[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.