City Council - workshop

kevin recording in progress all right we'd like to welcome everyone to the probo municipal council work meeting it is july 14th 2026 it is one o'clock pm do we have gary on zoom kevin not yet okay a little more people in the back All right, we will have a roll call of the elected officials. We have Councillor Jeff Whitlock, we have Councillor Becky Fogden, myself, Catrice McKay, we have Councillor Rachel Whipple, and we expect others eminently. All this is a public meeting. Only the presenters and those invited by the council may speak or ask questions, unless otherwise invited by the chair. Please wait to speak until called on by the council chair. When speaking, please be sure to use a microphone so that the record is clear and those attending virtually can hear you. Please also be sure to limit side conversations as they interfere with the audio recording. And if you need to have side conversations, please sit up, step out of the work meeting. It is proposed that we approve the following minutes, September 23rd, 2025 council meeting and december 16th 2025 council meeting may 26 2026 council meeting and may 23rd 2026 work meeting are there any objections or requested changes seeing none i will declare them as approved by unanimous consent All right. Our first presentation is regarding the Mountainland Association of Governments, or MAG, as we always call it. So we are lucky to have the three heavy hitters here today. We have Laniece Davenport, the MPO Director of MAG, Kevin Felt, the Transportation Planning Manager, and Bob Allen, the Transportation Programming Manager. We had them come. I've been going to the MPO meetings, and they... volunteer that they've been going to a lot of the council meetings and so one thing i realized when i started with the mpo meetings is that we just knew nothing about that and whereas in our form of government the council is over 100 the master transportation plan and the um the budget that um you know these are things that are good for us to be aware of and the coordination that we have with mag as far as funding and the big projects that we could never do on our own so um go ahead we're starting with awesome thank you man i have been here do you want me here or there the podium but if anyone stands up to a good comment while you're going they'll use this one okay thank you so much

All right, so thank you, Madam Chair. As noted, my name is Laniece Davenport. I'm the MPO Director for the Mountainland Association of Governments. We provided a presentation that we'll run through, but importantly, like Chair McKay noted, We're really here to share the work that we do with you all in partnership with you and invite you to ask questions and participate in the dialogue moving forward. We do have a chunk of time on the agenda today. I don't know that we'll need all of that time unless we get into a heavy Q&A session. But we do have a hard stop at 1.50. Just wanted to put that out up front. So let's see. So I'll kick us off if we can go to the next. Do you want me to do the, am I? Got it. Thank you, sir. All right. Before we get into the MPO or the Metropolitan Planning Organization, we're going to start with what MAG is as an organization. So the Mountainland Association of Governments, or MAG, is one of Utah's seven association of governments. And really all that means is Utah is broken up into these regions that have regional organizations that represent regions. So for the MAG region, We represent Utah, Summit, and Wasatch counties. We have a sister AOG and MPO to the north of us, the Wasatch Front Regional Council. They represent five counties. And then you can see all 29 counties in the state of Utah are represented by these AOGs. We were created in the early 70s. um and you can see on here why we were created essentially to collaborate regionally so our biggest strength as an organization is working with all of the cities and counties within our region and working across jurisdictional boundaries we also connect communities to resources that's a really important element of what we do essentially all of the programs that we administer the grants the funding the technical assistance it is all um

essentially meant to help local governments or assist local governments in some way um yes yes please so this isn't that this isn't critical but i was just curious what criteria did they utilize use to create these associations you know geographic i would assume was it based on transportation corridors was it based on growing demographics just high level how did they decide

They were created in the early 70s by the governor then. And it was really based, I see Bob wants to add to this, but hold on. And it was really based on just working together. But okay, Bob, go ahead. Yes.

Actually, my understanding is if you look at a map and you think of watersheds, in the beginning was water planning. And so if you kind of think of the Pearl River watershed, that's how MAG got Summit County and Wasatch County.

If you think about, are you, COGs, do we have COGs? Is there a COG that represents, okay, some counties have what they call councils of governments where they bring together all of the cities and sometimes school districts and other entities within their county or multi-county region as a way to basically create that conversation. And so they thought, let's just take it to that even bigger level at the regional level and get people coordinating But thank you for the question. I invite lots more as we continue here. In terms of the work that we do, we are kind of divided into departments. We have an aging department. We used to have a community and economic development department. A lot of that work has actually been assumed within my department, which is the planning for growth or the planning department. And we'll get into more about the work that we do within the planning department here in just a moment. So, and here we are, the planning department. Okay. So we're essentially a bunch of little mini organizations within the Mountain Land Association of Governments organization as a whole. A lot of the work that we do is designated by either the federal government or the state government, and in some cases, even local government. So for example, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO, we received a federal designation from the US Department of Transportation And the U.S. DOT through FHWA, Federal Highway Administration, and FTA, Federal Transit Administration, help govern the work that we do in terms of the MPO or Metropolitan Organization Planning, which is essentially transportation planning. We also administer a Rural Planning Organization, or RPO. That work is very similar to the work we do for Utah County through the MPO, but it's for Summit and Wasatch counties with no federal assistance, and then also, therefore, no federal guidelines that we have to fall within for Summit and Wasatch counties. Our main product or deliverable that we create as an MPO is the regional transportation plan. Our regional transportation plan is long range, meaning we look to the future. We look to the year 2055. We consider all modes of transportation, road, active transportation, and transit. And we phase it based on or assume a timeline of transportation projects based on what we call fiscal constraint. So estimated funding sources. Kevin is going to talk more about the RTP when he comes up for his turn later in the presentation. The other major program that we administer is the Transportation Improvement Program or the TIP program. This is what Bob is going to talk about a little bit later in the presentation. And really what that means is, okay, we as an organization, we look to the future, we put all of our future hats on, we're crossing jurisdictional boundaries, thinking regionally, these are the transportation needs, those are identified in our plan. Then we say, how do we think, can we fund the projects that are identified in the plan? We as an organization have a small-ish funding pot to do that. That's the tip. So that can fund some smaller capital projects, regional capital projects within our county. We administer a handful of other programs and we'll get into these later too and happy to talk through more of this. But it's important for you to know that we administer a Community Development Block Grant program whose objective is to benefit low and moderate income Communities, we administer a technical advisory grant, technical assistance to governments, excuse me, TAG, technical assistance to governments program that implements transportation and land use, visions, plans, and studies. We coordinate economic development regionally. And importantly, I'm going to finish with this one, the strategic vision bullet point here. A couple of years ago, we worked with all of our member cities and counties, including, of course, Provo City to identify what should our region look like? What's our regional vision for the future? Not just transportation, but transportation and some land use. So this is called the Wasatch Choice Vision. We have some handouts that just a little pamphlet thing we'll hand out at the end of our presentation that has a QR code that you can scan and learn more about the Wasatch Choice Vision. But essentially, we're growing. We're growing very rapidly. And we have a plan for our future. And that plan is the Wasatch Choice Vision. And that plan is the Regional Transportation Plan. And both of those have been created in partnership with you and all of the other cities in Utah County. All right, so what exactly is an MPO or Metropolitan Planning Organization? Like I said, we're federally designated and we're responsible for creating an RTP and administering a TIP. We're governed importantly by the local elected officials that make up Utah County. So every mayor within Utah County is on our board. We also have all three county commissioners as a member of our board. And importantly, because we're creating transportation plans and working towards implementing those plans, we have to have our transportation partners. So UDOT, UTA, the Department of Air Quality, as well as FHWA are also members of our board, the MPO board. Yes, please. The FHWA, that's the Federal Highway Administration. Yep. And there's the Federal Transit Administration too. So it's really important that we are getting those, you know, because they provide a lot of the funding that we do for the work that we do. So they set the parameters and then they want to make sure that they have, you know, a regular check-in on how well we're meeting those goals and objectives that we identify. Also importantly is the last bullet on this what we do list, which is, All of the planners and engineers within the communities within Utah County are part of what we call a technical advisory committee or a TAC. That TAC, they're the first persons that see the work that we do. We vet all of the work that we do through that TAC body. And then the TAC, essentially, it's like a planning commission to a city council. The TAC is like our planning commission. They vet it, they look at it, they review it, and they say, yes, we think this should go to the board, or it's maybe not ready to go to the board yet. So that's our technical experts, our staff. They're the TAC, and then they report to the governing body, which is the MPO board. Yes?

I think you have a good example of who would be on the TAC. Is it planning members from different cities?

Yeah, right.

Yeah, so Vern Kiesler from Provo is your representative on our TAC, on our board. And then does, Gordon, I think you've attended a few of our TAC meetings as well. We'd love to have Gordon. Gordon's amazing. Bob, are there any other folks that you can think of that have come that participate in the TAC from Provo?

Not from Provo. Typically it's either like the city engineer or the public works director or

well what i'm kind of wondering too is for what occurred the funding is allocated in a certain way where this and telling my mom his cap team will go out and like look at all of these projects and then they'll come back and they'll say this one should be a high priority, this one should be the next priority, this one should be the next priority, and then it's voted on by the manager.

Do you? Yeah, basically that's the prioritization process, and essentially we'll get into it in a minute, and maybe above high level, yes, there is a technical score that MAG staff looks at, and then there is the technical advisory committee that's made up of all those folks that they score it, and those two scores come together to become like 50-50 become one score. And then important to note that it's a decision informing tool, not a decision making tool, i.e. one through 25 isn't the final, it's the starting point.

Yeah. Excellent. All right. And with that, actually, my portion is done. And I'll turn the time over to Kevin Felt, who's going to unpack the RTP for you even more. And then I'll come back up later. Thanks.

Thank you for having us today. This is a good, a good opportunity for us to hopefully impart upon you what we do and how we can coordinate.

Yes.

Thank you. So like what Bob was saying, there's, there's two things here. There's the regional transportation plan, which is the long-term view. And Bob's part is the Transportation Improvement Program, which is the short-term view. And I'll kind of get to that in a little bit too. So what we do in the Regional Transportation Plan is we're looking at roads, transit, active transportation, all forms of mobility within the urbanized area of Utah County. What we're trying to do is ensure the safe and efficient movement of all mobility such that goods and services and and other things can can can get moved around so when we develop this we do it across all city boundaries you guys develop your your local plans we take that plan incorporate it into ours and then incorporate orums and spanish fork and salem and Eagle Mountain and all these other cities within the urbanized area. We compile those and then we start to look at the regionally significant projects. A lot of your plans are going to have local streets and things. We're looking at the regionally significant projects. roadway facilities for instance such as center street or state street i-15 the real big projects big big roads and on the transit side we're looking at projects that are like uvx and front runner and those kind of things the more not the local bus it goes kind of everywhere we're just looking at the regionally significant ones ones that kind of really impact everybody And then on the active transportation side, we're looking at those projects that connect to the Utah Trail Network primarily. So again, we go across city boundaries. We look at all of the different jurisdictions within the urbanized area of Utah County, which is pretty much all of Utah County. We use a qualitative and a quantitative data analysis. As Bob mentioned, what we'll do is we'll kind of gather all these plans. then come up with some additional projects possibly. And then we'll look at those and kind of initially screen them. We'll come back and do a more technical analysis, which is where the point we are right now. And what we do there is we score the projects. We have a long list of projects. And what we'll do is then provide that information to the decision bodies, first the technical advisory committee, and then they'll make a recommendation to the MPO board. and then eventually we phase the projects which projects go in the first 10 years which projects go in the second 10 years and which projects go in the last 10 years then we have an additional category of projects that are called exploratory things that are just kind of being dreamed up and those kind of things um we're looking at the long-range needs not what's in the next four five six seven years we're looking at again things very very long term and we try to do that with the trends you know if you if we had done this plan now before covid we do it every four years but and before covid we had a different travel behavior different trip-making behavior amongst our residents. And things have changed. We now have these technologies where people can join us online. People can have remote meetings. We don't work a full week in the office. We do some telecommuting, those kind of things. So things have changed. So those trends are changing. The other trends that are changing are the amount of people that are moving into Utah County. the amount of jobs that are moving into Utah County. So we look at all of those and we kind of try to project that out for 25 to 30 years or so. Again, updated every four years. And the one that we are currently doing that will be hopefully adopted next July is the 2055 Horizon Year RTP. So what it is, it's again, a unified transportation blueprint for Utah County. It's a plan that ages you and your growth. Where are these facilities gonna be and how do I plan my growth around them? Improve regional mobility needs. And really it also, again, as I mentioned, we're using your plans to help become the foundation for our plan. It projects financial needs and funds. And that's really important from the standpoint of every project in our plan, has to have enough money for it to be moved forward. So what we do is we look at all that list of projects. We find out how much each of them cost. And then we look at how much revenue we anticipate over the first 10, the second 10, and the last 10 years. And we do not assign money to any particular project. We just know that we have $100 million to spend, and we have $100 million worth of projects, so those become part of our plan. So we also don't, I guess we don't allocate money, yes.

And if you give $100 billion of projects and you allocate the hundreds, they're all funded, right?

They are.

What do you mean you don't do specific projects? Because there's more than one.

There's a lot of different funding sources. There's federal funding, there's state funding, there's some local funding that helps the state and federal funding as our matching. There's transit money, there's highway money, there's active transportation money. So we add up all this money and we find out how much total we have, and then we just go down and assign projects to be able to be funded. It's almost like you have... You want to purchase a home, and you've got three or four different bank accounts or three or four different funding sources for yourself. And you don't know which funding source you're going to use to buy that house yet, but you know you have enough money amongst those three or four sources to buy the house. That kind of an idea. Can I add something to this, Mark?

I think it's important to note that within each of those phases, we have a needs list and we have a fiscally constrained list. So we certainly do not have enough money for all of the projects that we've identified in each of the phases of the RTP. And so therefore, we know it's a need. We know it's a need when it's needed, but we just don't have enough money. So there's a couple of different types of projects when it comes to funding.

Yeah, that's my next part is that, so we have the $100 million in the first phase. We have a list of 10 projects, let's say, but we also have a need for another five projects. Those five projects in the first phase that are needed end up in the second phase that could be funded. And so we kind of go through the process that way.

So I heard, and we were talking about it, it's not just to be a tech platformer, but I've heard that we get to the first phase first before you start looking at the second phase. Is that true?

Yes. So again, we look at revenues. What revenues do we anticipate between 2027 and 2037 when this will be adopted? And when we say it, let's say, again, $100 million. And we know from 2037 to 2047, we're going to have $150 million. we know that in the first phase even though we only have 100 million dollars available we may have 125 million dollars of need so that other 25 million dollars worth of projects gets moved to the second phase which then becomes part of that 150 million that we have available does that make sense

I think Becky's also one project, right? It could be. No, well, OK. Yeah.

Well, but it could be. Like, for instance, we've got this project in our plan for crossing Utah Lake. That is going to take up most, if not all, of the money in one phase. So it might have to be. And it's going to be a long project.

So you would have to phase that project out, as you're saying.

Yes.

Phase one in the first 10 years, phase two in the next.

Yes. And another similar type situation would be the Central Corridor Transit corridor. where we might start in phase one just funding an enhanced bus service and then in phase two we might fund a brt type service and finally in phase three we would fund the light rail service in that same corridor so we kind of step into it if you will or some projects um again the lake crossing might be a good example in that initially we put it in as a four-lane roadway but we know that eventually 15 years from now we're going to need six lanes So we just put it in the first part as a four lane, find the freedom for the additional two lanes later on, kind of an idea.

But just to get back to the needs, that first phase, that first 10 years, those are the critical needs, even though you might have needs that are five in the next 10 years, which will be 20 years out. But you try to work through those first 10 years before you start hitting those other years. But if you don't get through all of them, then that gets regrouped down to... In the 20-year phase. Right.

And again, we do this every four years. So some projects that might be in the second phase this time around might move to the first phase the next time.

Or might get pushed down.

Or might be moved to the third phase if they're not as big a priority anymore.

Gotcha. And that's all determined by the scoring system, the rubric that's... Well, it's determined by the scoring system as far as how we rank them.

When it comes to actually putting them in a phase, there's a whole other analysis that becomes a little more... subjective, maybe a better way to put it. Sometimes, like Bob mentioned, a project might be ranking number 10 on the ranking list, but it might be a much more needed project politically and it gets moved up a little bit maybe.

So does that part then, is that more done by the MPO board or that they're doing on votes?

Yes.

Councillor Whitlock.

One question I have is, How, there's this, the unified Utah, Utah's unified transportation plan. How does that compare to our specific RTP for MAG?

So RTP becomes an input into that, into that unified transportation plan and all the other MPOs as well. Their plans, like we're doing, get put in as input and then the regional plans get put in as input. Then the state kind of goes down that list.

And then when there's discrepancies, why do those typically happen? discrepancies? Well, for example, I think in in the current Utah Unified Transportation Plan, there's like three potential lake crossing. Oh. Versus in ours, which is one. I'm just curious like how those.

So that particular project in general, the different ones are possibilities. We've got one that's showing the

Center Street, Provo.

Yeah, we're trying to cost it out. So we'll just cost one of them out and then the other two are still possibilities. Got it. The other thing to think about with all this is some of the work we do gets ahead of some other more detailed work. For instance, on that particular lake crossing you're referring to, UDOT is currently doing what's called a planning environmental linkage study. We call it a PEL. And that PEL is a precursor to a National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA project. And what the PEL is trying to do is they're trying to identify an alignment or alignments that serve the northwest part of Utah County and the northern part of Utah County. How do they get from Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Fairfield, over to I-15, for instance. And then once our plan will be done before that is, so we're going to put in what we think is the right answer. And then a couple of years from now, when they finish that project, they may come up with a different solution that's more, because we're looking at it in a lot more detail than we will. So we would then amend our plan to put that new alignment in if that's what happens. I think the important thing here on this slide really is this bottom part here, and that any project that receives federal or state funding has to be in our plan. Not worried about the local funding. Local funding can help as far as matching the federal and state funding, but anytime they receive federal and state funding, particularly state roads, federal roads, those kinds of things, that has to be in our plan for it to receive that type of funding. And I'll just touch on this real quickly. What we're doing right now is we've kind of talked about some of the process already is we're going through the project measures and kind of how we weight these projects against all the goals that we have. In September, the TAC and board will receive information and adopt a final ranking list, not a phasing list, but a ranking list. And then we'll start our initial phasing process in October, and the final project phasing and draft regional transportation plan will be done in November. This phasing part is a really, really important part of this whole process, because even though the projects may be ranked one to 100, they get kind of maybe jumbled up a little bit in the project phasing, what becomes more of a need from a subjective standpoint. Then in January, we'll receive the approval to go ahead and do what we call our air quality public involvement process in February. And then in March, we'll take anything that the legislature provides to us with any output from the February public involvement process. readjust the plan a little bit, take it back to the TAC and board. And then in April and May, the board will have their final opportunities to adjust things. And in June, hopefully adopt it. But the real big thing is this ranking piece comes from technical analysis. This phasing piece comes from more of a community input analysis, if you will. Yes.

So... Our master transportation plan informs your RTP. Yes. And then there's the input of your board, the MPO board, that is the final approval process or input process.

Yes. Yeah. Now the part we take from your local plan is just the region of significant roadways. Right. We're not worried about,

Third South.

Yeah, those kind of things. Or First North or something like that. Those improvements, those are completely local. Those are not ones that we're going to put into our plan, Jeff. That's because he said Third South and you guys.

It's an example, Jeff.

I'm not familiar enough with it.

But Fourth North would be something we're worried about.

Unless you want to.

I'm going to tell my district you don't care about it.

We care, but we're not going to dictate anything. Well, if you want to federalize it. I mean, and then there's a whole other ball of string that goes with the federal project. So we try to unfederalize things as much as we can.

Yeah, I was just going to say, it sounds like 99% of the roads and transportation corridors and such in Provo, you aren't really concerned with. Can you, and I'm putting you on the spot here, can you list your top three or four that we really need to make sure that our transportation master plan aligns well with? Are there things that you're looking at right now and saying, hey, Provo, make sure you get this right because this is really important to us?

Yes, there are a couple, primarily I-15, for instance, but that really isn't going to fall in your plan per se. But we do have a corridor, a Lakeview corridor that comes off of the Geneva Road area and comes down past the airport and crosses Provo Bay and goes towards Spanish Fork, something like that we would want to have. A lot of what we would be most concerned about or find most helpful are those local roadways that connect to these regional roadways. How can we better improve access to the regional roadways? How can we better improve dispersion from the regional roadways? Those types of things.

Another question I have. Under your project measures weight ranking, what are some examples of the types of weights you put on criteria analyses you do?

Yeah, so we've got a list of, we have five goals. And then there are probably 15 or so criteria that we're measuring these goals on. Some of them include, does the facility go through a high growth area? Does it connect to some of the Wasatch Choice Vision centers that would be in Provo, for instance? the transit side might be something like amount of population within a quarter mile of the transit service within walking distance in other words so a lot of those types of things so we're just going through that process getting that finished right now And then the weights, we're going to weigh each goal. And I don't have them memorized off the top of my head, but it's like access to opportunities, safety, air quality, some of those kinds of things.

Are those published now or you're working on them still?

The goals are published now, yes. And one of the things we'll be asking the technical advisory committee, the board in August is, okay, here's the project rankings with a static 25% or 20% for each of the five goals. Well, the goals are also applied by mode. So we're not ranking a transit project against a roadway project or an active transportation project against a roadway project because it would just fail every time. So what we're doing is we're taking each mode, roadways, transit, and active transportation and ranking the projects separately, scoring them against each other.

And those are the three modes? The three primary ones, yeah. Do trails fall in active transit?

Yes. And the active transportation is sort of a catch-all for the scooters and bicycles and walking and all kinds of things that aren't motorized, basically. So then what we'll do is we'll take this static percentage of a weight and then ask the TAC and the board to say, well, gee, we value safety more than we value access to opportunities. or we value air quality more than we value safety, or whatever the decision is. And so those rankings may change to 40% in 2020 or something like that. But the idea is that there's this opportunity to adjust the weighting, which will then adjust the priority somehow. One project might be better if it's weighted higher on safety and lower on access or something.

All right. Any other questions?

I'm going to let Bob talk about the real good stuff.

The real good stuff. I'm going to talk about the tip really quick, but I want to step back. Councilmember, you asked about FHWA, and I think it's really important that we highlight FHWA, because the Federal Highway Administration, basically, they're the ones that tell us how to put together an RTP, our Regional Transportation Plan, and how we need to put together the TIP, right? And so they're kind of not our bosses, but they're the cops that say, this is the law, this is what you're going to do. So when we talk about strange things like fiscal constraint or air quality conformity, those are all rules that are given to us by the federal government that we have to follow in developing our processes. And I bring that up because it's really important. We talked about funding and fiscal constraint, and it's really important when we talk about the RTP, we're not really talking about real money when it comes to fiscal constraint. Fiscal constraint is essentially an air quality exercise that we're told we have to do to make sure that all the things that we do, we're still gonna have decent air quality and we can afford in the next 20, 30 years, we can afford to do those things that will ensure we have air quality. But when a plan is in, you could say funded or fiscally constrained in the RTP, that does not mean there is any real money assigned to it, okay? Just like your general plan is kind of a, hey, this is who we're gonna be in the future, and these are some guidelines that we wanna follow. There's no real money allocated through the plan. But you also have probably, Gordon, a public facilities plan or capital facilities plan, right? And that's just like five years out into the future. And that's where you really are saying in 2027, we have $10 million and we're going to build a new sewer plant or whatever the case may be. That's what the tip is. So the tip is our capital facilities plan or what are we going to do in the next five to six years? and what real money are we going to build what projects are we going to build with what it's federal required um we and this is basically the implementation arm of the rtp this is how we implement it it lists all regionally significant yes ma'am okay so really quickly so that does that mean

the tip comes from the RTP and that is what triggers the actual job.

Exactly, exactly. If you thought of how does a idea become a project? The very high level step is a problem is recognized or projected in the future. We go through the RTP process to identify, okay, what's the problem? What's the right solution for it? Let's get it adopted in the RTP. It becomes fiscally constrained phase one. Then it goes to the TIP process or the implementation.

This is your equivalent of RCIP.

Yes, exactly. It lists all regionally significant projects for all transportation modes. It's not just MAG-funded projects, it's UDOT-funded projects, UTA-funded projects. If you looked at our TIP right now, it shows $3.6 billion worth of projects that will be funded in Utah County between now and 2031. Of that, only 500 million of that is actual MAG money. Most of it is big UDOT facilities. And so you kind of have to separate when a project is in the RTP and it wants to become a funded actual rig to dig up and build things. there's kind of two ways to go at it. There's the UDOT process where it's the big stuff, the freeways, the interchanges, the state streets, those big things, MAG can't afford those things because we just don't have enough revenue. udot and the transportation commission funds those they go through a process that we won't go into right now but i'm happy to unpack with you at any time and then there's the mag process we have very small budget that we try and phase and implement as much as we can um that was how we funded the two stages of the airport the mags funding the new bridge on 820 north you know yada yada a lot of those kinds of projects are funded that way We identify funding sources and we have to do fiscal constraint. We have to show, because these are all projections, so we have to show the federal government. We say we're going to spend $120 million in 27 and 28. We have to show that that's reasonable. Next four to five years encompasses all that. We update it annually, but MAG only selects projects every two years. And then, I know we're running out of time, but I want to leave time for question and answers. This is essentially what I just told you about how an idea becomes a project. We find a problem or a need, we develop it and put it in the RTP, and then it splits into those two processes of what's the right way to fund the project. And with that, this was our schedule. We're basically at the end of our schedule. But I think before we move on, we know that there are some specific projects maybe you wanted to talk a little bit about like 820 North or some of those others. Now's probably the time just so we don't overstay our welcome.

One thing I think I just gathered that so we're supposed to do an expansion of 800 between Freedom and State Street.

Okay. Yeah.

So that was lined up and we already own the easements and the hospitals on board. And that's just a, it's kind of what you referred to. That's a huge interconnector between two major.

That is a regionally significant road.

Yeah. And so it didn't happen in January, like we anticipated. And so you said two years, does that mean our next chance to get that project done is the beginning of 2028?

Essentially, we will start the next selection cycle. Our cycle takes, it's every two years, it takes about eight months to go through all the steps. So beginning in the winter of late 2027 is when we'll kick it off. We'll start saying, hey, everybody, bring us your ideas. And we will finalize that process and say, these are the projects that are gonna be funded in August of 2028. Now, something important to point out, that is going to fund projects that will be built in 2031 and 2032. Right. It's not like that. Yes. Okay. Perfect.

And on that note, so the mayor is our representative on the NPO. So if she doesn't put that forward, can someone else put that forward? on the MPO? Can a county commissioner put it forward?

Well, the county certainly, they submit projects as well. We actually had Provo City, the Provo Bike Collective years ago requested a project. It was understood that Provo supported that. um that is getting into the fine splitting hairs that i'm not necessarily ready to say could you submit it versus if the mayor didn't think somebody on the board like a county commissioner a county commissioner certainly um i would there would certainly need to be some understanding between the county that's submitting it and the city so to speak i don't we would hope that that gets figured out beforehand but i guess technically that is possible yes good question any Do we want to talk specific projects? Tell me what you want to, how can I answer? What can I answer?

One thing you mentioned the freeway as being a big thing, but not involving you, but doesn't that, you know, it does involve us heavily. And that's part of, I mean, like, I believe we have a freeway entrance on our master transportation plan.

On 820 or where?

I think it is. But just the idea that it's there like as something in the future. I don't even know if you specified the exact thought.

So if we're talking about I-15, in our current plan right now, we show that I-15 is our... Unfortunately, there's too many eggs in I-15 and there are improvements that are identified that need to take place on I-15 in the next 30 years. We're still working with UDOT to figure out exactly what that looks like. Is that a collector distributor system, blah, blah, blah, lots of different things. We're kind of to the point where we can't really just add more lanes because there's a certain point with a free road where past I think it's seven lanes the more if you add another lane it actually reduces yeah and so can't do that but it would be things on the sides of the freeway to help the freeway function because really friction what people getting on and off creates friction and that's what's kind of like you did the whole 215 thing exactly or say um lehigh technology corridor where you have one way frontage roads on each side or you could look at salt lake where there's the collector distributor if you're getting off on 21st or 9th 7th whatever those three are you get off once and then you don't touch the freeway until you go all through that and back on things like that There are certain solutions that need to be made. Also, currently in the RTP is identified a future interchange in that 800, 820-ish north area that's been in the plan for some time. And there also is a widening project on 820 north. I believe that is in your transportation plan, and we've taken that for years, looked at it, so there are certainly things that make sense. It makes sense enough that we put it in our plan, and we will continue through this process look at it and analyze it to make sure it makes sense to go through the prioritization process, et cetera, et cetera. Does that mean it automatically gets in? No, there's certainly a process to that. And essentially, I mean, just from past experience and looking at past numbers, it really comes down to Center Street and the parkway is why that specific project would need to be needed. you house the two largest employers in the entire county, the hospital and BYU. And you can see through the modeling that that's where people wanna go, whether 820 is there or not. And so it's not a silver bullet, but it's certainly a helpful project from looking at a very high level, It's impactful, there's no doubt, but.

Yeah, we have over 10,000 employees just with those two.

Yeah, yeah. I think just off the back of my memory, we were looking at a little bit of modeling today. If, and I can just, instead of bringing up the link, I can just tell you, if we didn't do 820 North, University or Center Street would probably add around 15,000 trips a day from more than what it is today. 15,000 trips a day is a lot. It's basically going from 41,000 to, well, I think it was 44,000 or something like that right now today, up to almost 60,000 trips a day.

And a terrible road first.

On what time frame? That was just out to 2055. But the thing is, it's a phase one project, meaning it's one that we see is needed in the next 10-ish years. So it's kind of one of those needs to be happening sooner rather than later. Um, but again, we work for y'all and that's, you know, we're, we're here to give you the technical information and our board will make those decisions.

I know we're running out of time, so I just wanted to, I had some general questions that people wanted to ask about.

And I will also happily offer, and Laniece will throw a rock at me if I'm saying something wrong. We are always available. If we don't have time, hit us up. We'll sit down and talk with you, have a conversation, meeting, whatever you'd like.

And I'm just going to, let me add to that. I brought some cards we can hand out. We can leave these with you. We brought some information about your transportation plan, which you brought up earlier. So please take a look at that. It has all of the IPO regional transportation plans in it. And then a little thing about the Los Angeles, but we do have like a minute or so.

Well, I, I mean, I do, it was important. I really wanted the council to understand what you guys do and that they can be informed about these things and what's happening and how it's so, I mean, it's a big deal to our city and we are over the master transportation plan in the city. And I guess we just wanted to make sure that you knew that we back the master transportation plan and we don't have plans to change it. And we want you to know that.

Yeah, do we know that do we know that and and maybe just in closing. From Max perspective, we love working with profile. We have great working relationship with the city with the mayor with this body. We're happy again any. anytime anytime you have a question reach out to us Vern is a wealth of knowledge you know that we we love working with him and we can coordinate and get you the information you need okay Gary Garrett he is traveling he is on zoom he has a question okay go ahead go ahead Gary

Are you muted, Gary? We can't hear you.

OK, sorry about that. Yes, a great presentation. Thank you. Actually, I think most of my questions were answered relative to budget, where the funding comes from. It sounds like your annual budget varies year to year, just depending on those sources of funds. It would be hard for you to say what your annual budget is. And then I had questions on the specific projects bringing this down to provo that we have queued up or if they are in exploratory stages but i think those were answered as well i think i think generally i would um just like to make a motion to make it clear to um you all who have come today thank you very much that um to make clear our council support of the current master transportation plan and the projects that we have currently in common with mag i'd like to make that as a motion

All right. Do you want to second that motion?

Yeah, I'll just second that motion.

So we often vote in our, just to make sure that people understand what our intent is.

Very well.

Any discussion on the motion?

Councillor Bogdan? I know they have. minute to leave but um some of these things are really impactful like that 800 north that that's a mess right now and rather than 2031 that that needs to be done sooner rather than later and The West Side is growing. It's not just Provo's West Side. It is West Side everywhere. And when I've talked to some of our former transportation people, they're like, you know, people have to get to BYU. People have to get to the hospital. Even people on my side of the tracks, those train tracks are awful. And to have something come over there, even if it's just a freeway on and off ramp, you know, that makes a huge difference. Some of these things really need to happen. And so I'm in support of this because we do need these things on schedule and they need to match up with our needs.

I remember when I ran the first time, I got really educated on the west side because that wasn't an area I was terribly familiar with. And I remember a neighborhood chair walked me through the west side and talked to me and they were like, do you know how much time we would save to get an emergency if we had to get out, if there was a flood per se, or if we had people who need to go to an ambulance? Literally five plus minutes could be saved not having to deal with the tracks, not having to deal with the limited east to west connectivity. and um and having a freeway entrance right to 800 which right to the hospital they just like they're like you know we want this on the west side it's a huge this is like life and death to us and i that was a i didn't need that wasn't on my radar sure but um so yeah it is interesting and i we have ihc presenting after you guys but They do an incredible amount of ambulances coming from the south and coming from the surrounding areas to Provo. So, you know, I had no idea the numbers that they do and just ambulance rides.

Not to mention the new medical school that's coming here and not to mention that they're going to be, what, a level one trauma center?

I don't think you need to present. You got it.

He educated us very well last year. But yeah, and so that's going to put more and more pressure to get there. But we all know on the West Side that we're going to die in an emergency because we can't get out.

Well, let's hope.

all right um well i'm okay reaffirming our support of the the current transportation master plan but i do think like you had mentioned you have some updated models regarding a 2800 i think when we visited this six years ago when i was newer on the council frankly i didn't feel like the modeling we had showed a huge need for that specific road to be Yeah, I need to meet with you guys. And and also, you know, frankly, if you don't get over the railroad tracks and pass the school, nothing you do on 820 is going to matter because you still get stuck at those areas and they still, you know. And so I'm OK, reiterating, reaffirming our supportive plan for now. But with the caveat that. I think if we're going to make any changes to the plan moving forward, or if we're going to really move forward with some of these projects, I think there just needs to be a comfort level that we have good data supporting this and that we have a good plan around that, as opposed to just saying, yeah, we're going to allocate $100 million towards this and we'll figure it out. It's hard for me to get behind it without understanding more nuances of the plan.

To get into data, but I don't have time today. Counselor Christian, go ahead.

Yeah, I would agree. It's actually very hard, but did you have a comment?

I was just going to kind of add to his and something that's be understood is when we put these projects in the rtp we use sophisticated tools like the travel demand model and so forth but at each stage of a project more and more study is done it would step to an environmental process right i think being updated and maybe that's a follow-up presentation maybe specifically for somebody from your team to come and show us like

Here is the modeling that we're looking at for 820. And here's why we feel that's important and rather why it makes sense if it is something we want to do. I think that could be really helpful for me to help inform my decision making moving forward. Sure.

Councilor Whitlock.

Just from my perspective, I mean, my understanding is these plans are updated every five to 10 years. We had a pandemic in the interim. I wasn't part of office. So I would like to see more data and go through the process with more thought before I would be able to vote for something like that.

Craig didn't get to say his comment. I cut him off.

No, I think the points have been covered. Our job as a council is to balance things. And we're talking about significant trade-offs. And I think it is important to consider safety. It is important to consider access. It is important to consider neighborhoods. I mean, this is part of the balancing act that we must do. And so I support this future planning. Without this future planning, we end up in cul-de-sacs all over the place. And so I would be supportive.

of what the work that you're doing well we'll take a vote on the motion um counselor Garrett yes counselor McKay yes counselor Christensen yes counselor Whitlock no counselor Bogdan yes counselor Hoban yes counselor Whipple is not here so that passes six one

five one five one thank you we need a motion to ask them to come i mean not to ask them but i mean with it we can get it right okay i just want to make a lot of snow we'll come you can't tell you what to do i was saying internally are we behind this having you guys come back yeah hey we tell meg what to do around here but i think it would be good for our public to to listen to a presentation on it yeah i would love to i'd love to

I'll just say then thank you for your time. And again, please contact us if you have more questions. Sorry if we took more than our allotted time.

Thanks so much, Bob. Thank you, Laniece and Kevin. All right. Next, we have a presentation regarding an update from Intermountain Healthcare. Presented by Kyle Hansen, the administrator for, well, you're like the president of Intermountain Healthcare.

I have a couple of jobs. It says big dog on top.

I want one of your business cards.

We're getting the presentation pulled up.

Big dog right there.

I did bring a friend, Janet Frank. She's the leader over community outreach. So grateful for some time to chat with all of you today. We love being in the city of Provo. As I've said before, don't have any plans to ever leave. Thank goodness. But wanted to just share maybe some ways that we're looking at the growth, you know, listening to kind of the the way that MAG goes about projecting that out and looking at transportation. We do a lot of this work looking out in similar timeframes, 30 plus years and trying to predict healthcare demand. And there's a lot of factors that obviously go into that technology. you know, drug development. Maybe GLP-1s will make it so that none of us need a hospital in the future. I doubt it. But anyway, I wanted to just share some of that data with you and kind of answer questions that you might have in regards to what that means for the growth in our campus here in Prado. Because as the As the county grows, our hospital will grow and it almost doesn't necessarily correlate to how fast Provo is growing population wise. So somebody am I advancing this? Perfect. Okay. So I won't bore you with statistics you've probably already seen many, many times, you know, our county's growing and projected to grow. I think these are pulled from the Gardner Institute. We work with some national consultants that help with master site planning for healthcare organizations that help us look at some of this and help us start to get an idea based on kind of utilization trends, changing demographics. what kind of hospital bed needs are we talking about in certain geographical areas? We're not the only ones providing hospital care, obviously Intermountain is not alone in that regard, but we do look at this and we know the fastest growing demographic in our county is that cohort that's over the age of 65 and that's gonna continue to grow as a percentage. over the next 30 years. And so we look at this data, you know, we certainly look at it geographically. And as I mentioned, we know, for example, zone three maybe isn't growing population wise as fast as you all know. much more growth occurring in areas like zone one on the west or up the north, as well as down south in zone four. And these projections are from 24. They're probably already somewhat out of date, but incredible growth that we know we're all expecting in the coming years and trying to plan for how do we provide services.

So are you saying that you feed from zone one?

So as a trauma hospital, we take patients from all over Utah County, from all over central Utah, down to Beaver and from Wasatch County.

Are we the only trauma hospital in the area?

We are the only level two trauma hospital in Utah County. i'll talk a little bit about some of our vision for what what the future holds with that but but again as you know you know not as much population growth in zone three where there isn't as much land it's built out and you know uh massive growth happening on the ends uh and in the west on our county So working with these consultants, we try to look at that and predict, okay, what do we think that means in the coming years? And we tend to take sort of a five to 10 year look at this so that we can attempt to align what our delivery model needs to look like going forward with growth. And so There's probably more data than you need to worry about looking at here. But just as an exercise, today within the county, we have roughly 210 patients every day in our hospitals. Most of those are at Utah Valley Hospital here in Provo. This is for medical, surgical, and ICU patients. So not maternity, not a NICU, not somebody that's in a rehab unit, just those. types of units. And if you look at projected population change, demographic shift, and aging, that adds to that census projection going forward out 10 years, right? Disease prevalence, again, some of these are estimates and projections. And then things that would start to pull back on more people being in the hospital, things like reducing readmission, changing the insurance or care management technology that enhances our ability um we're actually admitting people to their homes uh we have a hospital at home program today that's growing where through technology we we send nurses and have doctors and monitoring equipment that patients can take to their home if you have the right condition we're not going to send somebody who's acutely ill home but a pilot kind of project or is that It's hopefully not a pilot. It's been somewhat dependent on CMS's ability to continue to fund the Medicare hospital at home reimbursement program. And so it's been funded and keeps kind of coming up at the last minute for continuing funding, but it's very much a part of our strategy is to take care of patients at home. It's much more affordable to do that. everybody would much rather sleep in their bed than one of our hospital beds we we know that so so the the moral of this slide is simply our projection and this is a county projection is that over the next 10 years we're going to see at least or close to a 50 increase in the number of patients every day that are admitted to one of our hospitals So that's increasing from 210 to a number of 312. The majority of those, because of our size and acuity and the specialists that we have, will be at Utah Valley Hospital. And so we take that kind of information. We look across the county where we have care sites. We say, OK, what do we think that means for bed need in each of these sites? So you can see for Utah Valley, again, this is just the ICU and med surge going from 216 to 304.

um in the other hospitals that we have in the county there's some different planned increases this is all just sort of planning again subject to sort of change and and whatnot kevin we have a yes counselor i'm going to ask this question because it was asked by one of our citizens just yesterday a couple of days ago anyway you guys have a building up

five days market in provo canyon road okay what is that on here what is that going to be it's probably a circle on here uh i think we've got the clinics listed uh listed there so maybe number 15 is that um so i hesitate to announce things before we've released the dollars to actually do the construction because okay i've gotten in trouble doing that before so I'll just talk in general terms we do have plans to read about that site you'll likely see something come through the city with a project for

So it'll get a, it'll get a fresh coat of paint.

Not that demo and rebuild.

Okay. Okay.

You're that resident.

Sorry. In fact, in probably in the next couple of months, you'll, you'll likely see something coming through as we're working on design there.

I appreciate that. And you're going to be excited. Yeah. The resident will appreciate that. I'm sure he's listening.

Yeah. And, and part of, part of our goal there is, You know, we really need to ensure primary care physician access a little bit more convenient and accessible, not on a busy hospital campus. You know, when somebody's coming for a primary care visit, if we can get those out into the community as much as possible, we want to do that. So part of the strategy for that site really is to relocate some of our existing physician clinics from the Utah Valley Hospital campus up to Canyon Road in a new building.

Counselor.

If I'm jumping ahead here, sorry. I mean, clearly there's a huge increase in need for your services. What would you need from Provo City to help meet the need? Now, I don't care about your bottom line, but I'm saying like, I mean... That's fine. I care about quality of life for our residents. What do you need from us to ensure that you can provide the services that our residents need so that they don't have to travel very far and they can get the services they need in the area? They don't have to move. Is it workforce housing? Is it we need to zone for more of this or that i mean what is it you need from provo is it roads i mean what what i know that's a topic but i'm saying generally are there some things that you could kind of point to and say this is where we need help from provo city over the next 20 years 20 30 years to to help prepare for this or even 10 years yeah uh great question great question there's probably a number of answers our organization is getting more

more active in the affordable housing space. I know there's kind of different models we've met at times with different different agencies about possible ways to do that in Provo. I think we're exploring that space much more because our workforce is, you know, at times obviously struggling to find affordable housing. And so there's We have some initiatives that we're looking at on that front up in Summit County because it's very acute up there. Nobody can afford to live. Yeah, sure. Nobody doing housekeeping services or a nursing aid. It's really hard to live in Park City and survive on a salary of a nursing aid. We're exploring in some unique locations opportunities to do that. I think we've had a lot of discussion about Utah County and where and is is there an opportunity for us to explore that further here i think we're very interested in that uh with with the right kind of model um land is always a challenge my my summary slide that you'll see on here very much says we need the city to help ensure that it's easy for patients visitors and employees to come to our campus in provo and hopefully as i get through this presentation the data and information that i share reinforces the need there because The growth is pretty incredible that's still coming for our campus.

Yeah, because I mean, if somebody is on the north part of Provo and they're like, well, I'll just go to Orem, then that's revenue, that's tax revenue we've lost, right? I assume that that's a real... consideration, right?

Yeah, and I think for us there's a balance because we don't want to force everybody into a centralized location for care. If we can provide something close to home, we have a hub and spoke model and Intermountain is up and down the state. We want to be in communities to provide that care. That's really part of the mission.

Yeah, but I'm saying if we want to drive as much of the revenue to Provo as possible, right? I mean, we want to try to make it easy for you to do business in Provo, right?

Yes, yes. And getting to the campus, I mean, once you're on the campus, that's our problem to figure out parking and navigation, all that. But, you know, getting to the campus is absolutely imperative. And the data I will show you is that we're going to have many more people coming to this campus in the future.

Okay.

Great questions. Okay, in addition to kind of the inpatient side, one of the biggest areas that's growing for us is actually the ambulatory side. More and more of healthcare is being done outside of a hospital. You can have your carpal tunnel surgery done in an exam room in a clinic location today. joint replacement is being done in surgery centers and outpatient settings. And more and more of how healthcare is provided is moving out of a hospital and do, you know, into clinical locations. And so we have incredible growth that's happening in our, what we call our medical group, where physicians provide care in clinics. You can see some of the projections that we anticipate are pretty staggering in terms of the number of visits. And we are doing telehealth visits. That is part of our solution. So this factors in growth in areas where somebody just gets on a Zoom call with their doctor and has a visit, doesn't need to travel somewhere. We obviously want to continue to push those. incredible growth in terms of clinic visits you can see projected over the next 10 years over roughly 200 000 additional visits with more than 200 additional providers doctors on this campus in probo and again part of our goal is to make care accessible so we're not just you need a cardiologist we don't want everybody in tuck county to have to come to probo to get that that's not our goal we're going to have cardiology access in Spanish Fork and over in Saratoga and up in the north. But just based on the changing demographic, the growing Medicare population and the need for specialty care, specialty services, this is our projection. That's an increase of 194 exam rooms to 467. I mean, that essentially means we have to build another 250,000 square foot patient tower just for clinics on our campus. So if you know the Sorenson Tower on the north side of our clinic, it's building another one of those basically in the next 10 years. Similarly, with inpatient growth, we expect on the Utah Valley campus, you know, growth of roughly 115 additional beds that will be needed to house that growing average daily census. So that's growing another patient tower to start to accommodate that as well. So I'm going to show you just some additional stats and I'll show you some campus layout here. This is our headcount. So you can see the medical group bars here, the ones kind of growing the fastest. This has gone from you know 250 employees in our medical group over or just about 800 in the last five years it's been just incredible growth the hospital's maybe not grown quite as fast i think when you look at 21 compared to where we are today it's about 70 70 more employees but we expect that will continue to grow In total, Intermountain has over 4,000 employees based in Provo. This is just at the University Hospital campus. So this number starts to get us close to about 3,800 just on the campus alone.

Counselor Whitlock has a question.

Yeah, just a quick question on that. I know sometimes you have rotations. Are these people who are dedicated to this campus?

This is their primary work location. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, great question. um additionally uh some transfer data so every day our hospital gets somewhere on the average of 18 patients transferred from another facility into our hospital every day you can see how much those numbers have have grown since 2021 from about 5400 to i mean by a thousand additional visits we project that will continue to grow as the county grows because some of the specialty services that we provide are only going to be provided at this hospital and many of those transfers are for higher level of care needs 90 of those visits are ems ambulance transfers yes summer life flight and we obviously helicopters going all day long back and forth um but most are ambulance so when you start to talk about so this is not looking at ems going out into the field and picking somebody up from a car accident on i-15 and coming in that's that's additional traffic this is facility to facility transfers that have so that's just your transfers correct correct um not to how am i doing on time let me make sure i'm all right you're good doing okay um so this is our campus and as we do master site planning with with these groups we look at ages of you know building and where do we have building plan obviously uh a relatively new campus with some of the buildings been done in the last 10 years with new towers and new new facilities. So we look at this, but we have a fairly narrow, somewhat dense campus for the types of services and the growth that we're looking at. That dashed white line is sort of outlying most of the footprint of our campus. There are some buildings intermixed there. There's a gas station, there's a credit union. I'm not showing those that we obviously don't own, but not showing those on this. Um, but if, you know, if you look at kind of our campus, um, where, where we have the opportunity to grow there, there isn't a ton of room to work with. We've got some area here on the north. We have this parcel that's along 800, um, that's, uh, between, uh, freedom and and uh 300 there uh that uh we have been purchasing some of the kind of aging buildings and things uh along freedom that uh that we've been tearing down that's in preparation for i go to the next slide um we have some plans so long kind of my prior comment not announcing anything yet but we we have some plans to develop that parcel uh with with new space um and expect that there will be some new services provided on that parcel in the not too distant future i'm sorry i'm not trying to be elusive but um Until the company releases the funds to actually build something, it's not technically approved. But as we work with our planners, we look at things like where would you potentially put a new parking garage? where would you put a new tower? And so we try to look at planning for our campus and the growth, but it is a, it is a dense campus. And in order to grow, we're going to have to continue to go, you know, go vertical. I don't know that if we build another parking garage, that's where it will go. This is just sort of for illustrative purposes, but, um, needing new ambulatory buildings and new inpatient buildings, um, gives you a sense of kind of how we, uh, look at how we might do that going forward. So maybe if I'm giving you the kind of big picture vision for the hospital, the things that we are really focused on the most today, you know, in a few years, you could probably put university hospital in our title because we are very much moving towards a teaching, what I call a quasi-academic medical center. So our partnership with the New School of Medicine at BYU is going to trigger a number of things where we have plans to stand up a number of new training programs at our hospital for two reasons. One is to help train new medical students. Having residency programs is actually one of the most cost-effective ways to train medical students. Taking a busy doctor who's trying to see patients and giving them three medical students to try and teach while they're trying to get through their busy day is that's a hard thing but having a teaching model like most universities have where residents are involved in teaching medical students and then the residents are being taught more by faculty and the attending providers That's a model we're trying to mimic. So we have plans to stand up a number of residency programs. You can see in phase one, these two are the ones that were kicking off initially, internal medicine and psychiatry. The benefit of residency program besides training medical students is The statistics say roughly 50% of residents stay in the state where they train. So our goal here is to train not only med students, but med students don't always stick around. They often are going to different programs all over the country. But with residents, we have a much better sticking opportunity to have them fill our needs here locally in the city, in the county, and in the state. We are working on examining a number of residency programs where we would be really have an identity as a teaching hospital, which is a huge evolution from what we've been over the years. So that's a big part of what we're exploring there. There's kind of a phase two based on if BYU's medical school expands beyond 60 students, which we expect it will. where we think we need some additional programs. These are specialty programs called fellowships where we think there's opportunities to train in some of these specialty areas as well. And so that's a big part of what we're doing. Another big part of what we're doing is becoming a level one trauma hospital. So our goal in the next couple of years is to achieve this designation. There's only two facilities in the state that have this, University of Utah Medical Center and Intermountain Medical Center in Murray. That's it for the state of Utah. Primary Children's is a pediatric level one trauma for the state, but as far as adult hospitals go, We're already acting very much like a level one trauma hospital today. There isn't much that comes to us that we send out. So, you know, the highway six disasters and the ATV and the recreating accidents and interestingly enough, our largest volume of trauma is ground level falls. So grandma or mom and dad trip at home and break a hip, that counts as a trauma and activates our trauma team. So those numbers are growing and our intent is to become a level one facility to kind of match this identity as a teaching quaternary type hospital going forward. And then I've mentioned some of this already, but just the growth within our medical group to support that sub-specialization of services, you know, having specialized cancer surgeons and specialized within certain specialties sort of sub-specialization, that's a big part of kind of what the future is for us as well, so. khan before we leave that yeah um so you talk about partnering with byu do you partner with norta or rocky mountain we do yeah we do uh rocky mountain i think um well we do partner with rocky mountain in terms of some of their you know programs and students but from a medical school school standpoint we do have a partnership with norta so their medical students already are are in our facility and and so some of this actually will help us solve solve how we do training for all medical students whether they're byu or or norda um type thing and so um you know uh yeah great great question uh so make sure i'm understanding correctly right now because you're not teaching possible you don't actually have residents on staff we have one residency program today uh it's family medicine so we've been uh that's a program in place uh for more than 20 minutes 20 minutes sorry 20 years 20 years um long program yeah yeah yeah uh just started um yeah more than 20 years and actually you know many of the physicians that work in the county and and even in rural central parts of the state went through our our program at utah valley hospital for family medicine so that's the only one we have but you'll be expanding that to multiple residence programs multiple programs correct in addition and do you know rough numbers on what that would be he should he just showed him what Yeah, I mean, the programs themselves are, we're looking at these ones, but I'll give you an example.

Sorry, I was going to say like rough number of residents.

Yeah, yeah. So for internal medicine, it's a three-year residency program. We're looking at 15 residents per class. So it'd be a total of 45 new residents training at our hospital in that specialty. For psychiatry, it'll be four per class, and that's a four-year residency. So a total of 16 per class.

for for the program in total so quite a lot of residents yeah well i'm thrilled you're focusing on psychiatry that's such a yeah such an underfunded one um gary garrett has a question online gary

yes can you go back to your last uh map image the one that says long term zero to ten years that one shows a long 500 north on the corner there and i'm sorry 500 west and 800 north the charcoal property which includes chevron and the other private practices i assume that's charcoal because that property is in private hands

Yeah, it's probably charcoal because our consultant made a mistake when they drew this map and failed to remember that there's property there we don't own. So we don't have plans. We actually have a building in that charcoal area for our family medicine residency that got wiped out in this, and I wasn't able to get an updated map in time. Okay.

so i just made an assumption there and then farther uh north um or rather east on the under north the other charcoal piece adjacent to the west of the prospective building is also charcoal my real question is that property not owned by um ihc it is and i think that's meant to depict like additional surface parking opportunity again i think the consultant uh

made some made some mistakes in their in their map drawing here we will have additional parking around any building that we build um on that parcel but we do not own credit union and so we're you know we are planning for what we're doing there as if the credit union stays and that may change who knows over time but you know not not something that we are in charge of obviously so sorry for that miss miss uh direction there i know the city wants to get rid of the credit union too okay you both have a mutual um so yeah just in summary I mean, I think covered much of this. I mean, we are very interested in an 800 North expansion. In fact, when we rebuilt the hospital, the front door for our hospital faces south to 800 North intentionally because This was in the RTP, this was part of the plan. We were expecting that to kind of continue to grow as maybe a major corridor, but obviously we're very interested in an interchange connecting the freeway and having a direct shot just because the number of patients coming to our campus by ambulance and transport is going up. And if you can have a direct line for how they get to us, that's just better. And so we're very interested, very supportive of that, happy to be vocal about that. Our campus is going to continue to be an increasingly active and vibrant campus with greater density. And then, as I mentioned earlier, we just need your continued support. As we grow, how do we accommodate the growth of people getting to our campus.

Well, I know one of the, as we talked about, you're the second highest employer in our city, and we're working on our economic development plan. And we assume, I mean, who knows what'll happen, but it's very likely, I think it'll come back to something medical that we should focus on, bio, industry, something. But, you know, we've talked about even having like, a committee or something of you know the top economic people you know the hospital byu um norda like having these groups together that we can help do the things we need to do in the city to make it better for you to make it better for our customers i mean our citizens and the customers of the businesses that you bring so much to the city and so i assume that we will work a lot together in the future and we're grateful for that you guys are here and that you take good care of your property and that you're a wonderful asset to the city.

Wonderful. Thank you. We're excited to continue to be involved in conversations.

Any questions for Kyle?

No. Thank you, Kyle.

Great.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you. What'd you say?

You were there.

All right. We're going to take a break. Recording stopped.

Start it again. Are we ready to go? Yep.

Recording in progress.

All right. Next, we have a resolution amending the home ARP allocation plan. This will be presented by Melissa McNally, our community grants administrator.

So, Melissa.

Good afternoon.

So for those of you who are new and aren't aware, our home ARP funding was a one-time funding from HUD to help with individuals dealing with homelessness or at risk of homelessness. And this is just an amendment to the plan because one of our recipients of this funding would like to change the use of some of the funding. So they want to move $260,000 from tenant-based rental assistance into supportive services because there's a little more leeway in the things that they can use it for in supportive services. So it's not increasing their funding at all. It's just moving the funding kind of from one bucket to another one. And because of the amount, we have to do a substantial amendment and have a... public comment period, and then we'll have a hearing on this in August. So do you have any questions on any of that?

Well, from the description, Melissa, I just wondered if this was like administrative services for them to manage the program, like are they just using it for staff wages?

Or is it for actual? No, this is for homeless. So it's for community action. Some of the supportive services does reimburse them for salaries for the individuals that are dealing directly with that population. But one of the biggest things that they cited was to for eviction prevention. So a lot of the bulk of the funding will be going to help people stay in their housing. And then some of it will go for staff salaries.

But that's like a percentage, right? Is it like 10% or something?

No, that part, the administrative is for us. Yes. So we reduced that down to because council had some concerns of

about how big that was we reduced it to five percent and released the other two for more services so okay great that's where we're at um any other questions for melissa all right we'll see you tonight um or is this august does it have to okay yeah this is just uh hey this is coming this is coming up sure always invited All right. Next resolution approving an interlocal agreement between Provo City and Orem City regarding funding for Orem 2000 South Storm Drain Project and authorizing the mayor to sign that agreement on behalf of the city. Presented by Daniel Nixon, public works engineer. I don't think you've ever presented to us before. She has. Oh, have you? I'm sorry, Daniel.

No, just fine.

I was excited to see you. Welcome back.

So it's it's kind of funny because I have you. I do know I see I presented on the other section of 2000 North interlocal agreement. So this is going on to the east side of Geneva Road. So previously, when I came, I talked about the storm drain that they that I installed as part of my project between Lake Parkway and Geneva Road. This is now on the other side of Geneva. So To reiterate, we do have an existing agreement for 2000 North. Provo City owns 2000 North up to the north curb, and then it's Orem City after that. So they own the planter strip and the sidewalk. So any utility work that they do within the road does need to have Provo City review it and approve it. But we have this agreement in place stating that they can put in utilities within that road that they may need. Okay, I have a question for you. Provo and Orem don't share any utilities, right? We don't share pipes. right so when it comes to water they have their water system we have our water system same with sewer and there's some electrical stuff probably they have rocky mountain power and we have okay so they're just using our space to go in and access their stuff it's not our stuff so to clarify on this one specifically because we don't have a storm drain main in 2000 north nor do we Well, we were planning on putting one in, but they needed a large facility to be put into this road. And they, with working with our staff, we agreed that if they would accept our roadway drainage into their system, we would not put in our system, and then they could put in a bigger facility and have more room for their storm drain main. So in this case, it is a shared facility in some regard. So Provo City takes care of the inlets and the laterals connecting to the main, but then Orem City takes care of all of the main storm drain. And they're getting that water. Yeah.

Yeah.

All right. Um, so like I was saying before, this is on the east side of Geneva road. So where I have it kind of highlighted in red is the location of the project that Orem city is proposing. Well, they already have it put out, uh, already awarded to RB construction. Um, so they'll connect on to where I ended just past, uh, Geneva road, right by the holiday gas station. and then they'll continue up and stop right prior to the UTA tracks. So they won't have to cross those thankfully. So we have a proposed agreement between Orem and Provo currently stating that Orem will be doing it we'll be paying for the design and putting out to bid the contract for installing this storm drain. And then Provo City's cost associated with this is there's a and I'll get to that later, but there's a connection into an existing system that we have that we would like them to make and some inlets that will be placed further up one of the big caveats though that i wanted to make sure you guys were aware of is in this agreement we did put in a limited discharge section the reason being is that currently there is no um forum city outfall because they have not completed their lakeview parkway roadway they have to overflow into provo city's connection or system in lakeview parkway And if they were to connect like a whole subdivision or two onto the system, our system wouldn't be able to handle it. We don't have the capacity to have their communities added onto our system. So this limited discharge is essentially stating that the only discharge going into the system is from our street drainage, because that is going eventually to Provo City. stormwater right now. And once they have an outfall placed with their Lakeview Parkway extension, then they can hook on whatever they want because it will then be disconnected from the Provo system. So these are just some of the exhibits within the agreement showing the project plans, just where it starts and ends and then um the highlighted in yellow section right here it's oh sorry i feel like that you can draw on it don't worry this part um so we have an existing stump in the road on 2000 we would like them to make the connection so that instead of potentially overflowing in a big rain event having to go around the corner it can just connect into the storm drain system and flow out. So that's the main cost that Provo City is gonna be paying for. We also do take, we did some math and we take percentage of other costs associated, which I'll show you.

The whole cost is 16?

Yeah, yep. That's the cost that Provo City will pay. the total contract cost is 900, just over 900,000. So the materials to do that connection and the replacement of the asphalt and everything is about 13, $14,000. And then this 2,000, $2,500 is, it takes percentage of, so we take the cost,

That's $14,000 and see how much that is of the overall contract.

And then on certain items like SWIP and mobilization and traffic control, we pay a cost, part of that cost, because they'll have to use that to do our section. So the total cost for us comes out to $16,520.49. So not a crazy expense for us in the long run.

No. All right.

Oh, there was one. I don't know. No. This is a part of what Provo City is paying, but there is also an inlet here and another one on that side. There's two inlets that are being placed that Provo City will take over ownership of once they're installed, but we are not paying the cost of them. The reason being is that there's a development and why this is all going in is there's a development on ORM's side of the road that they have to get collector street drainage at some point it's part of our city code and so Orem has an agreement with the developer to get these installed and since that would normally be a cost of the developer we are not having to pay for them so any questions yes is it fair to say this is a good deal for us yes that's what it sounds like counselor Bogdan danielle do we know how close arm is to getting their portion of the lakeview parkway finished i don't know unfortunately i'm hoping i have heard rumors so that that things are what do rumors say that that maybe the mayor the new mayor might be helping get things moving but again all rumor all speculation i don't know

When I talked to Karen, she said that's probably a good thing to put on our joint meeting.

That is a good thing to put on our joint meeting.

Yeah, that is. Okay.

Yeah, getting that finished. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, next we have an ordinance vacating a section of 600 West to deed back to the adjoining property owners. This is presented by Megan Jensen, a city planner.

Hey, thank you.

um this one is pretty simple um on 1600 west there was a subdivision um and the city had a certain portion of the right-of-way dedicated to us to do street improvements those improvements have been done

um and there's about a 20 foot width that's left over and so this is just to deed that property back to the adjoining landowners they originally gave it to you right yeah yeah and that's all as it should be any questions i was a little confused on this one so

they you just said they gave it it's their land originally it was their land originally so when we got that from them did we purchase it from them did we you just have to give it for their subdivision we required it okay we required a dedication for the subdivision and we've been able to do our work had our elbow room we're done with it now okay i just I know that we're not supposed to give away land without compensation, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't an issue here. No, because they gave it for free. That's what I thought.

Yeah, and on top of that, it's actually what the state statute requires for vacations. So once we've dedicated property, once we decide we're not using it and we vacate it, it's what the state statute requires.

Yeah. I just think it's useful to make it clear that it's okay for us to give this land back.

Councilor Bogdan. So with 1600 West, especially on this portion, it is super narrow, super, super narrow. We are confident that we're going to be wide enough. Because this portion right here is across from existing houses. It's not that upper portion that we had widened.

So this road has been on the plan to widen for decades. And the problem we have is you notice the next house, you can't see all the houses on there it never gets white and sidewalk never got done because we kept saying we're going to build back to this line of dedication but we would have had to buy like eight houses to do that um we determined that that's never going to happen so we would never build sidewalks along the street so it's better just to get the sidewalk in now even though rather than try to wait for buying these houses otherwise we'd be decades before they would get a sidewalk it's better to get that in there now because there's so much growth for schools there we just need to get the sidewalks in and if we try to hold back for a big roadway section we would do what we did in the past and just never do it and so it just makes sense to get get in there get done so holding out this person's right away after they dedicated to us we're just never going to use it it's just uh it was a good idea that it's not really practical and feasible to think we'd ever build that road that way, just because of the house takings we'd have to do on both sides of the road.

That doesn't solve the problem that that road is so narrow. That road is a problem. Is there parking allowed on it?

No.

I don't think there's no parking signs per se, but if people park on it, they're told by the cops you can only get one car down it. It's that narrow. It's an alleyway. It is not a street. So it's one of the other streets that needs signs. It's a street that needs to be widened and dealt with. And that's my concern.

Is this a main street?

I'm not familiar with it. 1600 West is scheduled to go in through all the way to the parkway. And this goes from Sunset View Elementary south. And it dead ends right now into Farmfields. And it will go through all the way to the parkway. It's one of the 1100, 1600, 2050. I'm not familiar with it. It goes down to the ballpark, so you get a lot of traffic when fall season's in. I get complaints all the time that we never should have allowed that development to go through because we just don't have the sidewalk for the kids to walk to school. We just don't have the width of that road. And so that's my concern is we're giving this up. And I realize we have to bite, but this is going to be, a major corridor. It's going from Center Street all the way to the Parkway.

The sense is if we're going to end up doing that and buying all these homes, if we have to buy that right away, that would be the least of our expenses. The power corridor, all the utilities, the expense of this project to make it a bigger width than this, that i don't see it happening in several generations and so we would go generations without this even if this connects down to it to the lakeview it will the funding cost looking projecting that funding this will never get done and it will stay with no sidewalks on a narrow road for generations because we're waiting for funding to buy all those homes relocate all the power corridor relocate all the irrigation, all the other things that are out there. And I think we've seen that in the last 30 years. This needs to be done, but we just, there's not going to be a time that we'll come to this group and say, we got to buy nine homes at half a million or a million dollars a pop, buy all this property. I would envision this group looking at us and saying, that's just not ever going to be a $10 million priority to build this road. is it is it narrow for blocks and blocks or is it just narrow for like eight homes it's narrow for several blocks but once you get into the open field we'll wipe it out so with the new stuff you will make it appropriately we looked at the traffic it will function it's not ideal it's um going to be challenging but we'll have other um collected grid in this section so this piece of right-of-way whether we own it or don't own it, isn't going to dictate whether we ever do this widening design. It's going to be, if this body wants to dedicate millions and millions of dollars to buy homes and not even build the road yet, just to buy the homes, then...

In this road not being wide doesn't mean you can't widen the new roads that will come in.

No, we would widen

is it ends at Sunset Elementary. So it is one of the two major roads you use going from the south to get up to the school. And as much as it has no sidewalk on it, you've got that new subdivision that has lots of kids. And so you do have a lot of pedestrian traffic.

We just want to get them off the road on the sidewalks is the goal we have there. Anyway, that's where I think just projecting out, seeing the future, that's what I would do. don't envision us owning that we have a no man's land it'd be nice to have landscape take care of it i just don't see a scenario where the city

kids walking dead for general and where is the sidewalk being placed is that on the piece that's still yeah the city was sitting on the sidewalk that's where it says area to remain dedicated the sidewalk on the other side is actually more useful than the sidewalk here because these are farmhouses right i mean you can see how deep these lots are i mean jeff and laurie live on this street right they live on this side of the street this other side of the street is more They built the Hillshawn Lane. So Hillshawn hits it when you call it Hillshawn Lane, but they built that there. And so most of that farmland is, is taken and the junior high is over there too, guys. I mean, you're looking at maybe two houses north is the elementary school. And then you're looking at maybe three blocks east is the junior high school. So this is a very traveled road. It is a very narrow road and the inlet at 890 goes all the way through over to 1100 right past that junior high. It's a highly traveled road. It does need sidewalks all the way down. So the sidewalk goes, what, two houses and then it stops. And then it goes down to 890. I mean, you're looking from 6 out to 890. You're looking at three blocks. And this is closer to 6 than it is to 890. So I agree the sidewalk needs to be there. And this is behind the sidewalk. It's not in front of the sidewalk, right?

Yeah, that section's blocked.

Why did we have the sidewalk come out so far away? Why didn't we have it pushed back?

So if you look, what we intend to do is if we have the road leading in and out, it makes an unsafe condition. We want it to just have a straight shot. Because if you look at all the other properties, they would have owned way out. So if we're putting this sidewalk in, If we had built it into this section and then build it out, then build it in and build it out, the drainage would be virtually impossible to manage. It would be awful for, it'd be unsafe condition for the traffic. It would just create a hazard. It would be a hazard for the kids that walk out into the sidewalk, out into the street. there's there's not a good reason to build it that way so we need to build a straight shot and um i just believe the financial constraints are not going to let us build a road we'd really like to build and so i think that's where we are with that i don't that answer your question no it did i appreciate that but i also think it's good to get out there into the public because this street is

The street is a problem.

It is, but we have so many kids walking down that street.

We do.

And if we just keep delaying and not doing the sidewalking,

we we just said we're going to jump on this this just needs to get down so we're going to finish this sidewalk we need to get the no parking signs up on that road too yeah we can do that too Councillor Whitlock I have two questions one just to summarize the conversation to make sure I'm understanding it well essentially we're saying there's a lot of kids on the street we want to build a sidewalk because we're building the sidewalk we know we won't need that piece of land because we're putting the sidewalk to the right of it and that's what we're doing that's like the trigger is that correct yes amazing so we're prioritizing kids safety um ahead of time proactively is that fair to say yes cool i have a really just a small question what is the actual size of that parcel because there's sort of different reports of it in the in different documents one of them says it's a point one three acres, and the other one says it's 0.085 acres. So I'm just curious if you know the actual size.

The size of the red part. The red part is 0.08 is what it says in the legal description here.

Sorry, it's small. Okay, there we go.

They told me one time, I never really. That's why I was, I need somebody to tell me. Makes sense.

What is the width of that row, now that we're talking about city streets?

Byrne's supposed to be here, he's on vacation. No, I'm not glad. No, we should be glad. It's not a positive thing. Don't report that behavior. No, we are not going to report that. I won't tell anybody otherwise. No. So we've gone back and forth. Before we did the sidewalk project, we had been arguing for probably two years, Byrne and I, back and forth. We got to the consensus that we had to get... This was the only way to get the sidewalk done, is just to do this. and and and he's concurrent with the hebrews we've we just we just had to find a way to solve this we don't remember the width yeah we do know the width but i don't have to go look at it i don't know it well we're glad 30 degrees is it smaller than 24 feet uh i'm looking at it i would dare say measure the wider part with the new subdivision measure i think it's bigger i think it's a 60 foot asphalt or vertical asphalt section that i'd have to i would guess more 30 i don't think it's 60. let me let me check we're also we're eliminating let me let me find out all right thank you

All right, next item of ordinance requiring members of the boards and commissions to approve a residence. This is presented by our policy analyst, Tanner Takuchi.

All right.

Thank you. Today, first item I'll be presenting regards our boards and commissions. This topic came up because we're in the confirmation season, the consenting season for board appointees. So essentially what this does is it changes what I call the default setting for residency requirements. Currently in code, the default is that anyone can serve on a Provo board or commission regardless of their residency status, being a Provo resident. unless the code in that specific board or commission section of statute says otherwise. Those boards, as I understand it, are listed right here with their actual requirements. So what the proposal, the policy proposal that I'm going to explain today would essentially add a residency requirement to the general section of the boards and commissions chapter of code. and allow exceptions to be made in the individual sections for the specific boards and commissions. So you can see the language here. That is what is the function, like the main functional part of the proposal. And then the other exhibits that are included in your packet allow the Arts Council to maintain three non-residents because of the impact the Arts Council has on the broader Utah County community. That was requested by the sponsor, Councilor Bogdan. And then as Brian and I talked about it, we suggested adding exceptions there in the Airport Board and on the Board of Equalization, which is made exclusively of city employees.

What's that, Theo?

uh yeah flight based operator it's the person who runs the yeah the gas and stuff yeah oh yeah yeah yeah okay got it that representative is required to be a member of the board uh who represents the business side but other than that yeah citizen side and there's no guarantee that whoever that person is that makes sense correct

And this is a change made when we, about the time we published. So the language of candidates here would allow any incumbent non-residents to continue. I understand that there's at least one that was just appointed to the Landmark Commission. So that individual would be able to carry out the term that they've been approved to start.

All right, any questions for, okay, go ahead.

Oh, sorry, I can just, I'll make this quick. I just want to point out, there's, There's a consideration to be made about some committees having very specific requirements. You'll see some of these listed here require additional training or experience. So essentially one of the impacts of this could be shrinking the total talent pool. For example, not all BYU history professors live in the city. So if the council is comfortable with the pool, of professors or anyone else with history experience or transportation, academia experience living in the city, then that really is a non-issue at that point. I don't have any numbers to back that up right now, but I don't know how many history professors live here in the city. That's what I mean. You can see of the boards and commissions that we have, we're on the lower end. Most cities require more of their boards to have some form of residency than us.

So we're the largest city out of those.

That's correct. And this is just a summary of how the boards will be composed if this proposal is adopted. And that's the end of it.

Thanks, Tanner. Any questions for Tanner?

Yes. Just the Arts Council. You mentioned the broader impact it has on broader community correct um i guess i need a little more i mean why does the irish council need to have people from outside provo i don't know just i just need to understand a little more that just came to us a couple years ago yeah go for it

when the Covey Center was constructed, that was a change. I think that came around that time because of the regional nature of the Covey Center and the assumption that the Arts Council would be part of, you know, with that facility. So it was looked at as a regional facility and is being utilized as such. So that was the logic behind it. So you think it's still justified? I think it is.

Yeah. Thanks.

Question. Yes. Yes, Tanner. Can you clarify for me how this relates to the power board? Is the power board technically not a provo board since it's umpah?

It is. And it is outlined in the power section of code.

And they're all residents, right? Yes.

Oh, they are all residents.

Currently they are.

I believe they are.

Currently they are.

But this would make it required that they all are?

Yes, that is correct.

And I think that makes sense because Ompa is only six cities. Why would we want somebody from Orem sitting on our energy board? And we have to have an energy board from what I understand because we're so large, right? So it doesn't make sense to farm that out. If we're supposed to have it, let's keep it.

right but what about uh so what am i missing here because it includes nephi and um so would no no no well that's not the oompa board that's a whole different board yeah yeah i think you're conflating the the board of directors of umpa with the provost city energy board that just advises the provost city energy department yeah oh okay sorry thank you

Gary, I've heard that Spanish Fork is getting close to where they would be required to have an energy board as well. So I think it's within UMPA's bylaws or something that triggers an energy board. All right. Any other questions?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yes, Madam Director.

I thought, Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought we got rid of the design review committee. Is that still in code?

We'll be getting rid of it and formalizing that. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you.

Scott Henderson?

Maybe helping you with the definition of residency. I know there are board members that own a business here in town or own land or own property. Are those included as residents? Are we going to have to establish whether or not they reside in the community or are they landowners?

That's a good point.

So as far as the legal definition, I mean, when I've worked on other issues in the past, if there's no definition in code, then it reverts to the most common understanding of what a resident would be, which would be their primary residences here in the city. Like they spend 51% of their residential time in the city. But Brian, feel free to jump in and correct me on that.

No, I think that's right as far as what the definition means. And I guess to the policy question, could you go back to the slide that lists the boards? I think, yeah, I was going to say, I think the question, the policy question is a valid one and it just becomes, are there some of the, are there any of these that you think that someone who owns property should be allowed rather than someone who lives here? Because, you know, just because somebody, I don't know, owns a business doesn't necessarily make them a prime candidate for the library board but it might make them a prime candidate for the energy board maybe right i mean because that has an impact on business so i don't i know my goal is residents as far as they live here yeah their quality of life their day-to-day they're invested

And I would say also to Brian's comment, you know, there's a Venn diagram, people who own businesses in Provo, people who live in Provo, and there's an overlap there. You would be now then focusing on, you could consider if there was a need for someone who owned a business, it's just a smaller pool, but it is an existing pool of residents who own businesses.

Gary, do you have a question? Does Gary have his hand up? Okay.

It was the earlier question, but since you asked, yes, I will inquire. I will inquire about DPI. To Scott's earlier point about business owners, could business owners be included on? Okay. Okay. That's a separate. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. Have we had, because Tanner, you mentioned like a conceptual on your other slide where you said residency requirements may limit talent pools.

Yeah, sure.

Have we had a difficult time filling boards historically?

Now that I'm aware, Scott, I don't know, you would probably have more experience historically. I haven't asked that question of you.

It seems to be a constant call, and especially around July 1st, there is quite a turnover. But I think we've been able to reach quorums and fill our boards along the way with a little bit of cooperative effort.

Well, this slide is up just going back to Scott's earlier comment. You notice that particularly in TMAC, one of the members on TMAC is supposed to set specifically be a, somebody who represents a business. So that, that may be one of the questions with that. One of the areas where Scott's question particularly applies is, do you want that to have to be a business representative who also lives here? Or could it just, we have that now.

So right now it's the Vesper owner. who lives here and owns the scooter store. So I think we could do both. I've double-checked on TMAC, and Vern felt comfortable with the change. Thought it was good.

We can try it, see how it goes.

Yeah, if we run into a problem, we know.

Expand.

All right. Yeah, for example, the way that it's written, it says except as provided with a specific board. So you could always add language to the TMAC one later saying that that one doesn't have to be a resident.

We needed to, yeah. Trump, the one that you're, the change that you're making.

Sure.

So.

All right. Well, we'll hear to, this is in the night meeting.

Yeah, I can bring it back to a night meeting. Yep. The next time.

But I can also say that even though we have BYU, we're still a pretty large city, right? And we are still the hub. And I think we can, and we have a college town, so we have professors living here, we have business owners living here, we have residents living here. I think we should be able to fill those. Awesome, thank you.

Oh, you're the next one too. I'm gonna read it really quick, Tanner. A discussion regarding a proposed text amendment to allow tow truck parking in residential zones And I'm not gonna read the part that was- Nope.

Yeah, thank you for not reading. So yeah, this is an issue item that was sponsored by Councilor McKay and Councilor Bogdan. And just to clarify, this item only pertains to storage and parking of a tow truck on a residential parcel, not streets in a residential zone. So I just wanna make that clear upfront. That's my responsibility for any confusion on that. So, This is an act, a balancing act of public safety and the needs of the police department compared to like local neighborhood issues and trying to balance those important needs. First, just a little bit of context. I'm gonna talk about how tow trucks operate in Provo. I'm gonna get to the proposal and describing what the proposal exactly entails towards the end. But in Provo, we have several tow truck businesses that operate here. And not all of them are residents, people who operate tow truck businesses, speaking to that question from earlier, actually live here in Provo. So they might operate from yards here, but in addition to providing services to citizens or residents who need towing services because they have a flat tire or something like that, they also respond to public needs from law enforcement agencies, including the Provo Police Department. And so that can be for any number of issues, some of which are listed here. And so the police department rather frequently calls on tow trucks in the area through what's called a rotation list, where all of the tow truck businesses are listed out, and then they go in order calling on their services when they're required. Those tow truck companies that are on the rotation list and who are on the rotation list for other law enforcement agencies in the county, that will operate in the county, have contractual time limits that they have to respond to those calls. So you'll see it can be longer for some of these other agencies. Ours is 15 minutes. I will say though, that that's actually to my knowledge, not written anywhere yet. The police department is working on a written agreement that will codify that likely to 15 minutes when they adopt their new software to help operate the tow list. But I spoke to everyone on the tow list, the operators, that is to say, and then the police department and everyone, across the board without fail said the expectation is 15 minutes so that is what they're functionally operating on right now so they have to respond in 15 minutes to any call that they receive any time of day 24 7. that's what we're expecting at the tow truck companies so i'll go over these again it's not covering this sorry it's not covering this this has nothing to do with this but so this will stay in code however this is a piece of code that's currently in our zoning, our zone ordinance, zoning code, that would prohibit them, prohibit most tow trucks from being stored on a residential lot. So essentially they cannot park their tow truck that they operate at their house, is what that law is saying. And so this has created some conflicts for residents where they're being cited by code enforcement for having their tow truck at their house, even though we're requiring a 15 minute response to police calls, even at nighttime.

Wait, can you go back one, Tanner? Shall I be allowed to be parked on any public street or no tow truck. Okay. So that's no parking. That's correct. I thought they were conflicting, like you said, but they're the same.

Yes. So just to give a quick background also on if this has been a problem, if this happens frequently, this is how many heavy trucks or heavy commercial vehicles are cited by code enforcement annually for parking on the street illegally in violation of that first code. This is how many heavy commercial vehicles in general are being cited for being parked on a parcel illegally, whether that's a food truck or a heavy earth moving equipment or something like that. And then tow trucks, actually, there's only been about five cases over the past five years that a tow truck has actually been in violation. That's just for general context. This doesn't happen a lot, but it could happen. It's happened to some residents who have brought this to the council's attention recently. So as far as the actual need or the effect of this and potentially prohibiting or making it difficult for operators to park at their house, this is a frequent occurrence. It's probably a small portion of their actual business being called on to tow for Provo once a week. but they could be towing for other cities, and it really just would strain their ability to respond to, like it's listed here, 1,800 requests a year for towing services.

Councillor Bodkin has a question. So, Tanner, let's say we keep this and they can't respond in 15 minutes because they're not dynamic and they can just drive to their yard and grab it and go. Well, what will this cut from 35 down to what we know.

So I talked to Lieutenant Larson. He didn't give me an exact number. There are some people on the rotation right now who routinely miss the cutoff, and that's really the biggest impact on the operators is the fact that if they can't come in time, then the officer, the responding officer, will just skip them and they lose out on the calls. That's probably the biggest impact to the operator. Lieutenant Larson expects that some will drop off, but I don't think he was able to quantify exactly how many will drop off. will drop off the list because they're just kind of permanently unable to respond.

And so we don't know how many we've put us in, like, crisis mode. I mean, because we're using them one One per week at 35.

I get what you're looking. So 35 companies responding. I don't think a reduction in that number will lead to a crisis. I think it will just lead to more calls for the people who remain on the rotation list.

But let's say that Robin, his company... Are they the only ones in town that can actually park at a tow yard and respond? I mean, we have others that are hiding their truck well that aren't getting hit. I mean, if we keep this in line and keep enforcing on this, are we going to just be down to dynamic?

I understand what you're saying. Yes. Well, given, I mean, you would think not given that it's already currently illegal and we've only been citing once a year.

yeah okay so they're not doing well at hiding their trucks they're just not parking in here yeah and we're not finding and we're not complaining about it or they don't live necessarily in the city but those operators who do live in the city who could live in the city in the future would be impacted by it you're right that there are some operators the vast minority though uh i out of my interviews that i've had with the towing companies Only three or four, three of which are the people you're referring to, live within walking distance or close enough that it wouldn't really be an additional tax on their time.

So we're going to open this up to all trailers and such? No. You're just going to put in there exceptions for tow trucks? Yep.

So I'll skip right to that. So this would just, this does two things. The primary action that you'll be taking if you adopt this is to basically say the code as it is stands, except tow trucks. So we were gonna continue to prohibit heavy commercial vehicles on residential parcels above a certain weight rating, except if you're a tow truck. That's the only.

And it's actually more restricted unless you're a tow truck that has a contract with us to be able to. or with any government?

With any government entity. And I spoke with the code enforcement about that and they say, and Sandy can speak to this, they would prefer to keep it as any government entity. It's easy enough to verify that because of the way that the trucks have to be marked and you can easily verify if they're on another government agency's list.

i mean obviously this isn't happening a lot but who would technically be responsible to enforce this is it sandy's group or is it that's going to be unfortunate it's code it would become enforcement oh oh yeah oh you do both now yes yeah i got it yeah okay so it's not what i was asking actually is it parking or is it only enforcement it would be code enforcement because it's okay it's code enforcement it's not a parking okay um counselor christiansen um i'm sorry i'm not tracking

Okay. This is such a minuscule impact. Am I missing something? So I'm just thinking about all the time that's been spent to get to this point that you've spent. I must be missing a slide. I'm not saying it's you. I'm just saying, why are we spending time on this?

Residents reached out to us and I sponsored it and Becky did.

Okay. It just seems to be such a minuscule issue that I don't think it's worth the cycles. Sure.

Well, all the work's been done now. Now you just got to vote on it.

You're on it for sure.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat with Craig right now on this one. And I will note that just a couple blocks down on my street is one of the little tow yards. And so we frequently have these trucks and everything there. it is a significant issue in the neighborhood to have these big trucks moving through it and if you're allowing you know a resident to bring that truck through the neighborhood regularly and onto their property you're going to complete create problems with those neighbors and i don't like that this tailors the law to favor a very small subset, a certain kind of business. When we know there are other businesses that operate in Provo for the good of the city, although not with a government contract, either with food trucks or your trailers for your audio visual equipment and things like that, where they are not allowed to park those large things on their property. And when we had looked at those before, the safety justifications that we had for exercising that power as a government was, you know, sidelines. If you've got this in your driveway, then you can't see somebody on the sidewalk. You're creating a dangerous condition potentially by parking a big thing on your own property. And I don't see... changing that requirement for this type of vehicle if we're keeping it for the others now if we decide that you should be able to park whatever you want on your own property which i think is also a defensible position then i would be in favor of of removing those restrictions entirely but not just for this very small subset that that doesn't feel fair to me and it doesn't make sense of those safety justifications. The other thing that I will note is I like the idea of reducing the gross vehicle weight because those can be a problem on our residential streets. They add additional wear and tear. But if we are are encouraging people to bring those heavy vehicles onto their residential streets. I think we're creating a cost for the city. I know one of my neighbors has a very heavy truck and He drove it through our little alley after a period of wetness and substantial damage to the alley, which the city is not going to repair. And we're going to have to raise money to repair that ourselves. But I've seen the cost of these big things in our little residential areas. So I'm not supportive. And another of this, how many people it actually affects. I just, I don't see it.

Okay. Can we hear from you, Sandy, your opinion on this? Well, Marilyn, I'm new to the code enforcement. Code enforcement, I think, has started because we did cite a tow truck that was on their property. And it's just kind of brought up the question, do they need those tow trucks for this 15 minutes? But again, as we were looking, we've only done one in a year. So that's kind of what I'm weighing on. Now, as far as parking enforcement, this 1800, we enforced that. You see in the citations that we're doing it on the street because of what you said, it was residential, the streets areas. And I was one, and I will, Heather and I spoke, and I did recommend that we kept it at 1800 across the board.

Sure, to make it beautiful. Yeah. Oh, go ahead.

We changed it down to a lower rate of capacity. Yeah. Yeah.

So I'll also just give context to that. So I talked with Vern when I was looking at what we're gonna keep as the standard regardless of the tow trucks. He just pointed out that the way, this way one and a half tons more license 18,000 pounds gross. That's kind of an outdated way. It was his words to describe a truck of that nature. So we, after we talked over it, his idea is that that definition across the board throughout code will need to be changed at some point. The 14,000 pound weight rating is the upper limit of the federal highway administration's class three medium truck. It's basically the upper limit of most heavy trucks that a person would own as a private citizen. So that's why that number was selected to replace the current language.

I'm not, I'm not married to this. Like I see both sides too. And I also, You know, a citizen came and was, you know, it's their livelihood and these things. And so, but there's also the reality of the sight of line and the safety and the nuisance. And it is just one that we know of, like the number, knowing the stats on, you know, what's been ticketed is, you know, very relevant. Would we just want to include the, if there's, unless someone wants to take a vote on it, I don't know what you think, Becky. I could go either way. Really, but do we want to add the 14,000 to the code rewrite and just include that in that?

That might be, if you're looking for uniformity, that would certainly be the better way.

What do you think, Becky? I did start thinking about worrying like the unevenness, the unfairness of it and like why that, you know.

I did put it out, and I got two responses. Because for me, I grew up in a transportation company family. Big semis. We never parked our trucks at the house, ever. However, my small street gets buses all the time and diesel trucks all the time. We have heavy public works equipment that goes down all the time. And my street is very quiet. so um to me and it doesn't it would affect this guy in his livelihood but he's not the owner of that i mean the company the company owner needs to be responsible to have something within 15 minutes that the guy can go pick up and go around because that's the way that we run our company however i don't like it on the street i mean there's even heartburn with when public works does stuff with their own equipment and they park it there for a month and you've got a loader or a backhoe or you know and and it it causes problems with little kids starting out you can't see that and so that causes a lot of heartburn i've seen that over the years um so that's why i was like not on the street if this is going to happen it's got to happen in dude's driveway or chick's driveway so um i Like I said, and then when they talked about the fairness, I'm like, let's just bring this to council and just have this conversation. Because I don't really, I'm not married to it either.

I think there's a good private property rights argument if you could deal with the sight lines and parking away from the sidewalk through other regulations.

Which you have to do in the code.

Correct. Yeah, exactly. To just say, if you're below this weight and you're respecting the sight lines for safety, then park whatever kind of vehicle you want. I think that's a reasonable approach. Or what we have is a reasonable approach. I agree with Counselor Wibble that I don't love like the one that you could make a similar if we put Tanner on any individual business, he can make a similar argument for why we should create a carve out.

But, too, it's kind of a rub that there's only three cities that have this restriction, right? Us, Orem, and American Port. No one else cares.

And so maybe that goes – I do know citizens – like, citizens do care when people have these huge boats and buses and RV – like, all these things. But it isn't – you know, we've been through this already. When was it, Rachel? Like, three years ago? It was.

Well, I was on the planning commission when we saw one, but it's oftentimes when they're parked on the street that they become the biggest.

It's even in the driveway. They leave the sidewalks. They're always over there. Yeah, I agree with that.

But I think if, again, if it's like 100% on their property, that's different than if they're like.

Yeah, we did it so they could go in the back. There's a visual aspect. There's a neighborhood. Should we just change the 14,000 in the code? Yeah.

Are you okay with 14,000, Sandy, or does it need to be 18,000? No, 14,000 would be great. Yes. What are you saying is 18,000?

That's what it used to be. No, no, no.

She said that. I've had 18,000 for 30 years. Anyway, see, for school buses or anything like that, we use that when they're parked in the street. Plus, if you read the 9.32090, For these bigger vehicles, they're required to be 30 feet back from all driveways, streets, intersections such as that, where a regular vehicle is only required to be 20 feet. So that kind of keeps these big vehicles off of the street in the residential areas. There's just nowhere for them to park. So, but I think the $1,400 is a great compromise.

14,000.

14,000. Thank you.

My point is you're not going to see a lot of IRA 18,000 people going, are you okay now?

No, I'm not okay. I do not think there will be any pushback on it. I could be surprised, but I do not see any.

so my question is does it make sense to make that change for this part of the code now or should we just give instruction to part of the whole code rewrite so that we don't have inconsistency within the code all right i i can take responsibility for letting vern know and letting aaron know and then brian's of course here so you have to do a nice fun control f okay thanks talent okay

all right next it is next a break we're gonna take a break we'll just do five minutes recording stopped all right recording in progress all right two more items um a discussion regarding proposed amendments to proba city code section 1437050 related to parking requirement reductions this will be presented by tanner takuchi our council policy analyst that's three in a row yep he's on a roll it's my thing all right so i'm just going to put up the

Exhibit here, this item comes in response, not from an issue item, but in the discussion that was part of the June 23rd work meeting around the proposal to amend parking requirements in the city so that item did not move forward to a council night meeting as it was proposed however there was talk of a just you know discussion or at one point there was a motion to address some of the concerns presented in the work meeting and to come back with an amendment that would not affect parking standards, but rather shift the responsibility of granting a reduction from the planning commission to the council. So that is what I have prepared to discuss today. And just to clarify, I don't have any information and part of this analysis was not answering the question of like, do the impact of student cars or does urban planning impact resident lifestyle? I don't have research on that, but that's certainly something I could pursue as a literature review. This is just talking about the impact of the language you see up here so as a little bit of background for what we discussed in the june 23rd work meeting there was a proposal about planning um or sorry about parking reductions and there was a motion made to shift that authority like i said from granting a proposal so taking the required number of parking spaces and then saying that a developer can do a lower amount that power currently resides with the planning commission the motion at one point in the meeting was to shift that power to the council. So what effectively it does, Kevin, if you could scroll down, there are currently two methods that the planning commission could use to justify a, right there, a reduction. The first is in this paragraph two in the code. This is, to create basically a plan that would reduce parking requirements after a parking study is done. So if there's evidence from a study that says that fewer parking spaces are needed, and they come up with a plan to mitigate any demand for parking, then they can get a reduction. The second option that the Planning Commission can pursue, or that the developer could pursue when asking the Planning Commission for a reduction in parking requirements, it's in number two, if you want to know. Yeah, right above the table. On page three.

Yeah, okay.

This is number three. They could... institute like a bike parking program so long-term and short-term bike parking so what this proposal would do would be to remove those as options leaving the only way to hypothetically get a reduction in the required number of parking spaces that need to get built is to go to the council during the zoning process and ask for some adjustments in the zone either as a text amendment as a new zone or as an overlay that's created so That is what this proposal will do. It takes the power away from the planning commission, gives it to the council. And Kevin, if you can scroll all the way back up to the blue text at the top, the language that we're considering as an amendment to the previous proposal would be this blue language here ensures that the agreements that we've already entered into with people who have received a reduction will stay in place after this change is made. So it will keep those legal agreements that they have to continue the programs that they do to try to mitigate the demand for parking going in the future. And that doesn't go away. Currently, there have only been eight TDMs approved. Those are the plans that allow the Planning Commission to lower parking requirements. There have only been eight approved. There are only six that are active at the moment. Most of them have parking that is above 90% of the required amount. So that is everything that this does. In my memo, I mentioned that there's of the mayor council cities that I talked to, only one has eliminated or does not have, I should say, an administrative way to lower their parking requirements and we would be joining them. Which city was that? There's no administrative means.

I just want to clarify one thing, which anyway, Tanner said a minute ago that this proposal removes the authority from Planning Commission and gives it to the council. That's accurate, but I want to clarify exactly what that means. It doesn't give it to the council in any proactive sense where the council has a methodology to reach out and change parking. It's just inherent in the council's policy in passing new laws that if somebody applies for a new law that would give them different parking standards than the law currently has, it would be in your authority to propose that. But anything more proactive than that would require additional steps beyond what this does, like the creation of an overlay zone or something like that.

Yes. There's no formal mechanism anymore in the code. Right.

This just removes the formal mechanism. So a developer would have to abide by the statutory parking standards in 1437. And if they really needed one, they would have to approach a counselor and we'd have to pursue some other form like Ryan mentioned.

Now, at the same time, staff is working on looking at policy where they wouldn't have to have the parking on their exact lot as is currently required, but they could have it on another somewhere else. We are working on something about that. We're also working on Oh, an overlay type zone so that when a project does come to us that we think is worthy of a parking reduction, that there's an overlay zone to use, correct, Bill?

We can do the overlay zone route. We can also do it by development agreement.

Yeah, so either way, whatever's best on that.

So there is... My heartburn with the development agreement, though, is it ends with the certificate of occupancy, right?

It does would have to come up with a new method similar to I think we can work around it, but I think there are some balancing tests about which method is is better the overlay zone is more up work is more work up front. But. probably more durable. The development agreement way would have to do something similar to what we've done with the first sale housing and the development agreement itself would have to require recording of deed restrictions that would continue after the development agreement itself expired.

I'm just more concerned about them getting the zone and then turning around in 20 years and having a mess because now they don't have to go with the council.

Right. Yeah. That's always been for, I mean, you know, For 15 years, that's always been one of my concerns about development agreements is that they rely on institutional knowledge that doesn't always stay in place. We enter into them and then we forget that we have them, unlike the code.

So your proposal to address that would be

Well, I think that's up to the council to make a policy decision about, I think the two competing alternatives are, well, there's three competing alternatives. One alternative is just don't do anything and wait for somebody to say, and either say, we're never granting parking exceptions or wait for somebody to come to you with a specific proposal about how uh that why they need a parking exception you need to fix it and the other two are uh competing alternatives of develop overlay zones or handle it by development agreement and i think there's pros and cons to the two that we can we could do a separate presentation on once the council is ready to decide yes and let's say that we went the development agreement route you expressed concern about how do you make those stick beyond institutional knowledge That's where the deed restrictions go. But again, deed restrictions, even then, we're going to forget that those exist until somebody complains and has a problem and we do a title search to find the deed restriction. But Bill has a comment.

I expected they were submitted last weekend and didn't come in. But they'll submit it again now and they're going to ask if the council's comfortable with that line of thought. I would suggest not only a D restriction, but we put on their recorded plat language about parking and about these restrictions. So that's very easy to find and very readily available. Great idea.

OK.

Yeah, so I felt like my obligation here was just to explain what the motion does, not necessarily to do a lot of background information like the other ones. So as long as you all understand, I think we would need a motion because this is an amendment to the actual proposal.

Councillor Bogdan? Okay. So I make a motion that we take this to a night meeting.

Okay. Second that.

All right. Any discussion on the motion?

I just counsel the question on this generally. I'm not comfortable with these changes. Part of my questions are both about current enforcement and the legal thing. So I understand that we've got language to try to preserve the TVMs, but we are cutting out the language for subsection 2EIIA, where it's talking about, you know, the annual inspection to make sure that they're compliant with the TI, like how we are continuing to administer the program, that information we're cutting out. And so I'm, I don't, I'm a little bit worried about that. So this monitoring of the parking lot adequacy on least an annual basis, and then the mitigation measures, because I do like to have more specific language about our obligation to make sure that they are following the tdi and then what the remedies are for that so i'm i'm just or a tdm sorry um so i i'm still uncomfortable with how much of this is getting cut out with relationship to the existing program and i did want to ask you said that there were eight of these approved and that six are active I do note that the code allows that after five years, if there aren't any problems, then we're done. Is that why there are two of them that are no longer active?

No, not that I'm aware of. The two that I'm referring to, one is voided and they withdrew the request. One ended up actually not needing it because the reason they applied for one in the first place was because of a physical constraint on the lot, but they were able to negotiate and get space on an adjoining one. So they actually ended up... withdrawing the request.

Yeah, because I like the idea that this program is set up so that we are looking at how this parking reduction has actually affected if the parking is adequate and we lose this code set obligation and ability to continue to reevaluate those reductions that were given.

If I could just respond to that. I don't think that we do because the provision that you're mentioning says that their agreement has to include those provisions. So those provisions are in the agreement, even if they're not in the code.

Okay. So we'll be okay for the existing ones.

That's my, that's my belief.

And we do know that all of this is within those agreements.

I have not reviewed the agreements. I was counting on the fact that it said that the code says that they must be in the agreements. Bill's nodding his head, but I haven't looked at him, but that's certainly something we could do. I would need to check specifically.

Okay. And then have we been doing that parking lot adequacy monitoring on an annual basis for the existing ones?

It's been months since I had Sandy go by and do counts or people go out and do counts in the middle of the night. It's probably been six or eight months since we did the last one, but I had her monitoring us pretty regularly.

Okay.

The other thing I would add though, and part of the reason that I was okay with cutting all of this, in fact even suggested to Tanner to cut it all, is that And again, we can fix this if this isn't meeting what you're expecting, but the code doesn't actually say that has to happen. It says it has to be in the agreement. So even with this still in there, it doesn't say that it has to happen. It just says that it has to be in the agreement, and that the agreement shouldn't have been valid if that wasn't in the agreement. Does that make sense? Does that distinction make sense?

And is that the same way a development agreement can work effectively, essentially, if we use that method in the future? Yes.

okay um the other thing that i don't like about this is this is the only place i think that we have in the code where we have recommendations for bicycle parking the number of spaces in another part of the code we've got the standards for bicycle parking like what kind of short term and long term but there's no requirement for or recommendation for how many bicycle parking stalls or lockups should be at different types of businesses and things like that. This was developed right here. We have this chart and I think this is useful. And so I- Go to that chart. Yeah, just scroll down a little bit. and so you know this is the recommendation for what would be good for the bicycle parking and if you do this then you can seek that reduction in car parking um but we don't have any and please correct me if i'm wrong but is there any other place where we require bicycle parking or recommend what is an appropriate amount of bicycle parking for different types of businesses

I don't think so. And in fact, I mean, to your point, that's why I remember when this was put in. Essentially, this was put in as an incentive program, right? I mean, the whole aim of this was here are the things that we want to incentivize you to do or potentially incentivize you to do to reduce the need for parking. So we'll incentivize you by reducing your parking requirement if you do that. think there might be some bicycle stuff in the um in the open space or in the amenities density section but again that's a menu of things that they can pick from it's not the best ones themselves yeah and i recognize this isn't a requirement but this is actually really useful guidance like this is the kind of bicycle parking that's appropriate for these types of businesses and and things like that um it's

I think a useful chunk of a document. I also don't think, though, that people having a bike means they don't have a car. I don't think the two are equal. I don't think one means the other. I don't think if you have a bike, it means you don't have a car.

Right. But see, this is not just about apartments and residential. This also has different businesses and what kind of bicycle parking is useful there. where we're looking yeah that's right well and and maybe i should ask a question we're looking at getting rid of the parking reduction primarily for residential things are we looking at reducing the parking requirement for businesses or changing

This is also taking out the recommendation for reducing parking requirements for businesses.

with residential i think we're on firmer ground for insisting that we need a certain number of parking for bedrooms but i don't know that the standards that we have set for parking for commercial things have that same level of justification some of them are things that we have inherited from somebody else's code but aren't actually related to the actual use or the demand, which is why we end up with big seas of asphalt around businesses that for the mall certainly weren't necessary.

Councilor Whipple, Tanner has pointed out to me that I misspoke, so he's going to correct me.

Oh, good.

Oh, there is a required bicycle parking in the code. It's actually 1437-065. So it's just the section right below the automobile parking section.

Thanks.

And it's the standards to get a reduction appear to be, on my cursory review, about double what the minimum standard is.

So there's minimum standards, and then if you do more, you can reduce your part.

Okay. Thank you. we're only getting rid of this proposal only gets rid of the additionals not the minimums yes okay that makes me feel a little bit better about that um and so that takes me to my last thing and that is I don't think that it is efficient to make the council do these decisions every time. I think it would be useful to continue to have this as an incentive. And I think it's appropriate to have it with the planning commission or to be an administrative decision. I think as council, sometimes we seek to exercise more micromanaging power and control and that takes a lot of time not just our time and our staff time but applicants time there are real financial costs to that and part of the cost is benefits to our city in delaying or preventing developments that would be good for our residents so

i do not like this change thank you i know we're in discussion but i have a couple more questions is that okay to ask uh one question i have is if anyone was uh here you kind of talked to this a little bit but do we know like what's the history of doing this tdm program

And why other cities do it? So I don't know. I can't say that other cities have a TDM program exactly like we do. Salt Lake City, for example, has a very extensive list that allows the staff, that guides them very narrowly as to what they can grant a reduction for and sets maximums and stuff like that. As far as I was able to get from my research, the TDM section of the code was added in 2017. And the bike parking avenue for reduction was added in 2019 and modified in 2020. So I don't know if that gets at why, I love the why, but that's the timeline, basically. That's all.

And 2017 council members who thought the code should be in there to allow this opportunity.

What was the discussion of the driving motivation plan?

I don't know that I remember exactly what brought it up. I will say, and this kind of piggybacks to some extent off of Counselor Whipple's statement or comments, is that I do agree that to the extent exceptions to legal requirements are going to be granted, the normal method for granting them is through administrative processes. So I think that, so as I recall, that was the, that was what was happening is that there were so many people, there were a lot of projects that would come in and they were asking for lower parking. And every one of them came in and had, you know, here's what we're going to do in order to justify our parking. This is why our parking needs to be lower. And because we didn't have a methodology for granting those, it wasn't happening. It was mostly happening. through people applying for pro zones, right? And at some point, I think my recollection is that some of the council said, well, we think that there are situations where if they are doing enough to mitigate parking demand, that they ought to be able to have the parking reduced. So let's create a method for doing that. And I do agree that the normal way for doing that kind of thing is through administrative processes. And so the question, normally the question is when you think that when the legislative body thinks that the administrative process isn't achieving the goals, the first question usually to ask is, well, are the criteria wrong? Do we need to fix the criteria so that the administrative process does achieve the goals that we're trying to achieve? Or similar to kind of what's happening now,

is it is the administrative process self undermining the goals and it just needs to be getting gotten rid of it certainly uh makes sense to get rid of it if you think that it's not meeting that meeting the goals so thank you and then i have a question for you director pepperoni we we've only had you're currently six eight so eight have proved historically how many have been requested do we have

I don't have that data. The reason is because if they were not approved, they would just be recorded in the minutes of a Planet Commission meeting. I certainly could try to do that, but there are 247 over the past five years.

No, please do not. I was just curious. But I am curious because when I speak to developers, I just had lunch last week with one that I used to be in the same ward of and is a friend. they always tell you cost the cost of parking is one of the most uh the biggest barriers to development right now especially with high interest rates so I'm curious why don't we see more requests for this is it I'm just curious if you have any professional judgment on that question I think we're depending on outfit planning Chris was very hesitant to uh prove them um get part of a building right by the state remember that one through you may have been on the planning yeah I think I was

Yeah, I think they just felt like asking for a zone change and a parking reduction vote was going to make it hard to get their project approved. So they never even asked for one. So we haven't had a request for a parking reduction in quite a while.

Do you think it's possible that by removing this, we may get more requests or there might be more coming through to the city council?

um to me what we're experiencing right now is we've got a drop off in applications the drop off on projects between the cost of parking you have referred to in the interest rates um we haven't had an apartment proposal in a while um so to me it's more of that okay thank you councillor whiffle

So, I'd like you to help me understand, or to correct my understanding of the history. Um, but I think with, like, the element or some other projects that were approved with the reduction, we did see problems with on street parking afterwards. And that after that. there was different guidance from development services to applicants to help them maybe not request the maximal thing, like to actually tailor what you believe the project would need to not be a nuisance to the neighborhood. And so there wasn't, it's not like everybody was able to get everything that was, they could potentially ask for. That's not a right that they would have even with this code.

Correct. If you go back and look at the actual ones that were approved, and maybe Tanner has this information, most of the ones that were granted were pretty minor. They weren't significant or large reductions they were asked for. 400 element did not ask for a reduction, is my recollection. We still have had cases, though, where those that received reductions have experienced spillover parking on adjacent streets.

Yeah. So would it make sense to adjust this program to deal with that better, or is it just get rid of it entirely?

Well, that was kind of the direction that Aaron's amendment was going. a few weeks ago was to allow the reduction in places where there wouldn't be spillover parking because of the nature of that location surrounding streets. We tried to come up with criteria that allowed the reduction but got out ahead of these impacts that we were experiencing in other cases.

So the earlier proposal was a way to address problems to address problems that we had seen in implementing the program.

Yes.

But still meet the need of developers and our community to have more housing.

Yes, because I think this is the single biggest factor that's holding back more student housing is this parking ratio. That's why when you see Park Plaza, the project won't happen if they don't get a reduction. They'll end up reselling the property, I'm pretty sure.

Oh, I want that property to be redone. Okay. Thank you.

Right.

Well, I'm okay with addressing the Park Plaza, but I don't like the broadness of this.

So we can address it.

I agree that we need to address it. We don't want that opportunity to go away. I guess I don't feel like six to ten of these currently in the works um i don't feel like that's too much to ask council to do i mean we just spent an hour discussing one tow truck a year so i was i think we could write one of our finest moments i think we could probably oh well do you remember how much time we spent on dog poop i don't know if you remember that that was maybe prior to your time um so i think we could prioritize their time i i just i'm okay with kind of pulling this back to the council i i don't like the broadness of of you know enacting the proposed currently proposed and i am okay bringing it back i just wanted to make my my stance kind of clear okay ready to take a vote on the motion sure yeah all right can i think sorry can i say what we're thinking

I think I'd be okay. I am okay with this, but I hope it's in the spirit of by bringing these to us more, we're going to be able to wrestle with the trade-offs and the issues and potentially come with a better policy framework moving forward. And if that's how we're approaching this, I think it could be a really good long-term solution.

That's absolutely my hope as well. I would much rather be surgical about this. I have more confidence in our ability to do it, so I am willing to micromanage it because I think it's that important. The spillover, easy for us to do that in someone else's neighborhood. When that happens in your neighborhood and there's spillover, people get ticked. So I want to advocate for those people and make sure that we do something that really makes sense, but we've got to figure this out. Now, I would also have to say that Bill, you made the comment that this is the biggest factor. The biggest factor, I think, is actually the economy. I think it's interest rates. That's the biggest factor. This actually goes way down and is a factor, but there's so many macro issues that to put all those macro issues into parking and if we just solve this, we'd have a lot more development. That is not true. Vacancies are at very high rates. And so there's much more to it. And I feel more confident in our ability to address that surgically than I do with a broad handover to the administrative process.

And there's still just a huge deal that people are obviously paying too much for land if they can't do the parking that's required in code right now. That's on them. Don't pay too much for your land. If everybody was honest about what's required in the code and how much that costs, then the land would be X amount of dollars and they wouldn't overpay for it. But they overpaid for it, trying to upzone it, trying to get parking reductions. And that's not a burden that we should be putting on our citizens. So word has to get out there that stop overpaying for your land. And this is what it's worth. And if you can't develop it, then it's not worth what you're paying for it.

Listen.

All right. Councillor McKay, yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. No. And Councillor Garrett.

Yes.

And that passes 6-0.

6-1.

Sorry, 6-1.

Sure.

All right. Yes.

I hope the council will move forward that amendment to allow us to count off-site parking for residential. Yeah.

I think that's great, and I'm excited about that. And I want to bring BYU into that discussion.

So just a quick question. So that will be, do we need to do this in a night meeting?

Yes.

The motion was just to move it to a night meeting. Thanks.

All right. Next, a discussion regarding external accessory dwelling units presented by Malia Daly, our council policy analyst.

Okay, great. This is a follow-up from the June 9th work meeting. Would have been in the June 23rd, but I was not here, so.

Well, where are you?

Yeah, I was just out for three weeks. um okay um i don't have any slides for this um what we did i worked with development services and legal based on the motions from that last meeting to adjust the privacy concerns for new external adus and existing under code and then we also included some changes to the chapter based on state requirements. So there's five things here. I'm just going to walk through. And then at the end, if there's any questions, if not, then what would happen, I would imagine after this meeting, if there's no additional amendments, is I would send this version to Development Services and Legal and they would incorporate it into the zoning rewrite that's going to Planning Commission, I think, next month. And then it'll come to us in the fall. And so this would just be included within that. So anyway, now we'll go through those. This first one here at the bottom, this first amendment, this one is a very nicely worded thing that Brian did to allow external ADUs as they exist currently in our code within that allowed map and the other specified areas. But then also in addition to those, well we can't go back so in addition to those also now also external ad use are allowed in the areas that the state is mandating so that's all that that is it's just compliance with state code so that's the first one the second change didn't change from the June 9th work meeting this is just that first motion the council made just parcel coverage so that's here this is just the Primary dwelling and any combined, any other accessory structures can't cover 40%. So that didn't change. And then I'll also go down to the other motion that didn't change, which is the utility hookup.

This didn't change from June 9th.

This is just saying that utilities, whether connected to the primary dwelling or separate, will be an administrative based on Public Works' reviewing the plans, what would be best for our system. Um, the one that did change based on the discussion that we had on the June 9th meeting is the issue of privacy. Originally in June 9th, we came back with an amendment that said, if you have, you have to have your height less than the main dwelling and less than 25 feet. And, um, for every foot if your accessory dwelling unit is above 16 feet every foot that is above it also has to have an additional foot setback we had a discussion how that might affect current existing areas that allow external dwelling units for example pioneer neighborhoods where they have unique parcels they're not exactly they might not be 11 000 square foot but they still could fit one we don't want them to make subject to this new these new requirements. So we kind of have two separate requirements here. This is just saying for those detached ADUs that are permitted under the new state code, they are subject to that. If it's over one story, it has to have additional setbacks. So that's what we're talking about with... Yes. Okay. But if they're not subject to that, they're not addition to that, then... they are kind of under the existing. So does everyone understand? We're good with that? Okay.

I very much appreciate how this was structured. I think that was well done to address those concerns. You did a great job.

very well done and meets what the council as a whole is asking for.

I say that's genius to get something personally benefiting you yet not voting for it. I'm kicking my way out for anybody who's grandmas or watches our meeting.

Councilor Whipple, can I ask why you're still opposed to it?

So the reason I would still be opposed to it is because it does make it more restrictive and more difficult for these properties that the state has said should be allowed to do this to go ahead and meet that goal. That's really it.

So specifically just referring to the setback department.

Yes. Yeah. So, and I recognize that the city does have the right and the obligation to do what they can to make sure that the laws that are handed to us from the state actually work within our city and that we're continuing to protect our residents and their quality of life and things like that. And I recognize that that's what my fellow counselors are trying to do. I have a different perspective and maybe a slightly different set of priorities based on my neighbors that we're talking to. And so I disagree that this does do that. Yeah, so it's just a difference of opinion because I'm differently situated.

But your neighbors still have what they want.

Yes, because, yeah, and I recognize that these height restrictions are because many people have raised concerns about having something tall looking over another person's backyard. And I am very grateful that this has been structured so that it doesn't make what was already the right to do a detached ADU in properties where this would be impossible. It doesn't take that right away from them. So I really am appreciative. I just think that we should make it easier for people to be able to build these on their properties throughout the city. And that's just a fundamental different policy position that you all know I have. So that's it. But I really am grateful for all of you for working through this so that it meets your goals and I think reduces the harm that I brought to your attention. So again, I'm so grateful.

The next change we'll go to here is parking. This is put in because the state, if you remember, the state is limiting what we can require for parking for those new external dwelling units to two off street if the unit is 650 square foot or larger or just one if it's 650 square foot or less. brian very smartly just had us reference state code so if those parker requirements change then it automatically is updated we don't have to come back here so and then the final line if you notice this final line this is just to clean up this also mentions utilities being in a separate name that may or may not happen depending again on the administrative input public works depending on utilities oh so we haven't got through okay on that yet no we have this is just cleaning up codes that way earlier it says it can be whatever and this says no it has to be separate so it's just to mirror earlier in the section yes council by luck can you just remind me of one thing you just said i want to make sure i recall correctly is if it's over 650 square feet we can't require more than two stalls you can only require two off-street parking okay so they're yeah under the new external dwelling units that are permitted through stake okay So there's like a bunch of different ADUs that are now allowed under Chapter 1443. I wanna make a chart when this is all done so it's very easy, because at neighborhood meetings, sometimes it does get confusing trying to just explain it verbally. So a chart would be very helpful.

And Councilor Bogdan, that brings up a question. We have to have this passed by October 1st. So would you be able to have a chart available to add to this so that it can just Well, yeah, we adopted all together.

I would recommend not putting a chart in code because then if we have to update anything or state code updates, then our code would be out of date. Okay. I was just thinking a chart we can push out on social media or neighborhood meetings. ADUs come up a lot that we can just easily reference and give people kind of a quick cheat sheet in addition to the code. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. So if there's no discussion on these, this is really just the only change here. Then like I said, we'll just forward this on to development services who will include it in the zoning rewrite. And then it'll be part of that package later this fall.

we have so we have just this will be answered by the chart but basically the internal adus that were previously allowed by adu the old adu actually have more restrictive off-street parking requirements than these new ladies yes all right so i'll make a motion that we just bring this to a night meeting

Well, we'll just put it in the zoning reunite and then we'll just be part of that. Just be one less planning application to push there.

No, we're good.

We're good. Yeah. I don't, if you want to make a motion, but I think that was our intent. Okay. Perfect.

Yeah. Nice. Nicely done. All right.

Thanks everyone. Um, if there's no, we do not have a closed meeting, correct? If no objection will now adjourn the progress will counsel by unanimous consent.

Great.

All right.

Recording stopped.

It's 730.

I mean, 7.