:23:48] impact that we're talking about on these

[3:23:50] roads. And then it's a similar type

[3:23:52] analysis that we've talked about on

[3:23:53] university. So if you take again a

[3:23:55] similar distribution, you take that last

[3:23:57] 38% that shows up the hour before the

[3:23:59] event, the traffic on university would

[3:24:01] be about 1,400 vehicles and that delay

[3:24:04] would be an additional about 8 to 10

[3:24:06] minutes of delay on that site. And we're

[3:24:08] still refining the specifics of those

[3:24:10] numbers, but those that's the data. So,

[3:24:12] as you arrive to the site, we're talking

[3:24:14] about an additional 8 to 10 minute

[3:24:15] delay. And then when we're leaving the

[3:24:18] site, it's um it's similar about 18 uh

[3:24:21] sorry, about about uh 8 to 10 minute

[3:24:24] delay as you leave the site. So, where

[3:24:26] that kicks in or where that picks up is

[3:24:28] if you're coming down um from Heber and

[3:24:30] you're on 189 coming into Provo, um as

[3:24:33] soon as you get on Vesper, that that

[3:24:35] traffic would slow down significantly.

[3:24:37] And so, that's that that slow in

[3:24:39] traffic. We're averaging 5 to 10 miles

[3:24:41] per hour and that would equate to about

[3:24:43] a 10-minute delay to get down to the

[3:24:44] mouth of the canyon because then once

[3:24:46] you're at the mouth of the canyon as you

[3:24:47] take a right that traffic widens up to

[3:24:49] three lanes um or on university it

[3:24:51] widens up to two to three lanes uh very

[3:24:53] quickly. So that's those are the delays

[3:24:55] that we're talking about in terms of the

[3:24:57] overall traffic impacts um um for

[3:24:59] Vesper.

[3:25:00] >> Has seen your numbers?

[3:25:02] >> What's that?

[3:25:02] >> Has Vern and UD do seen your numbers?

[3:25:04] >> Um yeah. Well, I think we're in the

[3:25:07] process of reviewing those numbers with

[3:25:08] Vern right now, but I'll I'll let Vern

[3:25:09] speak for himself.

[3:25:13] >> Question about this picture first.

[3:25:15] >> Do you want a picture?

[3:25:18] >> Like it says 43% arrived two to three

[3:25:20] hours prior to the event. Where are you

[3:25:22] getting%?

[3:25:24] >> That that 43% Krice is just you add six

[3:25:27] plus 12 plus 25. So when you add all

[3:25:30] three of those numbers together, that's

[3:25:32] the 43%. And then that last hour before

[3:25:35] the event, you're talking about 30% 38%

[3:25:38] shows up at that at that last event. And

[3:25:40] maybe um if I'm if I'm sorry, Katrice,

[3:25:44] does that answer your question?

[3:25:46] >> Well, it should say arrive one to three

[3:25:48] hours prior to the event, not two to

[3:25:50] three hours prior to the event.

[3:25:51] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's true. So, one to one

[3:25:54] to three hours before the event is 43%.

[3:25:56] That's a great that's a great catch. And

[3:25:57] m maybe Vern, if I if I might, can I

[3:26:00] just talk specifically about So, we've

[3:26:03] kind of talked about 8th North and

[3:26:04] Becky, it's a very valid question. We've

[3:26:06] got to have Vern weigh in. He's he's got

[3:26:08] to be okay with these numbers. So, we'd

[3:26:09] love to get I'd love to get his opinion

[3:26:11] and perspective on this. Maybe before we

[3:26:13] do that, if we could just talk about

[3:26:14] this slide right here. This is another

[3:26:17] really important slide that I think goes

[3:26:18] into the traffic question and really

[3:26:20] addresses uh our attempt was to address

[3:26:23] those concerns. So, if you're looking at

[3:26:25] the site right now, one of the most

[3:26:27] important things as as you're getting

[3:26:28] traffic up to the site is getting them

[3:26:30] safely off of 189. And so, this this has

[3:26:33] been reviewed with UD do, it's not

[3:26:35] approved because until we get our final

[3:26:36] approvals in a year from now, it won't

[3:26:38] be finalized. But, UD do has weighed in

[3:26:40] on this and they've said um they they

[3:26:42] like this uh they like our perspective

[3:26:44] in the direction that we're headed. Um

[3:26:46] so, the way that it works is you come in

[3:26:48] off of 189. Wow, that's really cool.

[3:26:51] Okay. All right. I don't know how to

[3:26:53] undo that, but

[3:26:54] >> Okay. All right.

[3:26:55] >> You're free to use it as much as you

[3:26:56] >> Okay, cool. I'll be careful not to touch

[3:26:58] it. So, you've got two lanes of traffic

[3:27:00] coming in. And this this length right

[3:27:02] here is over 1,000 ft. It's the entire

[3:27:04] frontage of Esper. And that would be pulling off of of 189 to

[3:27:09] have all of that stacking capacity there

[3:27:11] as you arrive to the site. And then we'd

[3:27:13] come in, we would go to the roundabout.

[3:27:15] and then

[3:27:17] this this additional portion right here.

[3:27:19] And if you want to just erase that, that

[3:27:21] would be awesome. But all of that

[3:27:22] portion right there, that would be an

[3:27:24] addition that would widen to additional

[3:27:25] four lanes. And so that allows traffic

[3:27:28] to um from a couple of different

[3:27:30] perspectives to come into the site

[3:27:32] effectively and efficiently. So number

[3:27:33] one is coming off 189 from Po and Oram.

[3:27:36] It would also pick up this traffic as

[3:27:37] you're coming in from Heber. This is the

[3:27:39] off-ramp and you'd come across that that lane of traffic. You'd have two

[3:27:42] lanes of traffic like we talked about

[3:27:44] earlier. And then we would allow that

[3:27:45] traffic to merge here. And then this

[3:27:47] traffic would continue to merge here.

[3:27:49] And that traffic would allow continue to

[3:27:50] allow to to go up to here like like uh

[3:27:53] commissioner or council member um Bogdan

[3:27:55] was asking about. That would allow

[3:27:56] traffic to come up here or parking

[3:27:58] excuse me parking to come up here and

[3:28:00] then parking to come this way and load

[3:28:01] all of these uh surface sites as well.

[3:28:04] This is a really important design. This

[3:28:06] is not a small thing on the parking

[3:28:08] structure. So we've talked about the

[3:28:09] surface parking and then the parking

[3:28:11] structure loading into the parking

[3:28:13] structure. It's a speed ramp. It's

[3:28:15] called a speed ramp. It is like the

[3:28:16] opposite of what Salt Lake City airport

[3:28:20] has. That is the most inefficient design

[3:28:22] ever. And so this speed ramp, you're

[3:28:25] able to come up the side of the parking

[3:28:26] structure and you're able to load into

[3:28:28] each level and it's very, very

[3:28:30] efficient. So you're pulling that

[3:28:31] traffic off of the oncoming stream and

[3:28:34] you're able to get people in and get

[3:28:35] them parked safely and efficiently. So

[3:28:37] that's an important component as we talk

[3:28:39] about parking, getting people off of UD

[3:28:41] do. Um we've obviously we've sorry

[3:28:43] getting people off 189 and U dot roads.

[3:28:46] Um we've talked about getting rid of

[3:28:47] these left turns which again are very

[3:28:49] important to U do um that's that's an

[3:28:51] important consideration that's arriving

[3:28:54] to the site and then departing from the

[3:28:56] site. It's the same thing. So this is a

[3:28:58] very efficient unloading. All of this

[3:29:00] comes to this uh location right here. So

[3:29:03] all of that traffic is going to be

[3:29:04] loading on to 189 in two lanes and that

[3:29:07] becomes the effective governor. Um we uh

[3:29:10] the governor for for getting traffic

[3:29:12] back onto 189. So you can't just slam

[3:29:14] the roads because you can only offload

[3:29:16] at two people per two, you know, two pe

[3:29:18] two people at a time, those two lanes.

[3:29:20] >> Um

[3:29:21] >> Brian, you calculated how many cars can

[3:29:23] be stacked in 1,000 feet, for example.

[3:29:25] >> We did. We did. So all of this, Gary, if

[3:29:27] you look at all the stacking as you add

[3:29:28] up all of this, and again, every bit of

[3:29:30] stacking that we're giving up is giving

[3:29:32] up parking. So, we've that's a big

[3:29:34] concession that we've tried to figure

[3:29:35] out how to balance that because we

[3:29:37] wanted to make sure we can get people

[3:29:38] off of 189 safely. And that number down

[3:29:41] here is 1,00 vehicles. So, as you look

[3:29:43] at the 10,000 vehicles, that allows for

[3:29:45] all this stacking to take place. So

[3:29:47] again, if we're talking about 4,500

[3:29:49] vehicles to 5,500 vehicles of total

[3:29:52] parking on site, that's a 20% amount,

[3:29:55] you know, to 20% of that can be stacked

[3:29:57] on the site, which again is we feel like

[3:30:00] we're very confident. Our Horox

[3:30:02] engineering, our traffic engineer, and

[3:30:04] UD do is feeling good that this this

[3:30:06] does really uh allow traffic to get off

[3:30:08] safely off of 189 and make sure they

[3:30:10] continue to do that.

[3:30:11] >> Heard that at peak hours that that

[3:30:14] traffic backs up the canyon to these parks because there's already a

[3:30:20] congestion problem. How does that work

[3:30:22] with adding all these trying to get back

[3:30:24] on when it's backed up?

[3:30:26] >> So, I I think if I'm understanding your

[3:30:28] question, um, Commission, Council Member

[3:30:30] Bogdan, it's it's just this this portion

[3:30:32] of the of of I or 189 gets backed up.

[3:30:36] >> So, we'll obviously be offloading at,

[3:30:39] you know, 10:30, 11, 11:30 at night. So,

[3:30:42] the the traffic volumes go significantly

[3:30:44] down. we won't be unloading it at the

[3:30:45] pem peak. So that that resolves a a big

[3:30:49] portion of the concern. But um Becky

[3:30:54] ultimately I guess let's just jump to

[3:30:56] this because this is kind of maybe the the icing on the cake or kind of the final talking point and that is what

[3:31:02] are the improvements that are necessary

[3:31:04] in this area and um well I'll just talk

[3:31:09] about them because I'm not seeing my

[3:31:11] slide right here. Dang it. Oh, it's

[3:31:14] right here.

[3:31:16] Okay. So, [snorts] Becky, um, this is

[3:31:19] the improvements that need to be made.

[3:31:21] You do DOT

[3:31:23] will recognize that right now this

[3:31:25] intersection and certain movements of

[3:31:27] this intersection are problematic. So,

[3:31:29] the the movement that you've talked

[3:31:30] about, Becky, is this right-hand turn on

[3:31:32] the 189 or on the 8th North is the most

[3:31:35] problematic movement of the inter

[3:31:36] intersection. and they would uh they

[3:31:39] would admit that that's a problem today

[3:31:42] um at PM Peak and it's only going to

[3:31:43] become a worse problem as Heber

[3:31:45] continues to grow and do what they're

[3:31:46] doing and that you know the commuter

[3:31:48] continues to increase and so

[3:31:49] improvements need to be made there and

[3:31:51] one of the suggest one of the

[3:31:53] suggestions that we're making to UD do

[3:31:54] as part of the overall improvements that

[3:31:56] need to be made is that this become this

[3:31:58] right uh this yellow lane become a

[3:32:00] continuous flow which would really allow

[3:32:02] that whole that whole system to flush

[3:32:04] out and the traffic can get get where it

[3:32:07] needs to go. So, that's right now the

[3:32:09] solution that we're proposing to UD do

[3:32:11] in hopes that that will again it will

[3:32:14] take care of the problem. Um, it's just

[3:32:16] working those details out with UD do to

[3:32:18] make sure we can get that worked out.

[3:32:19] The bridge widening has to be done as

[3:32:21] well and that road has to be widened all

[3:32:23] the way up for those those that traffic

[3:32:24] to continue to merge and and get going.

[3:32:26] >> And UD do recognizes that and is willing

[3:32:28] to I've had some say that that needs to

[3:32:31] happen with or without Vesper, that

[3:32:33] dedicated lane.

[3:32:34] >> Yeah, it needs to happen right now. that that movement is not is not it's not in failure level of service but

[3:32:42] it's it's you know in PMP it it's a

[3:32:45] problem. So um there's one more thing

[3:32:48] before I before I let two more minutes

[3:32:50] on this on this issue right here. Um

[3:32:53] there's a lot of things that we're

[3:32:55] implementing in terms of traffic

[3:32:56] measures that for our maximum capacity

[3:33:00] events we I wanted to mention really

[3:33:02] quickly before we before I I let Vern

[3:33:04] chime in and and share his perspective

[3:33:07] on these numbers. So um the maximum

[3:33:11] capacity events are critically important

[3:33:12] that we manage parking and traffic

[3:33:14] incredibly closely. And so as part of

[3:33:17] that that's what this chart is that you

[3:33:18] see over here. Um that's really really

[3:33:21] important. So, we talk about on-site

[3:33:23] parking, we talk about structured

[3:33:25] parking, we talk about surface parking.

[3:33:27] Now, we talk about off-site parking. We

[3:33:29] haven't talked about off-site parking.

[3:33:30] So, that to from our perspective, that

[3:33:33] really does allow us still to get to

[3:33:34] that, you know, six 7,000 stalls, an

[3:33:37] appropriate number of stalls is that we

[3:33:39] would have three or four locations

[3:33:40] offsite and then we would have a shuttle

[3:33:43] system that would allow um people our guests to come to Vesper in the

[3:33:47] shuttle. And so that really it's it's a

[3:33:49] very common practice for a lot of other

[3:33:50] venues across the country. And so that

[3:33:52] allows us the flexibility to not need

[3:33:54] the traffic or the parking on site, but

[3:33:56] to get go secure those spots and then

[3:33:58] bring and then bring um bring our guests

[3:34:00] to uh to to Vesper. Um that includes the

[3:34:04] shuttle service. So um that shuttle

[3:34:07] service, we're also talking about

[3:34:08] implementing that shuttle service down

[3:34:09] to one of the Front Runner stops. Um,

[3:34:12] we're hoping that we could uh make that

[3:34:14] work on at the Vineyard Station, the the

[3:34:15] station in Orum or even the the one in

[3:34:17] Provo. Likely the one uh at Vineyard

[3:34:20] Station would be probably the most

[3:34:21] convenient for people to get to. Um, but

[3:34:23] that's one of the other um one of the

[3:34:25] other uh shuttle services that we're

[3:34:27] talking about um is is is that um

[3:34:30] carpooling will be a requirement. Um if

[3:34:32] any of you have gone up to the mountains

[3:34:34] skiing, um it's a requirement. If you

[3:34:36] don't have four people in your vehicle,

[3:34:37] you're paying a lot more per per vehicle

[3:34:39] to park there. And so those are all

[3:34:41] incentives that we would be giving for

[3:34:43] people to carpool. We do not want one

[3:34:45] person showing up to the site. And if

[3:34:46] that's going to be your approach, you're

[3:34:48] going to pay heavily in terms of parking

[3:34:49] for that to happen. Um ride share. We've

[3:34:52] got to accommodate all the ride share.

[3:34:54] We've talked about having an off-site

[3:34:55] ride share where they would be dropped

[3:34:57] off at one of our one of our lot one of

[3:34:59] our lots so that we would avoid that

[3:35:01] traffic. Sorry, coming up um 189 and

[3:35:04] getting to the site. Um there's still a

[3:35:06] lot that needs to be done with ride

[3:35:07] share, but right now we can accommodate

[3:35:08] the ride share and the shuttle service

[3:35:10] um as we've got it planned right now. Um

[3:35:13] FrontrRunner regional transit, we talked

[3:35:14] about that. Uh the pedestrian and

[3:35:16] bicycle access is not something that

[3:35:18] we're saying is a massive part of the

[3:35:20] project, although we will have a

[3:35:22] significant amount of bike parking um on

[3:35:24] site because uh I

[3:35:27] >> mean significant amount. What does that

[3:35:29] translate to in numbers? Um, whatever

[3:35:31] people are willing to drive here on a

[3:35:33] bike, we are ecstatic about it and we

[3:35:35] will provide a place for them to park so

[3:35:36] that they get their car off the road.

[3:35:38] So, that's a huge win for us. I think

[3:35:40] it's a win for everybody. All of us from

[3:35:42] a traffic perspective. So, we will

[3:35:44] provide parking, secure parking or

[3:35:45] people won't feel safe leaving their

[3:35:47] bike and it won't work.

[3:35:48] >> That mean there'll be like a bike path

[3:35:51] on the bridge.

[3:35:52] >> 100%. Yeah, Jeff.

[3:35:53] >> On the overpass?

[3:35:54] >> Yes. So, as you come up Pro River, the

[3:35:56] Pro River crossing, there would

[3:35:57] absolutely be that pedestrian and bike

[3:35:59] path. That would be a combined

[3:36:00] pedestrian bike and we can see that

[3:36:02] being used extensively to get people

[3:36:04] there.

[3:36:04] >> Separated from the vehicles.

[3:36:06] Yeah.

[3:36:07] >> And you have bike lockers. Is that what

[3:36:09] I'm hearing?

[3:36:10] >> We will have we will have places for

[3:36:11] people to secure their bikes. Correct.

[3:36:14] >> As somebody who rode her bike to like

[3:36:16] BYU football games just to avoid the

[3:36:18] traffic. I would 100% ride my bike to a

[3:36:21] concert here.

[3:36:24] We think that you might be the

[3:36:25] exception, Rachel, but there's enough

[3:36:28] people that we have to make sure because

[3:36:30] again, it's a benefit to Vesper to get

[3:36:33] people riding their bikes up here. I I

[3:36:35] see that being hard at 11 at night where

[3:36:37] it's dark, but I think people will do

[3:36:39] it. I think people will do it. You got

[3:36:40] the Murdoch Canal um that comes through

[3:36:43] here. That's a great way for, you know,

[3:36:45] everyone south and north to come up here

[3:36:47] um get on Pearl River Trail, ride up the

[3:36:50] canyon, and get safely across. It's we

[3:36:52] feel like it'll be a fantastic amenity.

[3:36:54] Something that will be used for venues

[3:36:56] for for for the the actual events that

[3:36:58] we're having as well as off, you know,

[3:37:00] offvent hours. We want people to come up

[3:37:02] and and ride the bikes.

[3:37:03] >> Rachel, how would you like to secure

[3:37:04] your bike when you were there?

[3:37:07] >> Um,

[3:37:08] a really good bike lock area. So,

[3:37:13] BikeWalk Provo is great about helping

[3:37:15] people install

[3:37:17] secure things that they can lock their

[3:37:19] bikes to. Um, covered parking is nice.

[3:37:22] Bike lockers take up a ton of space. Um,

[3:37:26] I don't know that that would be

[3:37:27] necessary for this because I'm not

[3:37:29] leaving the bike and going for, you

[3:37:31] know, like a two week trip or something.

[3:37:33] It would just be for the time of the

[3:37:34] event.

[3:37:36] And I would just see it just like I feel

[3:37:39] safe leaving my car locked in a parking

[3:37:42] lot. It would be similar to that.

[3:37:46] So now Brian, bring this transportation

[3:37:48] down to actual parking, which was Jeff's

[3:37:50] original question. Let's get to the

[3:37:52] parking itself.

[3:37:54] >> Right. Right now, um Gary, if if UD do

[3:37:58] came to us and said your maximum park,

[3:38:00] your maximum number of vehicles that can

[3:38:03] come over that fly over at 8th North

[3:38:05] is,00 vehicles, that's what we think the

[3:38:07] capacity is of that road right now. We

[3:38:09] would make we would adjust our parking

[3:38:11] numbers on site to make that work. So,

[3:38:15] that's where we're at is that we can be

[3:38:17] flexible. We think this is going to land

[3:38:18] somewhere between 4,000 and probably

[3:38:21] 5,500.

[3:38:23] That's kind of the parking range that

[3:38:24] we're talking about right now. We would

[3:38:26] like to stick we would like to stick

[3:38:28] with what the city ordinance says right

[3:38:30] now, which would put us at 5100. Um, but

[3:38:33] that's the parking range that we want to

[3:38:35] be in because any additional stall above

[3:38:37] that is a is a massive added cost to

[3:38:40] Vesper that we don't want to have to

[3:38:42] incur. So, we want to park it

[3:38:44] adequately. We do not want to overpark

[3:38:46] it. And so, yeah, 10,000 was the cap at

[3:38:48] one point. It's now 8,000. And so, yeah,

[3:38:52] I think that's something that we're that

[3:38:53] we're we're wanting to push actively

[3:38:55] push down as aggressively as we can.

[3:38:56] Jeff,

[3:38:57] >> if you take if you take 5,000, let's

[3:39:00] call it what what would be the above

[3:39:03] ground and so above ground parking is

[3:39:05] here and it's up on this hill too.

[3:39:06] Correct.

[3:39:06] >> Correct. Yeah.

[3:39:08] >> SL.

[3:39:08] >> So, this this is that analysis, Jeff.

[3:39:10] So, come full circle. Maybe we'll just

[3:39:12] finish this up before we turn the floor

[3:39:14] over to burn. This this right here is

[3:39:17] the 14 acre total number. But this is

[3:39:19] the this is the single the single stalls

[3:39:22] are right here. Or just clear.

[3:39:23] >> I got you.

[3:39:25] >> So the total the total parking that you

[3:39:27] see there in orange Jeff totals 12,61

[3:39:30] stalls. Um, we feel like if if well,

[3:39:34] let's just leave it at that. 1261 and

[3:39:36] then we've got the parking structure

[3:39:38] that depending on how many stories we

[3:39:39] make that parking structure, that

[3:39:41] parking stall could go from 2500 stalls

[3:39:43] to 3,800 stalls. That's the size of the

[3:39:47] parking structure. Um, that would

[3:39:48] adequately fit or that would

[3:39:50] appropriately fit within this area and

[3:39:52] we could still make the commitments that

[3:39:53] we've made to Provo City. So, um, that's

[3:39:56] those are the numbers. Um, and we're

[3:39:58] hoping we're hoping if if I guess Jeff

[3:40:01] my my sense would be we'd like to do

[3:40:03] around 3,000 stalls in the parking

[3:40:05] structure and then we'd like to do

[3:40:06] another 1,200 stalls um for all of the

[3:40:09] surface parking. So that would give us

[3:40:11] about 3,200 stalls on site. 30 3,300

[3:40:13] stalls and then if there were a

[3:40:15] situation or circumstance that we needed

[3:40:17] to expand the the the parking

[3:40:19] requirements, sorry, that would be 4200

[3:40:21] stalls.

[3:40:22] >> Yeah, 4200

[3:40:22] >> I'm sorry. 4200 stalls. And then if

[3:40:24] there would be a situation where we

[3:40:25] needed to pick up an additional four or

[3:40:27] 500 stalls, then we would we would take

[3:40:29] this parking lot and we would dig it

[3:40:31] down 4 feet. We would use all of that

[3:40:33] material to build the the kind of a

[3:40:35] second story, but it would feel very,

[3:40:37] you know, three or four feet above grade

[3:40:38] because the rest would be below grade.

[3:40:40] And we could turn all of this into a

[3:40:41] second story, second story, and a second

[3:40:44] story, which would then allow us to get

[3:40:46] up to that 1950 stalls. So that would

[3:40:48] put us at about five the 5,000 stall

[3:40:50] number if if we had to get there. And

[3:40:52] how many levels is the third? Like if

[3:40:54] you do the 30,000 in this structure

[3:40:55] parking, how many levels is that?

[3:40:57] >> Right now, I think that number is five

[3:41:00] to get to the 3,000. Five to six.

[3:41:02] >> Okay,

[3:41:05] >> Brian, just a quick question.

[3:41:07] >> Yeah.

[3:41:08] >> And let's say that the parking needs to

[3:41:12] be more than five. that your assumptions

[3:41:16] around

[3:41:18] um you know ride sharing, all those

[3:41:20] things just don't pan out the the way

[3:41:22] that you hope.

[3:41:24] >> Yeah.

[3:41:24] >> Um where does the extra parking go?

[3:41:27] >> The extra parking would go in the

[3:41:28] off-site parking, Craig. Um so we would

[3:41:32] identify right now we're actively trying

[3:41:34] to secure 2,000 additional stalls into

[3:41:37] in addition to everything we're doing

[3:41:38] right here. Um and we feel like there's

[3:41:41] adequate space. We we can't maybe share

[3:41:44] the details of that with everybody as

[3:41:46] much as we would like to just because

[3:41:47] they're not finalized right now. Um but

[3:41:49] our hope would be that before we come

[3:41:51] back on the 25th and certainly, you

[3:41:53] know, maybe a few weeks after that, we

[3:41:54] hope to have those 2,000 stalls secured.

[3:41:56] And so Craig, that's where we would pick

[3:41:58] up those additional stalls if necessary.

[3:42:01] >> Thank you.

[3:42:04] >> Okay, with all of that, that's a lot to

[3:42:06] digest. Thank you for letting me just

[3:42:08] get it all off my chest. Um, I guess

[3:42:11] maybe Vern, do you want would you like

[3:42:12] to weigh in and then if there are any

[3:42:13] other questions from the council

[3:42:14] members?

[3:42:16] >> That'd be great.

[3:42:19] » Um, let me start off by saying that uh

[3:42:22] we've had a lot of meetings with their

[3:42:24] team and these virtual meetings have

[3:42:27] been lengthy to say the least. Um,

[3:42:30] they've been a long um discussions and

[3:42:34] there have been some heartto-he heart

[3:42:35] discussions to the point where I've

[3:42:37] gotten animated a couple times. Okay,

[3:42:40] just tightening up. Um, what I really

[3:42:43] like is I like the circulation clip.

[3:42:46] That's that's really well done. What I

[3:42:48] also really like is the half interchange

[3:42:50] that we're getting. We just had another

[3:42:52] crash up there yesterday afternoon

[3:42:54] coming downhill. Um, so I love that

[3:42:58] we're going to see this whole five or

[3:43:01] six accesses combined into one and

[3:43:04] that's only going to promote more safety

[3:43:06] along the corridor. very dangerous

[3:43:08] corridor currently.

[3:43:10] Those are the positives. Another

[3:43:11] positive that I really like is the uh

[3:43:15] parking occupancy index pricing that

[3:43:18] they're going to do. I thought that was

[3:43:19] very creative. Come in here, if you're

[3:43:21] one or two, you're going to get charged

[3:43:23] higher than your three and four or five.

[3:43:26] I really thought that was creative. The

[3:43:28] other thing that I like, positive stuff

[3:43:31] that I like is it's not just one thing

[3:43:34] of just flooding the whole thing with

[3:43:36] parking. We got parking garage. We got

[3:43:38] service parking. We got trails. People

[3:43:41] can actually ride their bikes with

[3:43:43] covered bike parking up there and feel

[3:43:46] that they're going to come out of the

[3:43:48] concert all happy and see their bike

[3:43:49] there. Right. I also like the off street

[3:43:53] or the offside shuttle. I've personally

[3:43:56] been at concerts where I've taken a

[3:43:58] shuttle to the concert. I've done a

[3:44:00] patron of concert where I've gone by

[3:44:02] myself and I've gone with a load of

[3:44:04] eight people in the suburban right.

[3:44:08] So there's a lot of positives. Now where

[3:44:10] we've had disagreement and now we're in

[3:44:13] agreement is the 90% 10%

[3:44:17] um directional distribution directional

[3:44:20] split and we started off with 6535.

[3:44:24] We're now in agreement at the 9010. How

[3:44:27] we came to that just so you're aware the

[3:44:31] population of Salt Lake County, Utah

[3:44:33] County, Summit County, and Wasach County

[3:44:37] total that combined population summit

[3:44:40] and was made up only 4% of the

[3:44:43] population.

[3:44:45] However, with that being said, there are

[3:44:48] a lot of people up in Mil Creek Conway

[3:44:50] area that have direct easy access to

[3:44:53] I80, which is direct easy access to US

[3:44:56] 40, which is pretty direct access to US

[3:44:58] 189. So, we're very comfortable with the

[3:45:02] 9010 split or directional distribution

[3:45:04] that they come up with.

[3:45:07] um their team is working on some

[3:45:10] simplification

[3:45:11] of the planning associated with

[3:45:15] University Avenue, how long it takes to

[3:45:17] get to a certain point from University

[3:45:19] Avenue to the venue or to the to the um

[3:45:24] interchange at Mount Canyon. And then

[3:45:26] also on State Route 52, which is 800

[3:45:30] North, they [clears throat] are working

[3:45:32] on that too. So what our recommendation

[3:45:35] to them has been since we visited with

[3:45:37] them is to put these in minutes and

[3:45:40] seconds. People can relate to minutes

[3:45:42] and seconds. We're always get confused.

[3:45:46] Your perspective of congestion may be

[3:45:47] very different from my perspective of

[3:45:49] congestion. Right? When we talk level

[3:45:52] service D or level service A or level

[3:45:54] service failure, um that's different

[3:45:57] from someone moving from California than

[3:45:59] it is moving from Texas to here. Right?

[3:46:02] So everybody has a little bit different

[3:46:03] perspective but we all have one thing in

[3:46:05] common and that is time in minutes and

[3:46:07] seconds. So we expect that that will

[3:46:11] eventually be shown in the way that will

[3:46:13] be easily understandable not only to us

[3:46:16] but also to the public. Uh, I think

[3:46:19] that's the only thing I will say that uh

[3:46:22] when we talk about occupancy per

[3:46:24] vehicle, I was kind of at the three

[3:46:26] person thing, but they've done industry

[3:46:30] standard surveys and came up with the

[3:46:32] 3.5. So, I think there's some

[3:46:34] reasonleness to it. At the end of the

[3:46:37] day, I'm a guest reviewer basically,

[3:46:40] right? uh UD do is the permitting agency

[3:46:45] uh for this uh permit and access permit

[3:46:48] and what needs to be done.

[3:46:50] >> Any questions?

[3:46:52] Contin,

[3:46:53] >> can you explain

[3:46:56] their what that means for them to to you

[3:47:01] for you to pass off? What what's that

[3:47:03] process like? What does that mean?

[3:47:06] um

[3:47:09] they will have to submit an application

[3:47:11] because this is a private access and not

[3:47:14] a public access. So any public roads

[3:47:17] that we have that coming into um state

[3:47:21] routes in Purple City, I have to be the

[3:47:24] applicant for on behalf of Purple City

[3:47:26] because they're public roads. Because

[3:47:28] this is a private access, they have to

[3:47:30] be the applicant. And UD do will go

[3:47:32] through a pretty strict review of this

[3:47:35] intense traffic study. And some of the

[3:47:37] numbers that they'll get into are

[3:47:40] numbers that people just want to see in

[3:47:41] appendices. And some of the numbers

[3:47:43] they'll they'll push back on and some of

[3:47:46] the numbers they'll agree with just like

[3:47:47] I have. But they're the permitted

[3:47:50] agency, not us.

[3:47:52] >> And where is that dedicated right-hand

[3:47:55] turn lane from

[3:47:59] US 189 to 8 North in on the process? Is

[3:48:03] it going to be funded in five years?

[3:48:05] Should they not even have funding for

[3:48:06] it? Do they not care?

[3:48:09] Well, it's a better person to answer

[3:48:11] that, but I would say that it would need

[3:48:13] to be opening day,

[3:48:16] >> right? Is that what you're anticipating?

[3:48:17] >> 100%. And I think Becky, your question

[3:48:19] is where is you do stand in terms of the

[3:48:22] funding for that? Is that

[3:48:23] >> Yes. Yes. Because you know, normally

[3:48:25] that would go what? Through MAG and you

[3:48:27] guys would vote on that and or is that

[3:48:30] UD do state funding to get that done?

[3:48:34] And there's normally like a

[3:48:36] >> Yeah, you don't UD will not put money

[3:48:39] toward this. In fact, it's

[3:48:41] >> at the at the interchange at the mouth

[3:48:43] of the canyon. It's not even our

[3:48:45] regional transportation plan. It will be

[3:48:48] in this new update. I guarantee you

[3:48:50] that. There's been a lot of comments

[3:48:52] about that because we're starting to see

[3:48:54] congestion at the interchange at certain

[3:48:56] PM peak hours. So, UD do is not funding

[3:49:00] this. The private sector will be funding

[3:49:02] it. And what's nice about that is we get

[3:49:05] a 247 improvement

[3:49:08] to a roadway that is going to be used by

[3:49:12] the private sector three or four times a

[3:49:15] week.

[3:49:16] >> So you guys are going to be responsible

[3:49:18] to pay for that dedicated right-hand

[3:49:20] turn.

[3:49:21] >> So we will work with you do as through

[3:49:23] like a public private partnership

[3:49:25] relationship. Um,

[3:49:28] we are we are like Vern talked about, we

[3:49:31] are a small part of those that would use

[3:49:33] it. It it benefits the region and so the

[3:49:35] region UD do would have a have a role to

[3:49:37] play in paying for that improvement. So

[3:49:39] it would be a combined public private

[3:49:41] partnership with us and with UD do they

[3:49:43] don't have that on their map right now

[3:49:44] to Vern's point of of funding. Um, but I

[3:49:47] think with MAG, the 2027 is when they

[3:49:51] adopt the new MAG plan and then that

[3:49:53] those priorities are all situated and

[3:49:55] you know Karen Karen McCandless, Mayor

[3:49:58] Judkins, you know, all the mayors will

[3:49:59] be on there and they'll vote for the

[3:50:01] priorities of those things that then get

[3:50:02] translated to UD do and then they put it

[3:50:04] in their system. But yeah, it's it's got

[3:50:06] to be it's got to be funded and it's got

[3:50:08] to be part of part of the project.

[3:50:09] >> So, where are you with their private

[3:50:12] public partnership with have you

[3:50:14] applied? Have you had a conversation

[3:50:15] with them? And what's going on with

[3:50:17] that? Where are you at?

[3:50:18] >> That's a great question. We have to

[3:50:19] submit the application. Um, we've Sorry.

[3:50:22] We we've got to we've got to formalize

[3:50:24] our application and finalize that to UD

[3:50:26] do in order to have these conversations.

[3:50:28] So, we've had the preapp, we've started

[3:50:30] the process with UD do, we've had

[3:50:31] multiple conversations with them. Um,

[3:50:34] but that's the next step is we've got to

[3:50:36] get the overall project approved. We've

[3:50:38] got to get UD do to to to support the

[3:50:41] analysis that we've done. And then at

[3:50:43] that point, once that's all approved,

[3:50:45] then we go in and have that conversation

[3:50:47] in a much more in-depth way with them in

[3:50:49] terms of the public private partnership.

[3:50:51] But right now, UD do's looking at us

[3:50:52] saying, "Well, you don't you don't have

[3:50:53] a project. Until you get it approved

[3:50:55] through Provo City, there's not much we

[3:50:57] can do." So, we're having the

[3:50:58] conversations on the traffic analysis

[3:50:59] and those improvements that need to be

[3:51:01] made, but right now, they wouldn't talk

[3:51:03] about funding that until this is

[3:51:04] approved and we've moved moved further

[3:51:06] down the path.

[3:51:10] » Okay. Thank you. um Vern. So in we have

[3:51:14] 35 minutes. Let's um and I know the team

[3:51:19] started the meeting indicating they hope

[3:51:21] to leave with a list of questions that

[3:51:24] council member have council members have

[3:51:26] that they could answer.

[3:51:27] >> Yeah.

[3:51:28] >> Um I know they're willing to do

[3:51:29] additional meetings uh offline with

[3:51:31] individual council members. Um, I'd like

[3:51:34] to share part of my five minutes with

[3:51:36] Brian Jones. Uh, and he wanted to make

[3:51:40] some clarifying comments relative to

[3:51:42] this body, what roles we play and

[3:51:45] responsibilities we have.

[3:51:48] >> Great. Thanks, Gary. Um, so I have some

[3:51:51] comments I wanted to make and this is my

[3:51:54] comments are mostly actually directed at

[3:51:55] the public. The council already knows

[3:51:57] this. I think the applicant already

[3:51:59] knows this, but you as as you know,

[3:52:01] you've been getting a lot of public

[3:52:02] comment and um there are a few things I

[3:52:06] think that a few items that I think

[3:52:08] would help make that public comment more

[3:52:10] impactful. So, none of this is this is

[3:52:13] not intended to reduce public comment. I

[3:52:15] know that the council loves public

[3:52:17] engagement. This is essentially advice

[3:52:19] on how to make your comments more

[3:52:20] impactful by understanding the process

[3:52:22] better. So, the first thing that I

[3:52:24] wanted to say because of some of the

[3:52:25] comments we've been getting is that

[3:52:28] Provo operates under the council mayor

[3:52:30] form of government, which is actually

[3:52:31] pretty unusual in the state of Utah.

[3:52:33] There's not that many cities that

[3:52:34] operate under this form of government.

[3:52:36] It has strict separation of powers

[3:52:38] between the mayor and the and the

[3:52:40] council like the federal and the state

[3:52:42] system. So, it's actually illegal for

[3:52:45] the council to direct executive branch

[3:52:48] staff in the in the execution of their

[3:52:50] duties.

[3:52:52] However, the council is the final say on

[3:52:55] land use matters. So, land use

[3:52:57] applications go to the council. Uh, real

[3:53:00] estate transactions are a little bit

[3:53:01] weird because uh according to Supreme

[3:53:04] Court case law, they are an executive

[3:53:06] branch branch function, but they must be

[3:53:09] approved by the council. So, neither the

[3:53:12] council nor the executive branch can

[3:53:15] sell, dedicate, dispose of, including

[3:53:18] putting conservation easements on

[3:53:20] property by themselves. Both branches

[3:53:22] have to be involved in that.

[3:53:24] >> Um, just clarify what you mean by land

[3:53:26] use applications for the public.

[3:53:28] >> Yes. So, I'm talking about reszone the

[3:53:29] reszones and general plan uh map

[3:53:32] amendments. Right. So, those kind of

[3:53:33] applications are the are the council's

[3:53:35] domain. Um, the other thing that I

[3:53:38] wanted to address that I've heard is uh

[3:53:40] every applicant is entitled to a

[3:53:44] complete review of their application. So

[3:53:46] sometimes one of the things that I've

[3:53:47] started to hear more and more recently,

[3:53:48] not just on this project, is comments

[3:53:51] along the lines of, "Shame on you for

[3:53:53] letting this get this far in the process

[3:53:56] to directed at the council." Right? And

[3:53:58] so one of the things I wanted to say is

[3:54:01] in a system built on due process and

[3:54:03] property rights, applicants have the

[3:54:05] right to have their application fully

[3:54:07] vetted and fully heard. it would be just

[3:54:09] as inappropriate for the council to

[3:54:11] terminate someone's application before

[3:54:13] they've gone through the process as it

[3:54:15] would for them to approve it before the

[3:54:17] public got to comment on it. So that's

[3:54:19] just part of the part of the process.

[3:54:21] And the thing I would add on to that is

[3:54:24] the fact that it is on the agenda does

[3:54:26] not mean that there is a predisposal to

[3:54:28] approve it. The fact that it's on the

[3:54:30] agenda means someone has applied and

[3:54:32] we're going through the process. So

[3:54:35] directing comments towards the merits of

[3:54:37] the project instead of assumptions about

[3:54:40] why it's on the agenda in the first

[3:54:42] place, I think is much more useful when

[3:54:43] you're giving public feedback to the

[3:54:46] council.

[3:54:47] Uh development agreements, I wanted to

[3:54:49] talk really briefly about those. Um,

[3:54:52] development agreements happen when

[3:54:54] there's a reason application. And

[3:54:56] because the council is the body that

[3:54:59] approves reszones, they are the body

[3:55:00] that approves development agreements,

[3:55:02] which creates a weird situation because

[3:55:05] the council is the negotiating party,

[3:55:09] but they don't see the development

[3:55:10] agreement until the application comes to

[3:55:14] them in council meeting. So, there have

[3:55:16] been a lot of comments uh about the

[3:55:18] development agreement and why it's not

[3:55:20] farther along than it is. As I mentioned

[3:55:22] in one of the earlier agenda items

[3:55:24] today, the typical process is actually

[3:55:26] that the council doesn't even see

[3:55:28] development agreements until they're

[3:55:30] about ready to vote. And sometimes they

[3:55:32] don't even see the agreement. They just

[3:55:34] vote on the proposal and the agreement

[3:55:37] gets executed later. Sophisticated

[3:55:40] developers like Vesper [clears throat]

[3:55:42] sometimes will propose development

[3:55:43] agreements early, but that creates a

[3:55:46] two-step process where staff is re at up

[3:55:50] to this point has been reviewing the

[3:55:51] development agreement to help the

[3:55:54] developer clarify what their proposal

[3:55:57] is. The fact that we have a draft in

[3:56:00] hand does not mean staff is already 100%

[3:56:03] signed off on it, that the executive

[3:56:05] branch is already ready to recommend

[3:56:07] approval of that. It means that we have

[3:56:10] a clarified proposal of what the

[3:56:13] developer is willing to profer ready for

[3:56:15] the council to review and give feedback

[3:56:17] on and ask for changes to and and say

[3:56:21] which parts they're not satisfied with

[3:56:24] which leads into uh the point that I

[3:56:26] have for the council which is I know

[3:56:28] we're this is probably a vain hope in

[3:56:31] the amount of time that we have left but

[3:56:33] what staff is really hoping for from the

[3:56:35] council is not just comments back to the

[3:56:38] developer about additional information

[3:56:40] that they need. But the things that you

[3:56:43] think are deficient about both of the

[3:56:45] agreements, the things that you as a

[3:56:48] council want to see changed both in

[3:56:50] terms of uh things that are missing or

[3:56:53] things that you want changed. And again,

[3:56:55] because you act as a body, be very

[3:56:57] helpful to the degree possible that

[3:56:59] those things are presented through

[3:57:00] motions so that we know what the body

[3:57:02] wants rather than individual counselors.

[3:57:06] Um,

[3:57:08] and that I think that's everything I

[3:57:09] had. Any questions about any of that?

[3:57:13] >> You just address

[3:57:15] the OSPR question.

[3:57:18] >> Oh, yes. So, one of the That's a great

[3:57:20] question. So, one of the public feedback

[3:57:22] items that we've received so far, was

[3:57:24] there was a comment that was submitted

[3:57:26] that said that the OSPR, which the open

[3:57:29] space and preservation uh zone, which is

[3:57:32] one of the city zones, and it applies to

[3:57:34] this property, that it requires

[3:57:37] legally that if any property is taken

[3:57:39] out of that zone, an equal amount of

[3:57:41] property must be placed back into the

[3:57:43] zone. And the contention was it would be

[3:57:46] illegal for the city to reszone this

[3:57:48] property without reszoning other

[3:57:50] property.

[3:57:52] If you look at the zone, that phrase

[3:57:55] came out of the purposes and objective

[3:57:57] section at the beginning of the chapter

[3:57:59] and it doesn't it doesn't include the

[3:58:01] entire sentence. The sentence starts

[3:58:03] with it is intended that and then it

[3:58:07] continues on and says that about the

[3:58:09] replacement. So that contention is that

[3:58:13] it's an accurate statement about what

[3:58:14] the council through the city code has

[3:58:17] said about policy objectives in the

[3:58:20] past. It is not a legal requirement. So

[3:58:23] it is not illegal to remove property

[3:58:25] from the OSPR without replacing it.

[3:58:29] >> Any other questions about that?

[3:58:30] >> Great. Thank you, Brian. Very helpful.

[3:58:33] Um Travis, can should we start with you?

[3:58:36] >> I'll come back.

[3:58:37] >> Okay, Jeff. Well, actually, can I say

[3:58:40] this?

[3:58:40] >> Uhhuh.

[3:58:41] >> Brian was telling me that there's a few

[3:58:43] things that he would really like to come

[3:58:45] away with from this meeting. And so, I

[3:58:48] guess I just want to be cognizant of

[3:58:49] that because if we don't, then we kind

[3:58:51] of have to have another meeting,

[3:58:52] >> right? Um, which we probably will have

[3:58:54] to have more meetings anyways. But I

[3:58:56] just I guess I just wanted to bring that

[3:58:57] up like I don't necessarily need all of

[3:59:00] my questions addressed today, but if

[3:59:02] Brian and staff are like, "Hey, we

[3:59:03] really need these answered from the

[3:59:05] council." I'd be willing to give my time

[3:59:07] up for that. So, I just wanted to throw

[3:59:10] that out there that if we're short on

[3:59:12] time, there might be things we want to

[3:59:13] say. Brian, what do you need to know

[3:59:15] from us? I So, sorry not to cut Jeff off

[3:59:18] or anybody else can talk whatever say

[3:59:20] whatever they want, but I just wanted to

[3:59:22] >> make sure we're covering what we really

[3:59:24] need to cover today.

[3:59:24] >> I appreciate that, Councilman. The two

[3:59:26] most important from my perspective

[3:59:27] actually have to do with the purchase

[3:59:29] agreement and not with the development

[3:59:30] agreement. And that is there's been a

[3:59:32] lot of discussion about whether this big gate structured framework is

[3:59:37] workable or not. And if you've seen the

[3:59:39] latest draft, one of the things that it

[3:59:41] has changed from previous drafts is it defines which gates are under the

[3:59:46] council's control, which are the ones

[3:59:47] about the property transaction. Well,

[3:59:50] the whole reason we're doing this gate

[3:59:52] structure is because we just haven't

[3:59:53] answered any of those questions yet. But

[3:59:55] if the council as a body could tell us

[3:59:58] today

[3:59:59] how much and again I want to make clear

[4:00:02] that by answering these questions you're

[4:00:04] not preapproving the project or even

[4:00:06] suggesting that you're in favor of it's

[4:00:08] more like what would the answer have to

[4:00:10] be for you to even consider it further

[4:00:12] right and the two questions are what

[4:00:15] property would you be willing to sell

[4:00:18] whether the exact acreage and legal

[4:00:20] description of what you would be willing

[4:00:21] to sell whether it's the entire parcel

[4:00:23] or just the parcel that they're

[4:00:25] developing uh is a really important

[4:00:27] question for that document. The other

[4:00:29] one is they've proposed a land trade and

[4:00:32] they've proposed a specific piece of

[4:00:33] specific parcel for the trade. Is that

[4:00:36] parcel acceptable for you as a trade? If

[4:00:39] you answered those two questions, the

[4:00:41] entire face of the real estate purchase

[4:00:43] agreement could could change between now

[4:00:45] and the next meeting and look more like

[4:00:48] a regular purchase agreement where

[4:00:50] there's just exhibits with the with the

[4:00:53] property descriptions and you're just

[4:00:55] doing a regular land deal instead of

[4:00:57] these gates.

[4:00:59] >> Great. Thank you.

[4:01:01] uh councelor Whitlock

[4:01:04] other things you need from them that

[4:01:05] you'd like them to address more

[4:01:08] information that to get to you or and

[4:01:10] again they can schedule oneoffs as well.

[4:01:14] Yeah, I I [clears throat] think I have a

[4:01:17] lot of questions, but I'm not necess of

[4:01:19] them are actually

[4:01:21] to the city also. Um I'd have to

[4:01:25] organize my thoughts if I if I ones that

[4:01:28] are specifically like outstanding

[4:01:29] questions to the the developer, but I'll

[4:01:32] just list them and people can decide. So

[4:01:34] one of the questions I have is um so

[4:01:37] [clears throat] we have we have in our code a certain requirement of

[4:01:43] number of parking stalls per se. I think

[4:01:46] it's 4 to one. And I'm curious if if

[4:01:50] this if the city staff or if the

[4:01:51] developer knows

[4:01:54] are there any venues close to that size

[4:01:56] that are parked to code like for example

[4:01:57] the Marriott Center actually parked to

[4:02:00] code at that ratio

[4:02:02] is LLA or stadium.

[4:02:07] » That's a question I'd like to understand

[4:02:08] just because I think it helps it would

[4:02:09] help us and the public can see kind of

[4:02:12] the ratios we're talking about. Another

[4:02:15] question I have is um

[4:02:18] >> but but specifically Jeff the 4:1 number

[4:02:20] because it's in the city's provo city's

[4:02:22] code.

[4:02:23] >> Yeah, that would be about 5,000 sold

[4:02:25] you're talking about doing actually

[4:02:26] you're thinking about being a little bit

[4:02:27] less than that but I imagine we give

[4:02:28] them an exemption on that but I'm not

[4:02:30] >> when you when you add the hotel and when

[4:02:33] you add the retail the the calculation I

[4:02:35] think was 5,125 or something like that.

[4:02:38] >> That's right. That's makes sense to me.

[4:02:42] Uh, another thing is that that there's a

[4:02:45] line in the development agreement um

[4:02:50] that says consider and where appropriate

[4:02:53] support and administer ting tax

[4:02:55] increment financing. and and I was just

[4:02:58] I'm very curious about more details on

[4:02:59] that like what I I know it's early to to

[4:03:04] um get all the specifics about that. But

[4:03:06] even if there's like a proposed

[4:03:08] framework or understanding of like what

[4:03:09] the ask will be because I feel like

[4:03:11] within that language, we could move

[4:03:14] forward and find the ask is a 9010 split

[4:03:16] on a $10 million cap or $20 million cap

[4:03:19] because that's ultimately what would

[4:03:20] require to get this pencil on their end

[4:03:23] and that puts us in a bit of an awkward

[4:03:24] position. Now, I think the develop I

[4:03:27] think development will allow us at that

[4:03:28] point to pull back, but is that any

[4:03:30] that's I have questions around that. Um,

[4:03:32] I think that's what I have for now. I'd

[4:03:34] have to look at my notes a little bit

[4:03:34] more.

[4:03:35] >> Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Councelor Bogden,

[4:03:39] >> I think we need to get to Brian's

[4:03:41] questions as well. I think I'm

[4:03:45] I've asked a lot of public questions

[4:03:47] here, but the one thing that I would

[4:03:49] need to know before I could say how much

[4:03:52] land are we willing to sell or willing

[4:03:53] not to sell is what is your thing for

[4:03:57] the conservation ement? Because to me, I

[4:04:00] would say no, I'll only sell you this

[4:04:02] much land and we'll put this in the

[4:04:03] conservation easement. But I need to

[4:04:05] know that before I can make that one

[4:04:08] decision that Brian wants today.

[4:04:10] >> Okay. But I guess are you saying by that you would be willing to sell them

[4:04:14] the entire parcel if the conservation

[4:04:16] easement specifics met your approval? Is

[4:04:19] that fair?

[4:04:21] >> Okay.

[4:04:24] » Follow-up question, council.

[4:04:25] >> Sorry, I've got my I got my my notes

[4:04:27] together now. So the other uh

[4:04:31] the other question I'd like to see this

[4:04:32] is for the developers is or or the

[4:04:34] Vesper project is you gave this

[4:04:38] distribution of of um people coming into

[4:04:41] the venue which I think was very

[4:04:42] helpful. Thank you. That's a great

[4:04:43] analysis. And then you asserted at the

[4:04:46] end it's going to be similar leaving.

[4:04:48] That was contradictory to my experience

[4:04:50] having experienced events is people

[4:04:52] leave a lot faster than they come. like

[4:04:53] you go to BYU game day and you it's a

[4:04:55] slow trickle in and then everyone leaves

[4:04:57] at once.

[4:04:58] >> So I would like to see data backing up

[4:04:59] that assertion because it it ring ring

[4:05:02] untrue to me.

[4:05:02] >> Yeah.

[4:05:03] >> Um another another question I had is um

[4:05:08] what so again this might be hard

[4:05:11] difficult to do but even if it's just

[4:05:12] thoughts or frameworks. So you mentioned

[4:05:14] there's going to need to be some private

[4:05:15] public partnership in funding the

[4:05:18] overpass. Are there any other elements

[4:05:20] of infrastructure investments that will

[4:05:22] require public support? And I understand

[4:05:25] that there will be additional public

[4:05:26] benefits apart from this arena or uh

[4:05:30] amphitheater, but that's something I

[4:05:31] would like to understand better to the

[4:05:32] degree that you can share it. Again, I

[4:05:34] understand it might be limited. Um, and

[4:05:37] then

[4:05:39] this is something you shared a little

[4:05:40] bit and I have a better understanding

[4:05:42] after a recent meeting I have, but um,

[4:05:45] one of the me one of the big concerns I

[4:05:47] think from the planning commission was

[4:05:49] sort of the the rate of utilization.

[4:05:51] It's been said here a couple times

[4:05:52] tonight of it'll be two to three shows a

[4:05:54] week or three to four shows a week. I

[4:05:56] I'd like to understand a little bit

[4:05:58] better. I'm not saying I think from your

[4:06:01] incentives, you're incentivized to do as

[4:06:02] many shows there as possible,

[4:06:03] >> right? But I think um

[4:06:07] is there like is there any a willingness

[4:06:09] or agreement to to sort of put

[4:06:11] parameters on that because I guess I

[4:06:13] think the public the worst outcome from

[4:06:15] the public in this situation is 365

[4:06:18] shows a year and again this is probably

[4:06:19] practically unrealistic because there's

[4:06:20] a market capacity but I'm just

[4:06:22] illustrating an extreme example. Yeah.

[4:06:24] 365 shows a year at various times. We

[4:06:27] are getting an assertion from you all

[4:06:28] that this will be a couple shows a week

[4:06:30] and it'll be perfectly land sort of

[4:06:32] where people come in off sites pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe peak hours and people leave

[4:06:35] out of peak hours but is that always

[4:06:37] going to p be the case like will a show

[4:06:39] on Saturday start at 2 p.m. example, in

[4:06:41] which case it would land right on the

[4:06:43] problematic area. So, details on that

[4:06:46] would be helpful.

[4:06:48] Last, this is probably more of a public

[4:06:50] works question, but I'm curious about

[4:06:52] storm drain and the river. This is a lot

[4:06:54] of added concrete right next to Pro

[4:06:57] River and that's something that I given

[4:06:59] just the council's emphasis on river

[4:07:01] health and river quality, that's

[4:07:03] something that I have questions about.

[4:07:04] And then Brian to answer your questions,

[4:07:07] I would personally be more comfortable

[4:07:08] with just selling the land they need.

[4:07:10] Um,

[4:07:13] in sort of a roundabout like I the sort

[4:07:15] of sell the land and then give it back

[4:07:17] to you in terms of conservation seems a

[4:07:19] bit convoluted. I think just sell the

[4:07:21] land they need and it seems the

[4:07:23] cleanest. That's my that's my initial

[4:07:25] reaction. And then to the second

[4:07:27] question, I need to look at it more. I

[4:07:29] don't know if I can answer that today.

[4:07:30] Sorry. That's 25.

[4:07:31] >> And can we get the questions, Brian,

[4:07:34] that everybody asks to the entire

[4:07:36] council, not just to each individual

[4:07:38] council member, please?

[4:07:40] >> Yeah, sure.

[4:07:41] >> Something that even because a lot of

[4:07:42] these are public questions as well,

[4:07:44] >> right?

[4:07:45] >> Something that we can share with the

[4:07:47] public as well.

[4:07:48] >> Yeah. So, you're just asking for a list

[4:07:49] of the questions that are being asked.

[4:07:51] >> Well, as you respond to them, let's

[4:07:53] circulate the information. Got Yeah,

[4:07:55] >> because you know his questions are going

[4:07:57] to overlap with mine, but I'm going to

[4:07:59] wait for mine because we have so much

[4:08:02] time and we've got things that we've got

[4:08:03] to get done.

[4:08:04] >> Right. Okay.

[4:08:05] >> Okay. Let's move to our counselors um

[4:08:07] online. Um let's start with councelor

[4:08:10] Katrice Mccay and then councelor Rachel

[4:08:12] Whipple and then councelor Craig

[4:08:14] Christensen. Katrice.

[4:08:28] » Rachel, are you ready? Would you like to

[4:08:30] go ahead while I text Krice?

[4:08:32] >> Um, yes, I can. Go ahead. So, a lot of

[4:08:35] my questions have to do with the

[4:08:37] conservation easement or not. Um,

[4:08:41] thinking about it, I would think that a

[4:08:43] conservation easement on this would be

[4:08:45] pretty expensive because you're selling

[4:08:47] the right to develop and we've already

[4:08:49] proven that this area is a viable quarry

[4:08:52] and everything. So, I'm a little

[4:08:55] concerned about,

[4:08:57] you know, those potentially expensive

[4:09:00] development rights and extraction rights

[4:09:03] making the conservation easement really

[4:09:05] expensive. Um I would also want to have

[4:09:10] some kind of binding commitment about

[4:09:13] the terms of the conservation easement.

[4:09:16] Um you know I would want in that area

[4:09:19] protected to have no commercial, no

[4:09:21] residential and no further extraction

[4:09:25] um activities. I would be happy to have

[4:09:29] trails there. I think it would make

[4:09:30] sense possibly to have restrooms there

[4:09:33] as like trail head support. Um, I would

[4:09:37] even be okay with something like a

[4:09:38] pavilion or something, you know, so you

[4:09:40] can like a little nature school or

[4:09:43] something like that. But I would want

[4:09:46] this area to be very strictly bounded so

[4:09:50] that the concerns of commercial creep

[4:09:54] would be addressed. So like no tram.

[4:09:57] We're definitely not building a tram up

[4:09:58] the mountain from the amphitheater.

[4:10:00] Something like that. If we go with the

[4:10:05] alternate proposal where the city only

[4:10:07] sells the land that will be necessary

[4:10:09] for the development, I understand that can't be fully defined until after

[4:10:15] all of the geotechnical studies and

[4:10:17] other things are done because the

[4:10:19] buildings may need to be adjusted on the

[4:10:20] site. And so there may be a little bit

[4:10:22] of of wiggling on what the exact shape

[4:10:26] of the land to be conveyed would be. Um,

[4:10:29] but if we don't sell all the land, I

[4:10:32] would really like to explore doing some

[4:10:34] sort of a partnership with Vesper to do

[4:10:39] trail improvements on the land that

[4:10:41] remains in Provo City so that we would

[4:10:45] still have that enhanced outdoor space

[4:10:48] access for recreation opportunities for

[4:10:51] our community. So, I basically I'm I'm

[4:10:56] saying I'd want to have trail

[4:10:58] improvements on on an area that we own.

[4:11:02] Um

[4:11:05] I also have questions with that where

[4:11:09] the gun club ends up being if it needs

[4:11:12] to be relocated. I think that the gun

[4:11:16] club use probably is not super

[4:11:18] compatible with an amphitheater use and

[4:11:21] so it probably would need to be

[4:11:23] relocated even if we aren't selling the

[4:11:25] exact land out from under the gun club

[4:11:28] and so I'd like to know a little bit

[4:11:30] more about that. I haven't gotten to go

[4:11:33] shooting there yet, but I understand

[4:11:34] that it's a really popular facility and

[4:11:37] so I want to keep that as an asset for

[4:11:39] our community. But I also recognize that

[4:11:42] if we move it, there will need to be

[4:11:44] some sort of sight mitigation because of

[4:11:46] the lead and shells and other things

[4:11:49] that have frankly contaminated that area

[4:11:52] through its use of the gun club. So I

[4:11:55] want us to be able to look into that

[4:12:00] on the parking everything. I I do repeat

[4:12:07] Jeff's skepticism about the exit times.

[4:12:11] People generally do want to all leave at

[4:12:13] the same time because the thing is done

[4:12:15] unless you're doing I don't know some

[4:12:18] sort of after show things to entice a

[4:12:20] portion of the people to stay longer. Um

[4:12:23] but it's not like people are are

[4:12:25] generally leaving,

[4:12:27] you know, in the fifth inning or

[4:12:29] something. So I'm I'm concerned about

[4:12:32] that.

[4:12:34] And while Vern

[4:12:37] really wanted to push it to the 9010

[4:12:40] split coming from Heber, I've been

[4:12:43] talking to some people who do live in

[4:12:45] the Park City, Heber, Midway, and a lot

[4:12:50] of them are actually quite excited about

[4:12:51] this. They're looking at doing another

[4:12:55] kind of amphitheater venue up there on

[4:12:57] the other side of the canyon to be much

[4:12:58] smaller than this. But even though

[4:13:01] there's a smaller portion of the

[4:13:03] population there,

[4:13:05] um the

[4:13:07] I think there's likely a good portion of

[4:13:12] those residents who would have the

[4:13:14] disposable income to come down and

[4:13:17] attend

[4:13:19] um events at this venue. So, I think it

[4:13:22] may be more than 10%, but I'm I'm happy

[4:13:26] that Vern is acting as our skeptical

[4:13:28] traffic guard and and policing them and

[4:13:33] examining their numbers for us.

[4:13:37] I'm I'm really happy to see how much

[4:13:41] this has changed. I think some changes

[4:13:43] are are still appropriate, but I think

[4:13:47] the biggest concern that I have right

[4:13:48] now is how we end up surrounding the

[4:13:52] project so that there is no creep so

[4:13:56] that it remains fully defined now and in

[4:13:59] perpetuity.

[4:14:03] » Thank you, Rachel. Well, well said,

[4:14:06] Councelor McKay.

[4:14:12] » Hey. Okay. Um, [clears throat] okay. So,

[4:14:16] it talks about the number 20,000. My

[4:14:19] question is, does does this amphitheater

[4:14:22] have grass seating?

[4:14:27] » Um,

[4:14:28] >> like is it going to have seating beyond

[4:14:29] the bench seats?

[4:14:32] Right now we've just we've just

[4:14:33] anticipated it all being uh in seats but

[4:14:36] there will be grass in the area Crice.

[4:14:38] Um

[4:14:40] >> but you will not be selling tickets to

[4:14:42] those grass seats.

[4:14:44] >> No.

[4:14:45] >> Okay. I would like that to be defined in

[4:14:47] the

[4:14:48] development agreement because I think

[4:14:50] that when you be really specific that

[4:14:53] you know we couldn't increase a capacity

[4:14:55] through grass.

[4:14:57] Um, now the trails, I didn't notice in

[4:15:00] the development agreement that there was

[4:15:04] information about the trails. It's

[4:15:05] really important to me that we connect

[4:15:06] all the trails. Um,

[4:15:09] and I know that that was important to

[4:15:11] you guys. So, I just want to make sure

[4:15:13] that that is spelled out and will and

[4:15:18] that the trails will be usable even when

[4:15:20] events are going on. Like when you have

[4:15:21] events at Sundance, per se, you can

[4:15:23] still go up and hike or walk around or

[4:15:27] like you're not infringed upon or like

[4:15:29] limited in going around.

[4:15:33] Um, so that's something I was thinking

[4:15:35] about. Um, there's a big concern about

[4:15:39] the commercial

[4:15:41] and when I've talked to you, you've said

[4:15:43] that it will indeed just be merch of the

[4:15:47] artist while they're in concert. I think

[4:15:49] we need to be much more specific about

[4:15:50] that so that we don't have like the the

[4:15:53] mall that people are terrified is going

[4:15:55] to come up the canyon. Um we don't want

[4:16:00] spots

[4:16:02] to be leased for commercial ventures.

[4:16:05] Now, I'm sure there will be events, you

[4:16:07] know, where you do pop-up tents and

[4:16:08] farmers markets or things like that, and

[4:16:10] that's fine, but I want to make sure

[4:16:12] that there's not commercial spa, that

[4:16:15] we're not building out commercial space

[4:16:17] up there, except for the artist merch to

[4:16:20] be bought.

[4:16:22] Um, now the food places, now the food

[4:16:26] places, are they going to be running

[4:16:28] even when the amphitheater is not going

[4:16:29] on? And I do hope they are. I hope that

[4:16:31] you're having food in restaurants that

[4:16:33] will be available to the bikers and

[4:16:34] hikers and visitors to the canyon.

[4:16:38] Do is there a plan that those are going

[4:16:40] to be open all the time? And I'm sure

[4:16:41] there'll be more during a concert, but

[4:16:43] that there will be still

[4:16:46] food places that are open.

[4:16:48] >> Yeah, we we'd have the we'd have the

[4:16:49] hotel Krice that would obviously need

[4:16:51] some of those services. So, the exact

[4:16:53] number I don't know, but yeah, we will

[4:16:55] have we will have something up there

[4:16:56] that would be full-time for the

[4:16:57] restaurants

[4:16:59] >> that the public can access.

[4:17:00] >> Correct.

[4:17:01] >> Okay.

[4:17:04] Um

[4:17:07] I'm happy with the open space stuff, all

[4:17:09] of that.

[4:17:11] Um when after this after everything's

[4:17:15] completed and we know the exact

[4:17:17] conservation amount, not not amount but

[4:17:20] location of where it is. Um will you

[4:17:24] have to reveate that conservation? I

[4:17:26] didn't notice that in the development

[4:17:28] agreement.

[4:17:32] » I think that's what it says, but we we

[4:17:34] can double check for sure. That's the

[4:17:35] intent is that we would want that

[4:17:37] reveated and looking good as quickly as

[4:17:38] we could get it. Right now you have the

[4:17:41] noise weekends till midnight and

[4:17:43] weekdays till 11. I know I go to Deer

[4:17:46] Valley regularly and their their shut

[4:17:48] off is 10 o'clock and I think that's

[4:17:52] more appropriate. I think 10 on

[4:17:53] weekdays, 11 on weekends. I think that

[4:17:56] it's just not necessary to be 11 and

[4:17:57] midnight. That seems too late.

[4:18:00] Um

[4:18:02] I like that the parking's limited to

[4:18:03] acres. I think that was a smart move.

[4:18:05] Um,

[4:18:08] I am worried about the 3.5 per vehicle.

[4:18:14] I don't know. I'm I'm worried that about

[4:18:16] those

[4:18:19] um projections and I am worried about

[4:18:21] the

[4:18:22] we still don't have enough numbers

[4:18:24] because like absolutely the 800 always

[4:18:27] having an automatic right turn is an

[4:18:28] absolute necessity and all these things

[4:18:31] but supposedly you're paying you're

[4:18:33] going to have to pay for all of them

[4:18:34] which seems infeasible. So, I we need a

[4:18:37] better idea from you do or

[4:18:40] exactly how much these things are going

[4:18:42] to cost and what you guys are going to

[4:18:45] do and what you're going to expect help

[4:18:47] with, whether it's from the county or

[4:18:49] you do

[4:18:51] or um anyone else.

[4:18:54] That just still feels like a big

[4:18:55] unknown.

[4:19:00] And that's all I got.

[4:19:03] >> Thank you, Katrice. Councelor

[4:19:05] Christensen,

[4:19:08] >> I think most of my uh questions have

[4:19:10] been answered. Um I had a chance to

[4:19:12] connect with Brian this past weekend. It

[4:19:13] was very helpful. Brian, um I would just

[4:19:15] weigh in. I'm not sure why we would sell

[4:19:19] land and then have that turned back into

[4:19:22] a conservation easement. I mean, the

[4:19:23] city can do that. Uh I I wouldn't see

[4:19:26] selling any more land than was needed

[4:19:28] for the site. Um, I would like to see,

[4:19:31] as Becky pointed out, I would like to

[4:19:32] see elevations of that parking lot as

[4:19:34] you come north into that canyon. Um, how

[4:19:38] that parking lot lays out uh would make

[4:19:40] a difference. So, seeing seeing

[4:19:42] elevations that would be helpful. Um, I

[4:19:46] also I haven't seen the uh the proformer

[4:19:49] that you put together for the in the

[4:19:50] economic impact. Um, and I think it was

[4:19:54] is it 2.3 million, Brian? Is it is that

[4:19:57] right?

[4:19:57] >> Yes.

[4:19:58] So, um

[4:20:01] I would imagine that that actually

[4:20:03] becomes a bigger number over time as you the venue becomes more mature in

[4:20:08] terms of its booking. Uh part of the

[4:20:11] benefit of this big vision is the

[4:20:14] economic impact.

[4:20:16] Um wouldn't we see you've talked about

[4:20:19] um you know when we talked on Saturday

[4:20:21] you know you've talked about a few you

[4:20:24] know like half a dozen or eight or nine

[4:20:26] I don't remember the exact number you

[4:20:28] know 20,000 uh seat events uh seems like

[4:20:32] it would be in the best economic

[4:20:35] development sense to see that be a much

[4:20:38] bigger number and I think you had said

[4:20:41] that that could actually grow and

[4:20:43] develop over time. So, I'd like to see

[4:20:45] what the projections are because that's

[4:20:49] part of the attraction here is the

[4:20:50] economic development. So, um I'd like to

[4:20:54] see what that what those big, you know,

[4:20:57] 20,000 seat uh events look like as that

[4:21:01] grows and matures or as the venue itself

[4:21:04] matures. Does that make sense, Brian?

[4:21:06] >> Yes.

[4:21:08] And that number, Craig, that number is

[4:21:10] in the fiscal impact analysis in terms

[4:21:12] of a growth factor. Um and it assumes it

[4:21:15] assumes the the model the annual model

[4:21:17] assumes kind of um that it's stabilized.

[4:21:21] So it wouldn't be it wouldn't be in the

[4:21:23] first few years. But we can take a look

[4:21:24] a little closer a little more closely at

[4:21:26] that to make sure it addresses that

[4:21:27] question. Craig.

[4:21:29] >> Yeah, that's that's all I had. Thank

[4:21:31] you.

[4:21:31] >> Well, Craig, one thing I want to I want

[4:21:33] to bring up is this is that's 2.3 to our

[4:21:36] bottom line. So that's after it's all

[4:21:40] that's not the gross sales tax revenue.

[4:21:42] is something

[4:21:43] like 500 million or something like that

[4:21:46] but ultimately only a portion of that

[4:21:48] comes back to Provo because

[4:21:50] >> correct

[4:21:50] >> you know the county

[4:21:51] >> correct part anyway I just want to make

[4:21:53] sure that that yeah

[4:21:55] >> yeah if the top line grows the bottom

[4:21:56] line is going to grow as well. I was

[4:21:58] just wondering what does that as the as

[4:22:02] the venue matures in terms of ticketing

[4:22:05] and sales and things like that, what do

[4:22:08] what does a 20,000 event uh frequency

[4:22:11] look like as it matures because that

[4:22:14] would impact that would have a huge

[4:22:15] impact on on that number that eventually

[4:22:18] trickles down to Provo.

[4:22:22] >> Yep. No, that makes sense, Craig.

[4:22:25] >> Thank you, Craig.

[4:22:26] [clears throat and cough]

[4:22:27] As I consider the um emails that come to

[4:22:30] the council members, I I review them. I

[4:22:33] put them into categories. What concerns

[4:22:36] are? They clearly by a large percentage

[4:22:38] fit into two areas. One is the

[4:22:41] conservation preservation um category

[4:22:44] and second is traffic flow congestion

[4:22:49] um how we'll treat the the inflow and

[4:22:51] outflow. It's been helpful today to get

[4:22:54] this additional information and as you

[4:22:57] convey any any more details in those

[4:23:00] areas, that's really the most feedback

[4:23:02] that we're getting from residents is are

[4:23:06] those two issues.

[4:23:08] Um,

[4:23:11] and I think more information I did see

[4:23:13] more information recently

[4:23:16] uh released on uh numbers of events that

[4:23:19] might be I know early on even in the

[4:23:22] planning commission meeting Brian um you

[4:23:25] mentioned we were unsure still as to how

[4:23:27] many events but I've seen specific

[4:23:29] numbers recently and I'm not sure if

[4:23:30] they're accurate um Spencer but

[4:23:33] [clears throat]

[4:23:33] something like 10 large events per year

[4:23:35] and 100 smaller events

[4:23:38] So, I don't [clears throat] know if

[4:23:39] that's accurate, but I know more

[4:23:41] information is trickling now related to

[4:23:42] that to that as well.

[4:23:45] >> I think Gary to address that concern, I

[4:23:47] think it makes sense for us to put

[4:23:48] together just kind of a high level of

[4:23:50] some of the assumptions that we're

[4:23:51] making on that. Yeah,

[4:23:52] >> we worked with Cody on some of those

[4:23:54] assumptions as well and he kind of ran

[4:23:55] some assumptions. But yeah, the bigger

[4:23:57] that number is, the more traffic impact

[4:23:59] it has, but the the bigger the financial

[4:24:01] benefit strength is.

[4:24:02] >> Okay.

[4:24:04] Well, Brian, uh, Tom, Spencer, Shane,

[4:24:08] David, thank you all for coming and

[4:24:10] being part of this meeting. It was very

[4:24:11] helpful to have us all together in a

[4:24:13] public meeting and, uh, be able to

[4:24:16] address some of these issues. So, I know

[4:24:18] you're still willing to meet in smaller

[4:24:20] groups as we as we have questions. That

[4:24:23] invitation stands, but we appreciate

[4:24:25] your time and help here today.

[4:24:28] >> Thank you. Now, do we need to make

[4:24:30] specific motions on anything or

[4:24:32] >> counselors?

[4:24:34] I just texted Brian, but I'll just say

[4:24:36] it out loud. I was going to think uh

[4:24:38] next steps possibly

[4:24:40] gonna pitch this idea and I can workshop

[4:24:43] it is that we'd come back to another

[4:24:45] work meeting where perhaps Tanner who's

[4:24:48] been leading in our office on the

[4:24:50] analysis of all the documents best has

[4:24:52] sent and then Brian and then Bill from

[4:24:55] administration as well or Bill or

[4:24:57] someone else from planning could lead

[4:24:59] the discussion with Besper here as well

[4:25:01] to try and get motions and clarification

[4:25:04] on council

[4:25:05] desires majority majority desires for

[4:25:07] the development agreement and a purchase

[4:25:09] agreement. I think a work meeting where

[4:25:12] we do that after we get followup from

[4:25:14] you on the questions the council just

[4:25:16] had on all that additional information

[4:25:18] that would be a very productive work

[4:25:20] meeting. But I want to see if council if

[4:25:22] you have feedback on that as far as our

[4:25:24] next step in this process if you're okay

[4:25:26] with that.

[4:25:27] >> Yeah, just to piggyback on that. I I I

[4:25:30] would agree. I think I mean what I've

[4:25:32] seen so far is that again I think

[4:25:34] there's still a sense there's a lot of

[4:25:35] unknowns and I always hesitate to try to

[4:25:38] push you for decisions when you still

[4:25:40] have questions. One because it's not

[4:25:43] fair and two because you won't do it.

[4:25:45] [laughter] And so so uh I think that's I

[4:25:48] think that's probably wise. I think one

[4:25:50] of the things that we can probably do

[4:25:51] internally and I'd like to coordinate

[4:25:53] this with Malia and and Tanner but I

[4:25:55] think we can probably try to even before

[4:25:58] such a work session try to send you

[4:26:01] lists of things that we have compiled

[4:26:04] from your comments to say okay I heard

[4:26:06] only heard this from one person but does

[4:26:08] it does everybody agree with it and and

[4:26:11] it and they just didn't say that because

[4:26:12] it was already said or and try to try to

[4:26:15] get some of that stuff kind of worked

[4:26:16] out even before we get to such a late

[4:26:18] session. Okay,

[4:26:19] >> Brian, I had a question for you.

[4:26:20] Something that might be helpful is I I

[4:26:24] really appreciate the flexibility and

[4:26:26] some of the recent changes to the

[4:26:27] difference or sorry the the uh

[4:26:30] development agreement with the different

[4:26:31] gates and I think we talked previously

[4:26:33] that they're discretionary on the

[4:26:35] council. I think it'd be helpful from

[4:26:38] probably you're the right person to give

[4:26:39] us guidance on what are the questions

[4:26:41] and concerns that are appropriate to

[4:26:44] seek um answers to and and and if

[4:26:48] they're determining factors for us at

[4:26:50] the vote for that versus ones which are

[4:26:52] fair and appropriate to hold off until

[4:26:54] after that stage gate.

[4:26:56] >> Okay.

[4:26:56] >> Does that make sense?

[4:26:59] any guidance would be just helpful

[4:27:01] because like there there may be some

[4:27:02] things where because again we want to

[4:27:04] always it's very important to me

[4:27:05] personally that we treat every proposal

[4:27:08] and development uh aspiration with

[4:27:11] fairness and there may be things where

[4:27:13] if we don't get our head around by the

[4:27:16] council it may just be the advice like

[4:27:18] the best practice just to vote one way

[4:27:19] versus saying hey I actually think this

[4:27:21] is reasonable to hold on and if you say

[4:27:23] no later that is fair

[4:27:25] >> right right and that I mean I think

[4:27:27] where I'm what I'm hearing from I

[4:27:29] understand it correctly is a lot of

[4:27:31] where that gate framework came from

[4:27:33] because I think it it became

[4:27:36] obvious apparent even if I'm wrong to me

[4:27:39] very early on that there's a lot of

[4:27:42] information that you're wanting that

[4:27:43] there's just no way to have

[4:27:45] >> yeah and it's not fair to ask the

[4:27:47] developer to provide it as them to take

[4:27:49] on too much risk relative to where we

[4:27:51] are in the process

[4:27:52] >> and so the whole gate framework was was

[4:27:54] originally conceived of the idea of

[4:27:57] we're going to give you time to get that

[4:28:00] information later and back out later.

[4:28:03] And and one of the things that I have

[4:28:04] said in another context is to the credit

[4:28:07] of the developer, I've never seen a

[4:28:10] project or a developer so willing to let

[4:28:13] you have those outs, right? I mean, what

[4:28:16] this this gate framework is unique not

[4:28:19] just because uh it's not something that

[4:28:22] people commonly do, but because it's not

[4:28:24] something that most developers would be

[4:28:26] willing to do. uh because it it defers

[4:28:29] their their security and their shity

[4:28:31] down the road so much. But I think it's

[4:28:35] pro it may be the only way to get you

[4:28:37] the information that you need by the

[4:28:38] time you're in it in the way that you're

[4:28:41] going to be feasibly able to get it if

[4:28:44] that makes sense. So, but I'm happy to

[4:28:47] >> just you have any thoughts on that?

[4:28:48] >> Yeah. Share more about that.

[4:28:52] >> All right, Becky will give you the last

[4:28:54] word. So, we didn't ever talk about the

[4:28:57] swap piece.

[4:28:59] Um, it looks like it is like there's no

[4:29:02] access to it. It looks like it's very

[4:29:04] steep terrain. It looks like there is no

[4:29:06] trails on it.

[4:29:09] What is Yeah, it doesn't look like it's

[4:29:11] a piece of property with value. Um,

[4:29:16] that's what I'm thinking. Can we get

[4:29:17] some staff analysis on that?

[4:29:19] >> Okay. to see if maybe parks and wreck

[4:29:21] can even see if it's even valuable

[4:29:24] because if it's not valuable, what's the

[4:29:25] point in having it?

[4:29:27] >> Okay. Thank you, Becky. All right. Thank

[4:29:30] you again, Brian and team for your help

[4:29:32] here today and we'll adjourn this

[4:29:35] meeting.

[4:29:35] >> Thank you.

[4:29:36] >> Well,

[4:29:38] yes.

[4:29:40] >> So, first of all, I think we need to

[4:29:42] announce that the last item has been

[4:29:45] >> Okay.

[4:29:47] >> Oh, wait. No, we actually need to that

[4:29:50] we actually need to make have a motion

[4:29:52] to continue the last item because it is

[4:29:55] it's listed on your chair notes as being

[4:29:57] both an RDA and a city as an RDA item,

[4:30:00] but it it is both a an RDA and a city

[4:30:03] item. So, we don't need to do the recess

[4:30:06] and reconvening thing. The last item on

[4:30:08] the agenda is about the Walmart deal

[4:30:10] because we don't have some of those

[4:30:11] agreements uh yet for you. I suggest

[4:30:15] that we move to continue it and the

[4:30:17] night

[4:30:19] >> agenda items out until we have those.

[4:30:23] >> Okay. But we don't need to convene RDA

[4:30:25] to do that. Okay. So, I'm looking for a

[4:30:28] motion to continue that item.

[4:30:31] >> Yep. Make a motion that we continue that

[4:30:32] last item

[4:30:34] >> and the related evening meeting items.

[4:30:39] >> Okay,

[4:30:39] >> I'll second that.

[4:30:40] >> A motion by councelor Hoben, second by

[4:30:43] councelor Bogden. Um,

[4:30:47] so we'll take a vote. Councelor Bogden.

[4:30:49] >> Yes.

[4:30:50] >> Councelor Hoben.

[4:30:51] >> You just don't care about discussion, do

[4:30:52] you?

[4:30:53] >> Yes. [laughter]

[4:30:55] >> He's He's rusty. He's

[4:30:58] >> councelor Whitlock.

[4:30:59] >> Yes.

[4:30:59] >> Councelor G. Yes. Councelor Christensen.

[4:31:04] >> Yes.

[4:31:04] >> Councelor McKay.

[4:31:06] >> Yes.

[4:31:08] >> And councelor Rachel Whipple.

[4:31:11] >> Yes.

[4:31:12] >> Okay. Perfect. And then Shar the LA or

[4:31:15] acting chair. Uh the um the last um item

[4:31:20] is there has been a request for a work

[4:31:22] session for a closed meeting. There's

[4:31:24] actually two items to be discussed

[4:31:26] regarding

[4:31:27] reasonably litigation and sale of city

[4:31:31] property. Both of those are appropriate

[4:31:33] for closed meeting

[4:31:35] for a motion to close.

[4:31:36] >> Okay. Is there a motion to close the

[4:31:38] meeting?

[4:31:38] >> I move that we close the meeting and a

[4:31:40] second. Second. All right. Sourcing

[4:31:44] stuff today.

[4:31:45] >> Any discussion?

[4:31:48] >> I think I'll discuss because I wanted to

[4:31:50] stay here longer.

[4:31:52] >> Okay. Uh, councelor Hoben,

[4:31:54] >> yes.

[4:31:54] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[4:31:55] >> yes.

[4:31:55] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[4:31:57] Bogden,

[4:31:58] >> yes.

[4:31:58] >> Councelor McKay,

[4:32:02] » yes.

[4:32:03] >> Councelor Christensen,

[4:32:05] >> yes.

[4:32:05] >> Councelor Whipple,

[4:32:06] >> yes. Just send me the link.

[4:32:09] >> Now, now we'll dismiss for a closed

[4:32:11] meeting.

Provo City Council Work Meeting | August 11, 2026

Transcript