City Council - workshop

good morning it's august 11th 2026 at 11 30 a.m and we'll begin our council work session so we'll first we'll start with a roll call councillor councillor whitlock gary garrett becky bogdan And online. Catrice, can you confirm that you're with us? What time did Rachel say she would join?

Maybe.

She will.

She told me yesterday she was going to join.

She said she was Travis.

Yeah. Did you see that too?

I did. Is Travis?

Can you text her and see? Yeah, I texted her last night and I asked her what time she'd come on. I'll text Catrice and see where she is. And then Craig, who is- Sorry, I'm here. Okay, thanks, Catrice. And then find out from Rachel. Maybe while you're at it, just shoot Craig a call. Not a call, a text. I don't know where we're starting.

Craig is not going to be on right now. He's not going to be on until later.

Do you know about what time?

Around two-ish.

Okay. All right. Thanks, Catrice. All right.

Yeah. He's going to be on around 1 o'clock.

Okay. 1 o'clock. Okay. Okay. The first agenda item is to approve uh previous meeting minutes they're listed on our agenda july 8th council meeting july june 9th council meeting june 17th i'm sorry let me start over july 8th 2025 council meeting june 9 2026 council meeting june 17th 2026 council meeting June 14, 26, work meeting. July 14, 26, council meeting. July 22, 26, work meeting. Are there any objections or requested changes for these meeting minutes? All right. Then we'll declare the minutes approved by unanimous consent. So our first business item is regarding a request from Taylor Terrace, the Taylor Terrace Homeowners Association for city acceptance, infrastructure upgrades, and financial assistance for its private water system. This will be presented by Lane Pierce, our water resources engineer.

I'm Lane. I work for Gordon for Public Works. Taylor Terrace is a small HOA up by the Rock Canyon Temple, just east of it. And I guess I can click through these. I'll be very brief because we have the shared HOA here. They would like to be, they had a water break in their private main that enters their small cul-de-sac, and they would like to become part of the city infrastructure. This is the code that we have in Provo that allows a private entity to come and be part of the public infrastructure. They went, got a contractor to fix the, in order to become a part of the public infrastructure, they have to meet our code, meet our standards, our water standards. In order to meet our water standards, they went out, got a professional bid on what it would cost. This is approximately what it would cost, become part of our system, if you guys approve of it, and up to our standards, our pipe standards. I thought I had one more. one more yeah there we go and this is kind of a drawing of how we would do it this is there like i said it's kind of a little cul-de-sac or whatever you want to call a little community and this is this is the line that had a break in it and what we would do the new fix would be to install the meters here and then the lateral would go to each uh each home and mark doyle from the ho is here to talk a little bit more and give them a little more in-depth about the situation up there okay thanks

Thank you. Excuse me. I'm nursing ankle surgery recovery, so I'm a little slow getting up here. Thanks for the time. My name is Mark Doyle. We rotate responsibilities in our small HOA, so I've been serving as the president for the past couple of years, which we lived in Provo for 20 years, raised our five kids here. My office is just on Center Street here, so we're big fans. We have 22 homes in the HOA. This affects seven of them. Somehow when it was developed in the 70s, we nor the city are quite clear on what happened, but there's essentially an eight inch main like a city name that goes about halfway into this cul-de-sac and from there the individual water lines like each of us would have on our house come off that that was not really known to the next set of and by the way i don't live in uh in one of these seven ours is elsewhere um that was not known until infrastructure started to fail which is that the individual line but also the assessment is that the eight inch main also has is like ready to fail at any given time which i think accordingly is that's like the size that's the standard size that runs throughout the city right so that's a a big concern and we have um Of the 22 owners, about a third of those are fixed income. Widows, just to give you like a profile, I don't know if that's interesting or not. And we've got school teachers and a county deputy sheriff. So there's just a wide mix of individuals there. I feel like we're a pretty healthy HOA and we've done... You know, we try to do a good job and maintaining things that look well for the city from, you know, exterior and grounds and everything. But this, this part has caught us off guard. And there's been a lot of questions of how this kind of would have gotten approved in the 1st place. I think there's some broader concerns from what we understand as well. The meters actually are right up at the houses and instead of on the street. And I think a concern with that is like statewide and even for city zoning, having culinary water on the city side of the meter, but on private like under private ownership is an issue as well. I don't I don't say that I understand the intricacies of that, but that's a concern as well. So we're looking to turn the ownership of the line over to the city. And in this case, there could have been an option where we just replaced this huge line running into the cul-de-sac, but that doesn't make as much sense. And Lane and Gordon have been great to propose solutions if this were to happen, to just have water lines go out to the city main like it is in the rest of the city and even in the rest of our development. So that's the... um that's the request that we're making both from a culinary water standard standpoint and a safety standpoint and honestly just to bring that part of the development back in line with with city code um including the the new the newer one that lane referenced at the beginning so those are i guess a couple of my talking points i've never done this before so i'm so happy to field questions and

all the so mark just to clarify then only these seven homes were connected to the uh to have their private water system the other homes west of these and the ones up around the corner are already part of the city's water system meaning they already have like the individual line that would go from this house to the meter to the streets just probably like

wherever you live so it's just this little cold it's just this little cul-de-sac and we have actually you know as you know there's another little cul-de-sac up there um I think I think this was the first one that was developed and maybe I don't know like this it was so long ago and we don't have records of why they decided to do that so there are what 20 homes 22 22 okay And sorry, the one other quick thing, the court, the financial portion. So on average, any of us, including me, if we were going to replace or fix the water line, that's going to be a seven to $9,000 replacement. And so we are, as an HOA, we're saying, yeah, for sure. Each owner is responsible, like is naturally responsible for that as anyone would be. And actually the figures lane, I think we're looking for, up to $100,000, because actually the HOA or the owner's portion of that would be a little more than the figures. I know the specifics are important to this group, so we'll probably tighten those up a little bit, but it'll be less actually than what's on this.

Could you go back to that slide, Kevin, the financial slide? So you're saying the city portion requested would not exceed $100,000?

Yeah, that's right. Because the HOA- Yeah. Mm-hmm.

okay seven homes about seven or eight so we would split that so we know exactly what it is but yeah so our code states that you need to have these lines up to code before the city will take them over why are you asking the city to do something outside of code um brian um so

Those of you who are here in 2022 might remember when we passed this section of the code. Prior to this section being passed in 2022, we didn't even have a methodology for taking over public ownership of private infrastructure. But we would frequently get requests. And as you might remember from that conversation, one of the concerns when we passed this section of code is that we didn't want to, the city did not want to kind of make it easier for developers to reduce their own costs by doing private infrastructure that wasn't to city standards, but then foist it off on the city later, right? And so, which I'm not suggesting that that's the case, because this is, as he's described, this is different than maybe when we usually see this, but that was the concern. And so the way this section of the code is written is it says, If you have private infrastructure you want to dedicate to the public, and you come in, city's going to decide what needs to be done to it. We're going to tell you what needs to be done to it. If you then decided to do it entirely by yourself, it is purely an administrative process. Those kinds of questions would never even come to the council. The administration would just work on it. But there is a provision in this section that says you can, instead of paying for yourself, you can come to the council and ask the council for an appropriation. So it's following the process that is laid out in the statute. That just makes it the council's decision now, right? So your choices are pay for it yourself or ask for the council to appropriate the money. Kevin, can you go back one more slide?

So you're asking for the council to appropriate the money, but why won't you pay for it yourselves?

I think we're asking the council appropriate money for the portion that 50 years ago Either the city shouldn't have approved the design of this. They essentially put a city water main into private property to connect these individual lines on. None of us here have any idea why that happened. There's no record for why that happened.

Because it would have been in 1975.

Yeah, 75. I think that was when it started, right around the mid-70s. And so we're saying we're surprised. Maybe it shouldn't have been. you're surprised it's real money like no one's debating that 100 000 a ton of money could go to a lot of really important worthy causes in the city but we're saying can we make this a shared cost can the homeowners individually take on the portion of the cost that any of us in the city would be on the hook for to repair but with the city and as part of this process um essentially repair or replace or change the layout of what essentially is like city level infrastructure that happens to be midway through the cul-de-sac but appreciate appreciate the question yeah that's how i that's how i position it counselor whitlock so mark i'm wondering has the hoa uh what have they carried in reserves for water infrastructure and what have they like what have you done in the past to deal with this Well, we've not, other than sprinkler system, which is a common property, which we carry reserves for, we've not known that there is this issue of a joint city level line coming into the cul-de-sac the assumption was until we there was a break we had to excavate that lines ran out to the city main so so we've had reserves for a lot of things we reserved and repaved the entire asphalt we've painted you know we've kept things up and this was not something that we've kept service for fast so unfortunately is it yeah

So I was gonna just ask the follow up is like, if the council funded a smaller share, say like the main and the tap to the city standard, could the HO finance remainder, like is there a number less than 116? Like where did you come up with the 116?

The number that we came to was in a normal, like again, if any of us, like you Jeff, or if I have to replace our water line to the city, unless it's something really strange, that's gonna cost seven to $10,000. And so we had the contractor who I think does a number of city projects already kind of gave us a split of this would be, this is kind of how I'd attribute the individual portion of the cost of this. um and that's the actually probably more like fifty thousand dollars and this would be if we have to replace the this eight inch city level main to the street that's gonna be about ninety to a hundred thousand dollars so that's really how we came up with that number um sure then totally you could if the city was like let's just say above zero if you're like we would cover this amount then the hoa we would have to figure out how to put an assessment to the 22 owners which totally understood that's something that hoas do so that's a that's a mechanism but i think but just the the nature of the like the bizarre nature of how this got installed and approved 50 years ago we'd like to think that there's like a shared opportunity for the city and the hoa to say there are kind of portions of this that each of us could tackle and could we figure out how to do that so okay so gordon this is europe this is a water line that is going to a cul-de-sac correct

Right. You want to go back to the map for the drawing.

So it's even a city asset because a lot of times you're, I mean, that's all private, right?

So the blue is the existing system and that system's private as it goes through the cul-de-sac. So the way that line is set up is you can see those ladders going to each of the homes. And at the very end, there's a circle almost where that's where the lead so badly decayed that everybody else will be out of power. So it's out of water. Power just walked in, so that just threw me off.

Such a present.

Such a present. They're okay. That's our new direct. So the whole line needs to be replaced. So the valve for the city is by the driveway in the park strip. So if we turn off the valve, everybody's out of water, all seven homes. So we allow the water to keep going, and the leak is contained. Did I answer any of your question or just made up my answer?

I think you kind of made up your own answer. Okay, so this is the section that needs to be prepared. Correct. This is a city street. This is a private street. Yes. So this would be a city asset then because this is not a city street, right? This is not going to anywhere else but

So if we replace that pipe, we could own that pipe, but we'd have to have the HOA provide an easement for us so that we could go in there and maintain it. So that was what the initial bid was for, was to replace that pipe. Since talking to the HOA, we think there may be a less expensive than just replacing that pipe and coming off of it. The less expensive route would be to put individual meters on in the park that you see we have seven meters laid out and then run an individual uh lab list each home so that may be less costly than the numbers we're showing you but we have not had that updated for that yet but but all in all like my house

I have to service from wherever it comes in at the street to my home, right? So to me, when I'm looking at this, their city thing is right there at the edge of the street like mine would be. And then you're going across making a big, long driveway or a big, long community shared space that's not city space to get your water infrastructure into your house. To me, that is a private, not a public asset.

That's totally true. It's like a private asset right now. I mean, the city, one one of the i don't know if it's a challenge gordon laying up to keep me honest about this but one of the challenges right now again however the city approved it the meters at the house so you've got this conflict or you've got culinary water that technically is a city and a state responsibility that is on private property up to the house whereas the meters really how they should be like with your where you live and i live the meter should be out of the street so that this side of the meter Right now, we've got city responsibility for culinary water.

So let me try to explain what I think he's saying.

I'm going to walk to the map. I have two customers online.

Yeah.

Thank you. So if you can see this map, today this would not be legal to approve. The reason being is you now have a water system that services multiple entities. So technically, they'd have to water that did all the state requirements to all those things and you you recall with Whale Valley the same kind of thing and we have this action in a lot of places in the city so this was legal back in the day but it's not something that the state the state frowns on this kind of thing it's not something we can legally approve so this is where every one of the physical meters are on this private line here but the city shut off is out of the street this is where we have a valve to shut off to this not the meters though the meters are by the houses but they're still in a private property this is all all private private infrastructure private gold standard where that is this is how that was determined back in the day but the quail valley was the same did we pay for quail valley or did quail valley pay for themselves um they paid for themselves. I don't believe we appropriated any money for them.

I thought we did, unless we ... I know that there was ... because they had ... I mean, that was a lot of infrastructure, and they had a lot of ...

There was something we did there. I would have to ...

I think we either appropriated some money, or there were certain requirements that we ended up not making them do, but I don't think we did.

our crews might have done some work i think we did some i think we did in kind i think we ended up replacing all the meters yeah some stuff like that so there were some things we did do that helped facilitate but that i think was and they have like 150 homes like that it was a lot more so it was a lot bigger so development so anyway this so what they're looking for is what this looks like would reflect what's in all the other parts of this development and what's standard for the city. It's just difficult for property owners to have mainland

Thank you, Gordon. We have a couple of comments online. Before we get to those, let me acknowledge that Rachel Whipple has joined us online as well. And Travis Oban in person, and we welcome the mayor also. So Catrice, let's go to you first and then Rachel.

My hand wasn't up.

Okay. Rachel.

Alright, thank you and I apologize for joining late. So I was really surprised to see this in the packet. In part because I just replaced my sewer line and it cost me personally $50,000. So I was First off, wondering if I was overcharged because this seems like a lot less, although we had to go full out into the street to do it, but I really don't understand why the city would pay to upgrade or to fix This asset that is commonly owned in the HOA, that's private property. And I understand that this isn't something that we would approve now. This was a problem that was created under standards at a particular time. But the fact remains that that line going through the common property is the HOA's responsibility, not the city's.

Thanks, Rachel.

Is that something like for discussion or is that for you to kind of talk about yourself?

We'll come back to you. Travis has a question too. Thank you, Mark.

Thanks, and thanks for all the info. Sensitive to the tough situation you guys are in. I guess, Becky, is kind of what you're saying, like, well, why doesn't the city just, why don't we just pay for, you know, up to the sidewalk, basically, and then from there on out, that's not our responsibility to pay for? Is that kind of what you're, because that's what everybody else is expected to do? Is that what you're saying?

Well... yeah it seems like and even so this is all private property it's not in a public street and so normally you pay like rachel just said but he pays from her house to the road basically i'm pretty sure because mine's newer i have to pay to the meter but the sewer i'd have to pay for all the way to the street so if my sewer were to die i'd have to dig up my yard plus all the way into the street until it hits in the middle is it are they in the middle of the street

So is the idea, I'm just trying to understand your perspective, what you would kind of be looking for is like, all right, well, we'll pay to have the meters up at the road, but that line needs to be paid for by the residents. Is that essentially where you're at?

Well, even so, yeah, wherever that meter's at, which we want them to be in the public right-of-way is why they're having them up there instead of in the private space. When that meter dies, when that line dies again, it's going to be a responsibility for each one of those homeowners to pay all the way to the street.

And your perspective, by the way, I missed your name at the beginning. Oh, sorry. Mark Doyle. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Your perspective is, well, this is kind of a problem that the city created 50 years ago when they approved this. And so you guys kind of need to pay more to help fix it. I know you're not saying that. I'm putting words in your mouth. You're being much more tactful and nice, but, but kind of that perspective of like, well, this needs to be a shared cost to fix this issue. I guess where I'm struggling is I'm kind of, I'm kind of getting where the council members are coming from that like, yeah, but you guys would have to pay to fix this regardless. If, if the water, if the water meters were up at the road right now, and you guys needed to fix this issue, you guys would be paying. So the fact that it was built this way shouldn't really matter. So I'm kind of understanding where the council members are coming from.

No, I mean, listen, I'll say it's the minority view in my head, but I think the questions are really good questions. but yes our our take and also rachel on the phone first of all i can't compare a sewer to water and um that's a huge bill so i'm sorry for that water i think generally is cheaper but we're not actually we are saying homeowners should pay their portion of running an individual line just like any of us would we have this weird situation where meters that should have been on the street

aren't okay there's a weird situation i've got an eight and you're saying the sorry the portion you're proposing that you guys pay is that part yes the part that any of us would pay if we had to replace the water line does that change your perspective at all because because if they were installed in today's standards they still have to he's saying will you take the mic thank you how do you turn it on it's already on it's already on can you hear me flip that button up

Hello? Okay, so he's saying that they've installed these meters here in the 50s or 70s or whenever it was.

The meters aren't even there. They're actually at the house. Those are like the offshoots from the main.

Gordon's saying the new meters are going to be here. Yeah. And the new meters are going to be here. So even if this was in today's standards, these guys would still be on the hook.

Right, but if I'm understanding Mark correctly, he's saying we are willing to pay the portion from here to here.

He's willing to pay the portion from here to here, right?

We're willing to pay the portion. The numbers that you saw there was when we were going to run a new 8-inch main to the middle again and do offshoots. The amount of... And so we're seeing whether it's doing that or running individual lines, there's an upfront cost that we're asking the city to share part of that to kind of correct or bring to code or bring to water culinary code that the city can share and the homeowners do the rest. And then to your point, in 30 years, when a water individual water line needs to be replaced, then the homeowner does that the city's no longer like there's no confusion there's no weird setup there's yes and i just want i'm not to your point i don't know what happened 50 years ago like we're not assigning blame or responsibility i have no idea but it was weird and messy and now there's there's other problems besides just just the location and i think um know from a technicality standpoint sure it's there's it's on private property as a city do we do we do all sorts of projects and improvements that sometimes benefit fewer people than others i think we probably do do we want all the projects to benefit the whole city yeah the more we can do that we we love that um but yeah but i think i think there's opportunity sometimes to say this is a bad design it's actually like there's kind of this weird legal issue with like where culinary water is and there's an opportunity to to share the uh share the fix so sorry gary fine that's fine i guess in my mind is there a way for these residents to just pay for from their house to the road and

then the city's paying for everything at the road i mean to me that would seem like that's what a typical resident if water line breaks between the road and their house they're paying that portion. So in fairness to these residents, and I think what we're worried about is precedent here. We're not saying we're not being sensitive to the specific plight of these specific residents, but it's precedent, right? So if we do it here, then do we get 10 more calls? Somebody says, well, hey, we've got the same problem. Come and fix ours now. So I think in fairness, wouldn't it be like, okay, well, you guys take care of from here to the road, like you would normally take care of. And then of your new line, of fixing that line or putting in the line, and then the city takes care of everything else. In my mind, that kind of seems fair. I don't know what that ends up being from a cost standpoint or whatever, but to me, that seems like something I could get behind. Anyways, sorry, thanks for your patience, Jeff.

Yeah, no worries. Actually, one of my questions dovetails nicely on that point of precedence. I'm curious, this is a question from Provo Works, do we have a sense of how many other communities or developments are similarly situated within Provo? Probably not until it breaks.

Yeah. I mean, um, we have probably the ones that I'm aware of are like 20 to 30 more than maybe even more than that. And, um, um, so yeah, we, we, we developed quickly in the fifties. And so there was a lot of developments and a lot of interesting ways of doing things. So great ones are. I have not seen any that have this kind of design. This is very unique.

But there are similar situations that will pop up. Yes. Okay. I suspected that. Sorry, I have another question for Public Works, and probably you're the best one. So I'm curious, What are the benefits that the city would get from doing this? Beyond kind of correcting this odd historical announcement, on a go-forward basis, what tangible or practical benefits would this be providing?

So right now, we're leaking water in that. And the city's paying to do that water, but it's not going through any meters. It's just leaking. Because if we shut them off, all the residents are out of water, including the ones leaking. So there's not really a good way to manage that. meter how much is leaking but we know it's leaking every day all the time so we would be saving money there um you know so so that there would be an actual monetary benefit getting this done for us is there risk yeah sorry is there well go ahead that's exactly what i was going to ask is like is there risk mitigation for the city meaning are we creating a giant sinkhole between a development that by letting it leave 100 gallons a day type thing yeah it doesn't appear that that's happening it appears to be following the waterline consumer lines and just sinking the groundwater but we're not having any ass any challenges doesn't say that there could be something but um today it doesn't appear that we have that kind of problem thank you great rachel do you have another comment um yes yeah i i

I just want to thank them for coming so that we could be aware of this problem, that it's not only right here. I think it was 10 years ago that we had to replace our water main and we had to forego any travel for two years based on that. still I don't know that we should say that the city is at fault necessarily for approving this 50 years ago I mean if this was approved it's because it was asked for and so the the culpability spreads around to everyone it does matter however we got here this is where we are and it needs to be solved and while i appreciate that the city is losing water in an unquantified amount um it's losing that water because of a poorly maintained private asset and i'm i'm still not inclined to use the city monies to fix a private asset thanks thank you rachel when will we vote on this when will this

We're just seeking a motion, so if we want to continue.

Okay. If we want to carry it to a council meeting?

Right. Yeah, this one isn't one that you're obligated to move to count forward. So you can let it die and make a motion to... or make a motion to take it to council.

What would be helpful for me to know, Lane, is to what extent we did help with the Quail Valley situation, a little more detail related to how we help those homeowners, what expenses, and I know they're completely different situations, but if we can find some commonality here and understand, I would be open to doing for this community what we did in Quail Valley, But I wouldn't want to do something here where cloud Valley would come and say, well, you wouldn't do that for us. I would be interested to know a little more about what we did a couple of years ago.

I would also be interested to understand a little bit more about these 20 or so other cases and see if we can have a proposal on a general framework. like perhaps what Councilor Hoban said about going to the private property line and we'll cover that as a general framework, but anything on the property we leave to the owner. Something like that I think would be helpful because I do agree that this is precedent setting and we want to be fair to all of these similarly situated properties.

So is there a motion then to Councilor Hoban?

Well, do we need a motion? I mean, you stated what you wanted. um yeah i mean my recommendation would be i guess i'll make a motion and we can figure it out but that we come up with a framework like jeff's saying and i guess in my mind i don't know if i jump jump to this but framework would be that the residents pay to the road and the city pays for the portion at the road you know the putting in those new meters um and whatever else they need to do at the road but i don't know what that costs look like you know i don't know how that splits the costs i but That's a framework I would like to look at. So I guess the motion would be for us to explore that framework, understand what those costs would be to residents, what the cost would be to the city. And then in addition, how many other situations around the city might be impacted in a similar way so that we can know what the implications are here. And then I guess we can wrap in the request to understand what we did at Quail Valley. So I guess we're just making a motion to come back with more information that then we can use to make a better decision regarding a potential framework.

Okay, sounds good. As clear as mud.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, and a second by Councillor Whitlock. So I'll call for a vote. Councillor Hoban? Yes. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor Bogdan?

No.

Councillor Whipple?

Yes.

And Councillor McKay?

Yes.

So that motion passes by a vote of five to one. I'm sorry.

Garrett, I would just like to add though that this identified problem does need to be taken care of soon. And I would like to also know from Public Works what their normal procedure would be when they've identified some sort of a leak on private property, how they approach that owner and get them to rectify the problem. So in that information gathering for the similarly situated, I also want to know about similar leak problems and how long we leave these things outstanding and what kind of action the city would normally take.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Whipple. That's been noted. And so to that end, if it could come back in two weeks, that probably would be helpful. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mark, for being here today. Thank you. Next, we have a discussion regarding outdoor lighting standards. This will be presented by our intern, Britton Johnson.

Thank you, council. We're a little behind schedule, so I'll try to be brief. But there was a request that came in hoping to examine our outdoor lighting code, see how we could mitigate light pollution while prioritizing road and pedestrian safety on our roadways. And so I did some research on that and would like to share a little bit. These are some of the guiding tenets that I used in my research. These are five principles for responsible outdoor lighting. These are published by Dark Sky International and the Illuminating Engineering Society. And to condense this even further, it's just using light only where it's needed and how it's needed and using the correct light to do so. So if we could go to exhibit A, please, on the ordinance. I'm just going to go over a couple of the proposed changes. We'll start with correlated color temperature, which is in section 0.03 under general provisions. So color temperature is how warm or how cool a light looks to your eyes visually. The warmer it is, the lower on the color temperature scale, the bluer it is, the higher. And so 3000 Kelvin is kind of the upper limit of the dark sky standard. And so anything at 3000 Kelvin or below for outdoor lighting would be considered dark sky compliant. There is a trade-off with introducing a cap to color temperature and it's that the warmer you go the harder it is to render color both in our eyes and on cameras so for security footage and things like that having a necessary like 3000 is plenty but having um a certain level of blueness i guess to the light is important um the opposite end of that is that if it's super blue it leads to some of the problems with atmospheric light pollution um and affects circadian rhythms for humans and wildlife among a bunch of other things so that would be that's what's currently in code um if you could go back to the slides thank you kevin all right There we go. This is a scale to kind of give you a visual of what the different color temperatures look like. What's currently written is the second of the three options. 2,700K is sufficient for most uses. However, our current street lights that have been being installed for the last couple of years or so, according to the energy department, are 3,000 Kelvin. So they'd have to get new specs for all of their new lights if we did end up doing something a little bit more aggressive. And this is the more conservative option. Or we could do a hybrid of those two things, which we'll open to discussion. Back to the exhibit. Sorry, we'll be jumping back and forth. The next big change to the outdoor lighting is requiring full shielding, which our current code requires cutoff lighting. And if you could go up to 0.02. Actually, it's right here. um the definition for fully shielding is that the light has to be recessed into the fixture which some of the kind of cobra head street lights that we've seen throughout the city that are a little bit older are jut out um and additionally none of the light can go above the horizontal plane meaning none of it can go up um it all needs to be directed downward okay and that um applies to anywhere in the code where it says cut off or shielded it's now going to say fully shielded and full cut off okay um and then the last um oh just a couple of other small changes to the code if you could scroll down a little bit to 0.05 i believe So previously, there was a cutout for lighting that met a certain historical or architectural style to look like it was older. It didn't have to be shielded. There are lights that are fully shielded and would meet the color temperature requirements that do still have that historical architectural style. So we just kind of cut out that loophole. And then lastly are some exceptions to this code. Christmas lights, those aren't going to be touched. Construction or emergency lighting, airport, sports lighting, and a few others. With sports lighting, the limit for color temperature is going to be 5,700 Kelvin as proposed. That's the upper limit for dark sky compliance. It allows cameras to render color really, really well when they're on TV and so the players can see the ball. Last thing, I already said last thing, but the last, last thing, if you keep scrolling down, is about electronic display signs. So in Chapter 6 of our code, it talks about on-premises electronic display signs and measures it in nits, which is a way to measure the surface brightness of the sign. We're just updating our code. If you can keep scrolling, sorry. It's Exhibit B. There we are.

Perfect. Thank you.

So all we're doing is we're using that same standard, which is 300 nits as the maximum at nighttime and 5000 nits during the daylight for electronic display signs that are off premises, meaning not on the property. And then if you could go back to the slides, I just have one quick picture to show and then we'll open for discussion. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's an example of full shielding versus just shielded fixtures. Can we discuss that? Yes, and we're already making some of these changes. So the dark sky compliant lighting for street lights has already been happening for the last couple of years. So nothing's going to change on that front the way it's currently proposed. And then I went over some of those exceptions. This picture, I think, gives what the practical impact might be of some of these changes. This is Moab, Utah's main street. This was before their dark sky policy and after. So you can see the road is actually not super illuminated, but the sky is. Whereas when the light is directed downward, the sky is much darker. However, the streets actually appear much more well-lit and safer.

And that same time of day, same day of the year, whatever.

Yeah, you can see this building here and that building. It's just, I guess, moved a few feet. But yeah, same time of night, everything. And this color temperature is 2700K, just for reference. So ours is even a little bit more white than that, if you're concerned about it feeling too orange. um this is like the old overhead street light it's the sodium wool and then this is the more this is the what our uh new street lights look like now yeah i've seen those showing up in my neighborhood okay yeah i hope that you've improved you've enjoyed the improvements um but these are the next steps we can uh move this to a night meeting as currently proposed we can amend the proposal or continue this to a future working stuff

You know, this issue was brought forward by 3 council members, councillors, Whitlock, McKay and Christianson. I'd be interested in hearing from Councillor Whitlock or Councillor McKay if this does what you had hoped it would do. What are some of your thoughts?

Yeah, so I can just speak for myself. One of the things I think is amazing about Provo is we're close to the mountains. We have some of these amazing natural resources, and I think adding the stars to that is going to be amazing. It also, when during the campaign, I heard a lot from residents kind of complaining about light at night and making it difficult to sleep and their kids going to sleep. And so it solved a lot of practical benefits. But I didn't want to look at something too aggressive and just wanted something that was sort of reasonable, moderate, not add costs to businesses or the city, but over the next 10 to 20 years, you'd see a substantial improvement. And I think this does a pretty good job at that.

One thing, if it's okay that I add, all of this is not retroactive either. This doesn't apply to any existing lighting. This is only going to be going forward. So new construction, remodels, replacements of old lighting, that's what it will apply to.

Councillor McKay, do you have anything to add to what Councillor Whitlock said?

No, that was good.

Okay, Councillor Bogdan?

I have a couple of things. So does this apply to like my outdoor lights in my house?

Yes, as currently proposed. Once it needs to be replaced. Yes. Go ahead.

No, she's talking about like Christmas lights, right?

No.

I'm talking about my porch lights on my front and my back.

Only if you replace them. Only if you replace them. Correct. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Where do you even find lights like that?

I have several resources that maybe we could post on YouTube. the city website or somewhere with approved lighting standards. I've seen several other cities kind of provide an approval.

You know, a lot of times, like I've bought mine at Costco where they're only $30 a light. You start making these $100 a light or $200 a light. Replace them. that's a stinking concern though right yeah and then it starts adding all this light and one of the reasons why we have our power program that i keep on hearing over and over and over again is because people did want street lights um my other question would be how many of you said we haven't stopped How many of these do we have in stock? Like if we put this in code today, are you going to be stuck with 200 streetlights that you can't use tomorrow?

No, we have made changes for a long time ago. So everything in inventory is new and in compliance. So we have been doing that for a few years now. In terms of the streetlights.

But he said that the ones that we're installing now are 3,000 and they need to be 2,700? No, we are... proposing the 3,000 or less. Oh, you are proposing it.

So the 3,000 will be- 3,000 is what's currently in the proposed code. That 2,700 is a more aggressive option that's open to you if you would like to choose that. I just wanted to make known. 2,700 was what was in the photo, not what's in the proposal.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion.

Okay, because I don't want to be stuck with 200 lives that now we have nowhere to go. I would much rather use up the inventory and be, you know, that way as well.

And the counselor Bogdan's first question is, are these more costly?

Yeah, great question. They're not. So the way that LEDs, at least modern LEDs work, is that the way to change the color temperature is to put a different level of phosphorus on the light that changes the wavelengths that actually come out of it. So there's no significant cost difference between a warmer color temperature light and a cooler one.

Can we get that in our packet for when it

Yeah, absolutely. I'll write that down.

Councillor Hopen, did you have other questions?

i guess i just wanted some clarity on what counselor bogdan was asking so like in my house we can use my house for example i have porch lights but there's an overhang they're under an overhang so they're not they're not going up um there are some that are under like the east of the house i assume those would not be an issue right as long as the lights are directed downwards and recess then yeah but then i have one like right outside my door that lights up the area there's you know there's an e but i guess to me i don't want to put something out there that leads to a bunch of a lack of clarity for residents and yeah so like okay so some picture of my backyard door or even my side door i've got one that comes off the house I wish I could draw this, but basically it's like a door level. Like it's at like height level. It's right here by the door and it shines out this way. Right now there's, there's ease of the house, but that's further up. So does that have to be pointed down or, and then I also have a few floodlights in my backyard that we flip on. Like it's the kids are playing in the backyard and those are higher up and those are a little bit more like. of light the whole backyard and they're a brighter light they're a whiter light anyways i guess maybe the point i'm making is that we have to we have to clarify this i think if if i'm not going to replace that light now because now i'm probably going to have to find something but i never was planning to replace the name because i can replace the ball but one thing i'll say i guess i just want clarity around that for residents documentation he was referring to off

Yeah, that was the guidance we gave to try to minimize any requirements on the individual home.

So it's off premise.

That's my understanding. So I was a bit surprised by that.

I can make sure that that's super specific. So if I'm understanding correctly, we don't want any of these kind of requirements to apply to single family homes or any kind of on premises. We're good.

So does premises mean my property?

Yes, that's my understanding. Anything on your own property.

And what would be an off-premise sign? Would the mall huge sign be underneath something?

That falls under different criteria.

Well, signs and lights are two different things. And so we're kind of conflating the terms. But we refer to signs as being either on-premises or off-premises. Off-premises is the legal term for a billboard. It means that advertising something that they don't sell on the property where the sign is. An on-premise sign is a sign in front of your business that advertises your business. So that's the sign piece of this. And then the second issue is just whether we're talking about lights. I'd have to look because I don't... Don't think off-premise is the right phrase to use when we're talking about lights because parking lots are part of the premise and we do want to address parking lot. So I think we're more talking about maybe lights that are on structure, residential structures versus off the structure. So we just need clarity on that. But we'll look through to make sure.

Yeah, the intent was not to put burden or requirements on sink on homes. Yeah.

And then the other thing I was going to make, which I think Travis hit on when he was talking through it is that There's a difference between replacing the light and replacing the fixture. If you replace the bulb, you have to come into compliance with the color. issue but you wouldn't have to also yeah the picture is the intent because the picture is definitely the intent and so fixtures and existing fixtures are all in all in one so it'd only be for new fixtures but we'll but that's not even for residential yeah yeah because i was going to say nobody's going to read this code nobody's going to understand this nobody's going to do this

It just seems too complex.

And that's why I said because it's only for new construction, the developers are going to read it, and planning is going to review it when they review the plan. So the only time it's going to come up is when somebody's submitting a proposal for a new development or for a permit for a remodel.

Yeah, let's clarify that because if one of my residents or even if I got a zoning violation for the color of my light, I'd be really pissed.

I agree. I agree with you. And that was not at all. It's mostly as the city redevelops and we get new development, then we bring it more and more into its compliance. So like I said, it's a long term investment for, I think, a beautiful outcome in 10 to 20 years.

So I'll look for a motion to either continue clarifying and bring it back to a future work meeting, or if you want to have it clarified and bring it to a council meeting, we can do it that way too.

Okay, I'll make a motion that it comes back to here, to a work meeting, because I would like to look at it and make refinements before it went to a council meeting. So I make a motion that this ordinance comes back to council, what do we want to say, in a month? Is that going to be?

Honestly, in two weeks, I think we can have all.

Two weeks would be good? Okay, bring it back in two weeks.

Is there a second?

I'll second that motion.

Okay, second by Councillor Whitlock with the motion by Councillor Bogdan. I'll call for a vote. Councillor Whitlock?

Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor Bogdan?

Yes. Councillor Hoban?

Yes, with the caveat that technically we are supposed to have a discussion on the motions. Thank you. I don't think there is one for this, but I'm just saying, yes. Thank you for reminding me. Councillor Whipple?

Yeah, if there had been discussion, I would have said that I'm completely in support of this and really glad to see it coming. I don't actually see the need for a delay, but I will go with the group on that. So I'll vote yes.

And Councilor McKay?

Yes.

Okay, so that motion passes 6-0. I apologize for skipping over the discussion. All right, thank you. Bretton? Next, we have a resolution adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan. This will be presented by one of our engineers, David Mickelson. David, welcome.

Thank you, Council. Appreciate being here. Today I'm just presenting on the transition plan. So I'm going to kind of go over some background of how we got here, why we need this, and then kind of our steps forward from this. So a little background. ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, requires all public entities to have a transition plan, essentially a plan that shows what's wrong in the city and how we're going to move into compliance. This is not just physical facilities, which I think often we think of when we talk about ADA facilities, but this can extend to communications, public meetings, trails, restrooms. There's a lot of things that are incorporated in ADA. So really the questions that this kind of answers is not that is this building ADA compliant, but can someone with a disability meaningfully access all of our services, our programs in a reasonable way? The plan details kind of some of this background information and talks about our responsibility as the city. I'm going to just kind of briefly go over those. But my responsibility as Provo City is to provide equal access, prevent discrimination, make reasonable accommodations, provide effective communication, have a system for ADA compliance, which includes ADA coordinators and a grievance protocol, and then to develop a transition plan. So the plan that I've put together here and I'm presenting It is, we'll adopt it, that's the motion is to put this into a place and accept it as the official plan. It is a work in progress and so there is more that's needed here and I'll discuss that. So what is this plan? This plan is basically our roadmap. Because the city can't reasonably address all of our barriers that we have for ADA all at once, this is basically a roadmap that says, hey, we're aware of these issues and this is how we're going to grow into compliance. And so it not only details that, but kind of creates a mindset of, well, how can we make this a better experience for those with disabilities here in the city? So there's two parts of this plan. I'm going super quick, so I hope there's questions. I may not need the full time, I apologize. There's two parts of this plan that are kind of the major components, the self-evaluation and then the transition plan itself. The self-evaluation is an assessment of the city's existing programs, services, activities, facilities, and practices. And it's done to identify those potential barriers or existing barriers that we have in the city across all those things. So it really provides the information that helps fuel the plan. So right now the plan that's proposed includes assessments that have been done through Parks and Rec as well as Public Works. While the other city program services will continue to be evaluated, we are actively working with those other departments to be able to help move through that process. But right now, just parks and rec and public works are included in this plan. The great thing is that this is a living document and so as we get those additional assessments and identify those needs, they can be added very simply. So with public works and parks, things that have been assessed are like site access, sidewalks, curb ramps, parking lots, how to access from parking lots to facilities. building access, restrooms and those amenities within the restrooms, and then recreational amenities like playgrounds, picnic areas, things like that. And so those evaluations that I have contained here in this plan help fuel what we're going to do about it. And obviously that plan again will change and it will evolve as we add additional information. The transition plan then takes this information and says, here's how we're going to implement it. And there's a number of ways that there that can be implemented and changed. And it kind of depends on the department and what needs to be changed. But I kind of broke it down where it's like some are done through maintenance and operational costs, right? Things that can be done very quickly and very relatively for low cost. Others are programmatic where programs or services that we offer may need to be adjusted or changed or um just other alternatives or accessibility options need to be provided for those things and then there's the large ones which are going to include include capital improvements may involve design you know future budgeting and may take a longer time to implement those things So as far as the plan that we have here, Parks and Rec, I've included their kind of documentation. They have about 1,000 items that were identified in their parks, and that's kind of Appendix E, I believe. That added about 60 pages to the document, so I chose not to add all of Public Works. We have about 15,000 identified issues, which would make this document very long. But those items in that document is maintained, and we assess that. But our transition plan both for Parks and Rec and Public Works involve those kind of three things, working through with maintenance, capital projects, and those are detailed in the parks plan here, and Public Works will continue to update our plan as we move forward. What I have included for Public Works is kind of a 10-year plan of what we have allocated for budget and what we intend to fix with that each year. And that's the table one. That's correct. Okay.

And you have that, Kevin, could you put that on the screen? Table one.

It's going to be page 12.

Thank you so much.

Okay, keep going David.

We feel like this is, and we feel that this is an important plan to have in place, both for legality reasons, but also because we want to make sure that our city is accessible to everyone. We have a great city, we have a lot of wonderful services and facilities, and we want to make sure that everyone can participate equally there. So going forward, the most important thing is that once this is in place, this is a living document. We will revisit this every few years to update. It is intended that this is also including sections where it's like, hey, here are the improvements we've done to highlight the gains and the improvements that we've done. so over the years we'll add and our intent is over the next couple of months to include the rest of the city as evaluations are performed and finished to kind of beef up this document to include the whole city our you know all of our programs and different departments that may have barriers that are identified If we find things that aren't an issue, we'll note that. But this document will live and breathe as we continue through the city as our capital improvements and maintenance upgrade our ADA compliance. So the goal is to meet compliance and have everything fixed. But I'm just gonna tell you with public works and our sidewalks, we'll never be there because we may fix a thousand things and a thousand will pop up again. So this will be something that we work on forever as a city to slowly grow into compliance. So I think that... Yeah, we recognize that not every improvement can be completely immediately. Not every deficiency requires the same solution. So ultimately, this is more about compliance. It is about ensuring that residents and visitors with disabilities have meaningful access to the city program services, facilities, and recreational opportunities. And that is all that I have for you.

Thank you, David. Councillor Bodden.

I have a few questions. This one I know you can answer. I'm hoping anyway. The one that I've heard is a big one. is freedom boulevard where it curves into university parkway okay that corner that's on the south east there's absolutely nothing there and that's going from a collector or is that it oh that's a big road by denny's you're right yeah just north of denny's right there there's you know there's just grass and so i think that was one thing that was brought up that we're from some of our wheelchairers that like to travel around, that that's a really busy intersection and there's no sidewalk to keep them safe right there. What is our launch and plan for that?

That's a great question. So it's kind of into the details here with that, but we've identified about 200 miles of missing sidewalk within the city. And so as needs come up, if those are long routes that are used by individuals with accessibility needs, those obviously will bump up priority. But those are always great to have feedback and give us. We've identified those locations and where we have missing sidewalk, but now it's just allocating those funds and programming that into our sidewalk installation plan to get those in.

So is that not in our 10-year CIP?

In this plan, I don't include the CIP. It's more of the maintenance stuff that I've included here. CIP is kind of a year-to-year basis as we determine what those needs are and where we're installing new sidewalks. It also depends on allocated funds. With the $500,000 that we have each year for maintenance, that's what I've included in this plan because that's something that we've had as a reliable source. And so that's what I focused our kind of transition piece that's included in this.

But we're also looking at chip hazards, so I'm even excited.

Yeah, and that's included in the maintenance here as well, yeah.

And then a couple questions. I'm unclear on where these parks are. It has neighborhood. What is neighborhood park?

Great question.

That's kind of what I was hoping parks would be here for.

What neighborhood park is? Do you? A very random, weird park. Where I used to live off.

Off of 300 South.

300 South over. It's just like a corner. So it's a real place. It's like a corner lot. It's next to that.

It's like if you go, if you go, if you go.

And there's just a picnic table.

Yeah, if you go out. If you go on State Street and 900 East. Yeah, 2100 also the road.

And what is roadside park?

And these may be something we need to update or include a map or something, but it may be nomenclature that PARCS uses internally or something.

There's just a lot of PARCS that I don't know. As you mentioned.

While you're checking, Becky, let's go with a couple of comments online. Catrice, would you like to go first and then Rachel?

Yeah, I just had a question for Brian. I'm glad we're doing this. It is overwhelming, and I'm just wondering legally, thinking about the financial aspect, so financially, legally, what is required so we can know financially if this is going to doom us or not?

Well, oh, go ahead. Sorry.

Secondly, I'm also wondering legally, like, For example, does this mean we couldn't teach a skateboarding class at the rec center because everyone couldn't do a skateboarding class? Like, I'm just wondering legally, does this limit us that nothing can be done that everyone couldn't participate in? So I'm wondering about both those things.

Yeah. So on to the second and first, which, no, I mean, two things. One is this plan doesn't limit us in any ways that the law doesn't already limit us. I mean, the federal ADA law is already in place, already binds us. This is actually a plan for how to come into compliance. And so... uh so it's not imposing restrictions on us that don't already exist anyway it's a presentation of how we're going to handle those restrictions secondly with regard to your uh question about um uh the the programming no we're not required necessarily to inherently automatically, we don't have to make an upfront decision that we can't do programs because somebody might not be able to participate. The reverse though is that if we are offering a program and somebody wants to be able to participate who can't participate in the form we are offering it, then there's a process by which they can request accommodations and we have to consider those. And then there's all kinds of legal requirements about whether they're reasonable and can involve cost and specificity and who the person is. There's a long process that we would go through to determine whether we had to make a change or not. But it's not just that we have to make a change no matter what. It's just that people can ask for it and then we have to consider how to do it. With regard to the monetary implications, again, there's nothing about this plan that's not addressing something that we're not already required to do. At some point, the money is going to be spent, but there's also nothing about the law that says you have to do it all tomorrow, so this is exactly when you're going to do it. I guess the real basic answer to your question is what the law really requires is that we have the plan. We're actually subject to significant fines for not having the plan. So if you're worried about money, the worst thing is not having the plan.

That's great. Thanks for that. That explains everything for me.

Councillor Whipple.

Yes, I was so happy to see this. One of my neighbors that I care for very much is in a wheelchair. And we have old sidewalks that have uplift and gaps and holes. And this really affects her ability to move through our neighborhood. And I became acutely aware of that when I was campaigning the first time on one of those stupid little knee scooters. And you feel every... variation in the sidewalk and it can be a real problem I know that we did this survey a couple of years ago just because I think until that point we didn't have a good handle on how many miles of sidewalks we had what condition they were in and my understanding was when that initial report which is is used in this was given to us it became like just depressingly clear that the five hundred thousand dollars a year for this modification repair and trip hazard was going to be really inadequate to addressing the existing problems especially when that wasn't actually taking into account the new sidewalks that need to be built like counselor bogdan brought up you know the missing one by what foxfield and everything else so i'm really happy to see that we have a clear plan and accountability to address these issues i think this will will do a lot to help make our community better and i'm also I mean, even though I want it done really sooner rather than later, I'm really grateful that there's not a deadline so that we can chip away at it in a fiscally responsible way instead of having to mortgage the house in order to get this little improvement done. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Whipple. Councillor Bogdan, did you find your other reference? Did you have other questions on other parks?

I got a text from a my resident and she was asking about the fox belt thing as well and i told her that was a conversation we have at the school board that was their responsibility to put in and they will work on that so yeah i i got that okay great thank you counselor whitlock so another question for you which i think you've fairly answered but i just want to poke on it a little bit so based on my math

are the identified backlog and the rate at which we're improving is 33 years or some arrest, which is pretty large. Is putting that in writing, is that not exposing us to legal risk as having an unreasonable plan if there is some sort of issue?

Less risk than not putting them in writing. Again, because what they really look at is whether you have a plan or not. Now, Could DOJ come in and do a review and say your plan's unreasonable? Sure, but that would be a collaborative process whereby we would work together to fix the plan rather than just getting in trouble for not having one, which is more black and white.

Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. I have a couple more questions. Actually, a comment. There's a discrepancy on the email address in the packet. We misspelled accessibility. It's spelled with an A, not an I. Just something to clean up before you finalize and send the plan. Also, I had a question about seemingly a couple number discrepancies that I noticed on page 11 of the plan, the 85-hour packet. It says there are... 321, so I'm sorry, 3,121 meet current ADA accessibility standards. And then just under costs summary, it says 3,393 met ADA accessibility requirements. So I didn't really understand why there was that discrepancy. And then there's a similar discrepancy with the total number of RAMs.

I see that. It may just have been updated at different times. As we've gone through and identified additional locations, we may not have just carried those numbers through.

Okay. Well, I'd encourage us to be consistent before we finalize this. And then the other thing that I was going to point out is it says there's no fiscal impact, but yet it commits us to a certain spending requirement, all this. I'm wondering why it says that. Is it because essentially we've already appropriated these monies in other areas, and so there's no net marginal incremental? Could you just explain that a little bit?

um right because at least for public works what i'm showing here with domain and schedule um because those have already been appropriated they're not increasing any funds like this plan's not um requesting funds for at least public works or anything like that we're just saying hey with the funds that have been allocated for this area of ada compliance this is what we're planning on doing. So there isn't any impact necessarily additionally than what already is established.

Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

Okay. I had the same reaction that Catrice did. I felt very overwhelmed at first at the enormity of cost and the number of projects, but also where ADA was enacted in 1990 and then amended in 2009. I was confused about, but I think Brian has clarified. The direction is that we have a plan, not that they be completed with an, it just has to be a reasonable plan. So we've had a plan, right? This isn't a new plan.

This is formalizing. This is taking a formal step to... Public Works and Parks both have been working not only on these plans, but actually working off of them for quite some time. We're formalizing that this is the citywide plan, and then we're going to actually update it. So this isn't intended to be the end of the process. This is a... We're setting what the base level is so that we can work on those.

Great. Thank you, Brian. Any other questions?

So, Gary, I do know this is true because when we raised money for the neighborhood program project that I did, for the Lakewood Park, I had them move our playground equipment because it was underneath the high voltage power lines that was making the kids kids kids get vibrate. It was just awful. And when we did that, part of the expense had to be must have to be we had to have access to the playground. And this was back in like 17. So Parks has been working on this. I do know that they've been working on it because when they redid Fifth West, when they put it through all the way to the parkway, there was a bunch of 88 ramps added at that point in time okay and then a bunch of residents saw that and got together and said okay how much will it cost us for sidewalking the city paired with them to put sidewalk in front of their homes so this has been worked on at least for the last year yes mayor jenkins thank you becky yes in fact every department has to have oh so it's not just parks and public works that

Every department needs to contribute to this plan. So maybe they have plans, maybe they don't. Yeah, OK. There are times that we definitely have a lot of work to do to actually .

OK. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you again, David, for your presentation. This is on our agenda for tonight. So thank you. All right. Next, we have a, I assume Cody's nearby. If not, we'll take a break. OK, next, we have a resolution approving the appropriation of fourteen thousand one hundred and seventy one dollars and eleven cents in the general fund for a contractual sales tax increment post performance payment. Today's market presented by Economic Development Division Director Cody Hill. Welcome, Cody.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you all for your time. Yeah. So we have a budget request for an appropriation for this sales tax increment payment this was back in 2019 that the city made this entered into this agreement with dave's market whereby they would make improvements to their store location on canyon and in exchange the city would limit a certain amount of sales tax increment to them Based on our calculations, the amount that they are able to receive this year is $14,171.11. And looking at their total, what they have accrued, it looks like that they will meet their $100,000 cap next year after receiving $8,000. And so that would be two and a half years early that they will have hit their cap. and once they do hit their cap then the agreement will have expired and when adjusting for inflation um so the cap amount on this i'm not sure if i have that here yeah so the cap amount on this is um Sorry, the base amount is $39,800. When adjusting for inflation, it's about $51,000. And so the difference between the $107,000, which is the total generated by Day's Market the last 12 months, and that adjusted for inflation base amount, it's an increase of 111%. So a very considerable increase in the sales tax revenue that Day's Market is generating after having made those improvements. And this just kind of shows the historic amounts of sales tax revenues that we've received from Day's Market since this agreement began in 2019 to 2020, that year. And you definitely see the weird COVID happening 2020 when there's a lot less revenue, 2021 when there's stimulus money and everyone got a lot more, but it really is tracking at about $106,000, $107,000 is where it's stabilizing.

Questions for Cody? Cody, this is one of like four arrangements like this that we have in the city, right? I guess they come up at different times of the year.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so there are four. This one has three years left, but like I said, I anticipate that they will get that $8,000 payment next year, and then it will sunset, and then we'll have three left. And then there's also the... two other agreements that end in about three and then four years and then river woods is the other one and that ends in eight years okay so that one will be along a little bit longer and they're not looking close to hitting their cap amount so and am i remembering that this is that tool that has expired that we can no longer enter into right okay yeah as a city okay correct other questions

i think this shows the love of the northeast side for dave's market because that's amazing yeah yeah counselor hoban it is the best ever see the love of the east says the person who lives a mile away um

Can you help me understand how do we factor in inflation into these calculations? Do we do adjustments for inflation? Or were you just mentioning that as a side note?

It's not part of the agreement. I provide that as contextual information so that you can see how successful or unsuccessful a business is doing when accounting for inflation.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Cody. This will also be on our agenda for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We'll now take a break. And we'll reconvene in 13 minutes at 1.10.

Recording stopped. Recording in progress

Thank you, Kevin. Okay, we'll begin again our work session. Our next item, number five, is an ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property generally located at 1804 North Geneva Road from one family residential zone to the SDA or specific development plan in the Lakeview Fields area zone in the Lakeview North neighborhood. Presented by city planner Dustin Wright. Welcome, Dustin.

Yeah, thank you very much. So take a look here. This is the property that the applicant is asking to be rezoned. It's just off of Geneva Road there. It's about a 10-acre parcel of land. Here's the proposal they're looking to do. Highlighted here in red is their property. So it's a single family residential proposal there, about 33, 34 lots. And as you can see, there's a property in between that'll be coming before in the near future as well for this same rezone. And then... Just on the north there, that subdivision that's been in all of this is part of the, I don't know what happened there. there so you can see over there on the right hand side that's our general plan map there's an appendix uh for the lake view fields um area um plan so so this will kind of it follows a little bit of a different street layout but it's still that same family residential lots and so um this is what they're looking to amend to and and planning commissions forward a positive recommendation to you

are there any questions for me on this one so dustin the um i know the planning commission had recommended approval um with the condition that some could you go back to the previous drawing that some path and be included or what was that yeah i think um so if you can see here there's a

was going to be a stub road to the the maze property below um the the maze don't want that stub there so um they're looking to get rid of that stub. I think the planning commission was describing having a pedestrian connection.

I don't think- Pedestrian instead of a road.

Yeah. And I don't think it was going to be here. I think originally there was another stub road coming to the church property there. Okay. So if a church were to go in there, then maybe that would make sense to have a pedestrian connection to that.

Councilor Bogdan.

church is out they took it out right and i don't think ben would appreciate it i know ben i don't think he'd appreciate a walkway if he doesn't want a stubbed road now i haven't asked him for sure but i don't think he'd appreciate people on his property so he owns the property just right up against this and his brother owns the one just right below it right so who who did that um drawing the rendering that probably one before that has ben's property and his brother's property in that Is that just what it could be? Yeah, that one. Who did that one?

So that's part of the appendix in the general plans that was done when that was created, the SDP 4 zone.

Do the owners know that this was done on top of their property?

Yes, that was done years ago when the General Plan Appendix was put in there and it was just trying to more convey housing densities and lot types rather than actual road configuration. So we think it's very consistent with that because the lot sizes are what we were looking for. In fact, this is better than what we've been getting in recent subdivisions. These are 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots. You know how many 6,000 square foot lots we've been getting. of that map in the plan.

So the SD4 zone is these 8,500 square foot blocks. Because I know when I did discuss it with the neighbors, they weren't happy, but they were OK. Because they always told me for the last 10 years that they have an understanding that they should have the R120 kept. And so this was acceptable to them-ish. as long as it doesn't go below that 8,500 square foot loss. So that's in stone, it would go to 6,000 or 7,000 square foot loss.

Yeah, that's the minimum in that SDP four zone that they're requesting. So if they wanted to go below that, they'd have to come back and rezone it to R16.

And the church has been gone for years. There's no church there on the corner. The church owns the property, but there's no church on the corner.

So- Wait, they're still on the property?

If it has church, then I believe they do. Can we do a quick parcel lookup?

If there should be a church there in the future, a walkway would make sense.

I don't know that there will because they took one out, right? So I'm okay with not having the stubbed off road and I'm okay with not having a walkway. I think if Ben is okay not having a stepped off road, he's okay not having one. I wouldn't want people on my property trespassing because there's a walkway, which is going to enhance, right?

Thank you, Councillor Bogdan. Other questions for Dustin? And I'll mention that we've been joined online by Councillor Craig Christensen as well. Other questions for Dustin? Okay, thank you, Dustin. We'll see you tonight. This is on our agenda for tonight. Thank you. Next, we have an ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property generally located at 313 East 200 North from residential conservation, the RC zone to a high density residential zone in the walking neighborhood also presented by Dustin.

So yeah, here's this property. It's a half acre, two parcels. The applicant is looking to demolish those homes, single family home and a triplex and build a 12 unit townhome project here in the Joaquin neighborhood. So it's currently zoned in the residential conservation or RC zone. So that zone doesn't allow new lots or parcels to be created. So that's why they're going through a rezone process to ask for the high density residential zone, the HDR zone. And here's their density. They're proposing 27 units and that zone allows up to 50 units per acre. So years ago, part of our general plan, we have a neighborhood specific plan for the Joaquin neighborhood and the future land use map here is part of that plan. I'll just kind of orient you here. So here's just the property that the applicants requested the rezone on. It's down in that yellow area in the plan, in the Joaquin plan. So that area is designated as something that would remain as residential conservation. So they're trying to preserve the single-family homes in that historic Pioneer neighborhood there. And then the plan was to put higher density near the northern portion of the neighborhood close to Brigham Young University's campus so that it's more of a walkable, student-oriented location there so so that's why that uh plan was kind of developed that way to take development pressure off of the rest of the neighborhood where where these single-family homes were getting a lot of pressure to be become student housing and and lose that character that's there so the neighborhood you know work with staff and stakeholders to create this plan to help protect the neighborhood from that and to still allow for high density housing to come into the neighborhood, but to put it in the location that makes the most sense there. So it's kind of an overview on that. And then here is kind of a concept of what they're proposing for those townhomes. It'd be 12 units there. Some elevations here as well, just showing that. But anyway, there they are. So three stories parking on the main level and then the living space above. So any questions on this one?

Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm curious. apologize if i if this was the pack i missed it but this home is how old is this home again it's like eight it's quite old is it not correct 1906 or something is there not like a historic uh yeah designation in that area um so it is in the uh east central historic district um but that's uh but individual homeowners have to apply to be part of it?

So the whole neighborhood is part of the district, but it's an honorary district. It's not protected by our landmarks chapter, so they'd have to be on our landmarks register, the provost city landmarks register for it to be protected. So while it's in a historic district, it's not protected from being redeveloped.

Okay, thank you for helping me understand that.

Gary? Yes, go ahead, Councillor Christensen. So just a quick question. Justin, how long ago was this plan put into place?

The neighborhood plan? The neighborhood plan was probably 2014.

I think 2000, right after South Campus Area Master Plan.

Yeah, the Joaquin neighborhood plan was 2014. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Councillor McKay. Catrice, are you there?

So my question is, they've only proffered one year of owner occupancy.

um they proffered a year at planning commission i think she mentioned she'd be comfortable with bumping that to two years as a deed restriction for for those 12 units to be owner occupied um okay without it being perpetually owner occupied and always ownership with no rentals long term forever i'm not open to it because the whole problem is that the investors i mean

Investors are just upping all the prices and the only way for it to stay more accessible is to be owner occupied where the prices aren't inflated by investors. And, um, and if we're going to go against the neighborhood plan, which was put in very seriously with a lot of time and consideration and people are very invested in it, I'm not willing to change anything without making it better all around, which I believe only owner occupancy in perpetuity achieve them.

So, Justin, that was the extent to which they were willing to offer, go from one year to two years. There was no talk about perpetuity for owner occupancy?

Not that I recall. I think she mentioned that, but that could be something you could discuss with her tonight. The other thing to mention is they did talk about a development agreement to cap the density Because the HDR zone that they're requesting allows up to 50, and they were at 27, I think. So that and the building height, they're willing to put those into a development agreement as well.

So what's medium density?

30 units. And the reason that they're asking for HDR as opposed to MDR, or medium density residential, was mostly for the setbacks so that they can get this project to fit on that site.

I see. Okay. Councillor Whitlock.

so uh in this packet um it says that engineering review comment for this development reads our existing utilities cannot handle proposed hdr development my question is is this yeah it's it's is it unusual for us to be asked to grant a zone change before we know whether the site can be served and how or am i misunderstanding the packet

Yeah, so when we create these general plans, the Public Works is looking at those as far as making sure they have capacity to meet the needs of that plan. And so where this plan doesn't show higher density going in that area, they haven't planned and prepared for that. So I think that's where that comment's coming from.

So it's not saying that this particular project will create problems. It's saying that if this project creates a precedence for higher density, we will need to then plan for additionals infrastructure?

I'm not 100% sure if that's accurate, or if it's saying that they will have to do some upgrading on the site to make that work.

Mayor?

Thank you. I don't mean to speak for Public Works, but I've been in some meetings where they've talked about different things like this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but sometimes if they have a certain number of sewer lines that they are able to approve in a year or something like that, and they're all approved out, and so then when a development comes in and they say, I need this many X amount, they're like, well, we already have all those. We don't have that capacity yet. and and so that can be part of it we could get public works here so that they can answer these questions if you want to because i don't want to just kind of guess about what it might be unless you have a better i agree with jeff yes that needs to be addressed before we can make a decision don't need to get that no i think that's uh that's a good point um it's like i said yeah they're looking at that that general plan and what they're anticipating it as what they can cover

Would they be able to cover this? I guess I shouldn't speak for them. So if we can get them to maybe answer that tonight.

I have another question. So the applicant said that the HDR is needed for its setbacks, not necessarily density. But it's interesting because I've talked to a few residents in this area who actually said, I feel like if we didn't have these setbacks, then we could actually fit in detached smaller single-family homes, like a cottage neighborhood or something, which I think the neighborhood would be much more amenable to. I'm just curious, from a planning perspective, is this setback serving us here, or is it actually harming us and giving us a worse product? In the HDR zone?

In this area? Yeah.

In this particular case, because my understanding is the reason why according to the applicant was saying we have to do it like this because the setbacks forces us to go more dense.

so the the medium density residential setback is 20 feet so they would have to push the building back 20 feet which would then limit how much they'd be able to develop on the site and meet the parking requirements the HDR zone allows it to to I think be a 10 foot setback so that gives them that flexibility to to be able to fit more on the site yeah my point is if we had a

and like an option to have less setbacks, then you could have a viable MDR project here, which is what the neighborhood will want more. Or is that not a reasonable thing to conclude?

I don't know that the neighborhood would want that more. We've heard quite a bit.

Well, ignore the neighborhood part. That's a judgment based on the council. I'm just saying, like, do you think that that like from your understanding, the applicant, if they had had smaller setbacks, that they would have looked at another concept potentially? Like, if the, if the medium density zone, let's say, had 10 foot setbacks or 5 or there was some way there was some way, like, if you meet certain requirements, there could be an exemption to the setback. Yeah.

Then they would have asked for the medium density at that point. It'd still be the same project to just be a different ask.

Okay.

But we'd still end up with that same thing. So that's why the. ask is for the high density, but the deed restriction would limit the density and the height just because the HDR. Because they could actually go a lot more dense than this with this zone. Yeah, and if it were rezoned HDR and didn't have that, then they could come up in with a new project plan showing something completely different than this concept plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock. Councillor Rachel.

Yes, this is an interesting one because this is my area. I've watched this project change multiple times over the years, and it's given me a lot of thought about the residential conservation zone. This zone was put in place, what, like 25, 26 years ago because of the degradation to these historic pioneer neighborhoods, and it froze everything in place. So we have apartments next to duplexes, next to single-family homes. But it leads to a lot of confusion for people who are in the area because looking at a house, you don't know if that house is a duplex or a triplex or a single family residence and looking up the zoning for it doesn't tell you either. It's whatever the use was or whatever the use had been legally established was at the time that the RC zone kind of froze everything in amber. But one of the problems we have with the RC Zone is, other than the confusion, is it doesn't allow for new growth or change or creativity people are forced to keep that same density for whatever they had so there was one house i think it was like a fourplex on 200 east terrible derelict thing and somehow the people who bought it actually got money to tear it down and build in place the exact same number of units but most of the old structures that we have in this area economics don't work to build it back with the same density and so the rc zone has increased the dilapidation and the lowering quality of the housing stock in most of this area um I think we as a council need to be looking at this carefully, how we can preserve the character of the neighborhood, but allow for the use of it to meet the demands of the people who are there now, not just the people who were there 20 years ago. So this project meets some of the needs of our constituents. It meets the needs for more people to be able to buy a home, to invest in a great part of Provo where you can bike and walk everywhere, you're close to parks and stores. This is a really great area. The single family homes or the duplexes that are being sold in this area are between $400,000 and, I don't know, like $700,000, $800,000, and they need substantial work. this kind of project is the only way that new buyers entering the market are going to be able to buy a home that they don't then have to put in another hundred thousand dollars of repair work and I appreciate an old home I bought an old home and we spend a lot and it seems like we're always behind on the projects that we need to maintain it because it is old not everybody is going to make the stupid financial decision that we made to get an old home so I like aspects of this project. I like that it could increase homeownership in this neighborhood, which would be more stabilizing for the neighborhood. I think that's a lot of the benefit that was intended with the neighborhood plan. But it does it in a way by changing the existing structures, which of course goes against the neighborhood plan. And so we need to be looking at the competing values that are there in the plan and in our general plan for the city, which is newer than the neighborhood plan and in that case supersedes it, and think how we can best accomplish those things and balance these goals. The one year prohibition on renting I think is good. Two years I think would be better. I don't know about perpetual because those are again then restrictions on that individual owner's property right. Like if there were a restriction on all renting, would that include for a family going off to do a service mission or a sabbatical or something where they're gone but they're coming back? So that would be a thing to think about with that perpetual restriction. I know there are many people in the neighborhood who are opposed to this, but I also know that there are many people in the neighborhood who really want this and projects like this so that they can afford to stop renting in the neighborhood and buy homes and really continue to invest their lives and their families in our community.

Thank you. Councilor Whipple, great comments. Okay. Okay. Let's have, okay. So let's have Gordon answer the question relative to.

She was just outside some of the pines.

So there's capacity, I think we talked to their,

little bit about how much pipe they need to do but it's not in my mind it's not significant okay we are the developer is the one gordon that's going to upsize the pipes not us vice the developer and then we'll have capacity for sewer and water and storm water yes yes is it a problem for the rest of the neighborhood no no any questions Thanks, Gordon. Thanks, Gordon. All right. Bye. Getting back to your concept, Jess, were you thinking like an overlay zone for something in the walking neighborhood that they could have a 25th step back if the neighborhood was more amenable to cottage-type housing.

Yeah, I just think when I looked at this project and from talking to some of the neighbors here, I really appreciate a lot of what Councilor Wilco said, but I think that the risk you look at with a development like this, you get investors to buy it, you get people who, what I've done, which is you buy some things, you enter in on, which is not a bad thing, but I'm just saying, and then you buy a bigger house and you hold on behind it and then you rent it out. And so I think that's the concern, but if they were more... cottage neighborhoods, single family detached, they maybe could be places where people could live and raise a family. And so again, it's like we have a lot of this type of structure, like a lot of this type of offering in our city. We don't have smaller single family detached homes that people can afford. And I think I've heard the neighbor being more open to the latter than this.

That's an interesting concept that probably should be explored even in the neighborhood meetings to see if that's something that that neighborhood would do, especially where this plan is about 10 years old. And we have heard from residents that they are moving out because it is transitioning to be more and more unstable. But I agree with Catrice. There's a couple of things that I find really not okay with this, and that's homeownership with it. perpetuity because this right here is where we're seeing a lot of the rentals and that is the reason why we're having the neighborhoods push back and why we're seeing so much of this the other thing i don't like is the mdr zone because yes we can go ahead and put that development agreement in play but that expires the day they get their certificate of occupancy so in 10 years from now they could tear it down and build thousands more and we don't have control over that so i really i don't like any of i don't like i don't like any of it and i would push back and say absolutely not bill pepperoni has some comments

We're getting this to work. The RC zone, I think, accomplished some important objectives the city had back in 2002, which was to kind of freeze things in place and give the city a timeout to reevaluate things. A lot of the questions that were raised go to whether or not it's time to reevaluate those objectives and those goals. And then that's about, boy, it's now 24 years past when the RC Zone was created.

And Bill, I read a document, you can maybe tell me where it says this, where when the RC Zone was put in place, it was actually intended to be temporary. It basically said there was some document, I think it's the city's plan at the time, that said the city will reevaluate and rezone. Do you recall that?

I don't. I'll find it. So I think some important questions have been raised in terms of what should we reevaluate? I think, though, I am respectful of the Waukee neighborhood who followed the SCAMP South Cary Area Master Plan that basically said, north of 500 north, go crazy. That's where density belongs. But please help us preserve what's south of 500. And those were a lot of the comments that came out at the planning commission that I'm sure you're going to hear again tonight. I think it is time for us to take a step back and reevaluate some things. The neighborhood plan has now been in place for over 10 years. but I think doing that more strategically rather than spot by spot might make more sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Councilor Christensen.

Yes, I would just add, I do not feel comfortable moving forward with this. without a more holistic approach. I really respect the neighborhood's wishes and the plans. I would not want a city council coming into my neighborhood and changing my plan, even if it's newer. I think we owe this neighborhood the opportunity to take a much more holistic look. So I'm not in favor of approving this plan. I know it provides more housing. That would be good. I agree with Becky. I think it's problematic when you try and answer the the value of this on the back of restricting ownership. I think we're missing the bigger picture of, I think we need a more holistic look at this neighborhood. I think Rachel brings up some good points. I realize it may be outdated, but taking a spot approach to especially high density, I have a hard time supporting this given that the neighborhood is not behind a plan to really address this issue.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Christensen. Unless there are any additional comments, we'll continue this discussion in our council meeting tonight. Thank you, Dustin. Thanks.

i would just add really quickly to becky's point that once the mdr is approved um i think it's very unlikely that they would just tear it down shortly after that to build something with higher density but even if they did they couldn't build thousands of units there right i i'm sure that was an exaggeration but i just wanted to make sure that the record was clear on that they would be capped at the number of units per acre and if the density is what 50 units per acre and it's half an acre then it would be capped at 25 total units there so that was all right rachel but it's it's not a step up a step up would be an mdr or an ldr this is hdr you're going from residential to hdr right i was i was just making it clear that it could never be thousands of units there that's all thank you rachel

We'll move then to item seven, a resolution approving an interlocal cooperation agreement between Provo City and Springville City to share net benefits from the Springville Rising development. This will be presented by Cody Hill, Economic Development Director.

Thank you, Council Member Garrett. Thank you, Council Members. I'm presenting to you on a potential interlocal agreement between Provo City and Springfield City. This is in connection with the Springfield Rising development. And before we get into it, I just want to say I had a legislative committee meeting today with Utah League of Cities and Towns, and we talked about economic development issues. And a lot of issues we're having is with cities competing with each other for sales tax dollars. And I think this is something that be modeled in utah throughout utah where cities are not competing each other and going to the lowest you know we'll give you the most and we'll take the lowest amount to get this or that retailer in but we'll cities will collaborate and work together and benefit have a shared benefit i think this is a an interesting and good positive direction so um i I understand that you're familiar with the Springville Rising. What they're looking for is a rezone of PIC zoning to some residential and some commercial to enable that development to happen. A little bit of background is that Clyde Company used to have their headquarters and all of their operations out of Springville. They have satellites out in other cities, but they're looking to consolidate that back into Springville, bring their headquarters there, and have a big development kind of in line with that strategic direction that they're going. And this is on the very north end of Springville, our very south eastern edge right there is where the development would go. And so because it's on both sides, Springville and Provo, and they're looking for us to rezone about 21 acres that could be potentially productive in light industrial, they're looking for a reason and to, I think, to help ease the potential burden that Provo City might face to share the net revenues that both cities receive from property taxes and sales taxes. um across the borders uh with each other and so yeah there's 21.6 acres in provo city and 8.5 acres in springville city and you'll see that the balance of that development the majority of the commercial is that's kind of what their site plan looks like here's all of the residentials with a little bit of retail and here is all of the commercial elements up there uh plan which you'll get more into with the planning aspect of the next two items but um the residential components are in provo so there's the 167 townhomes 90 condo units that are in provo with a little bit of food and beverage retail about 10 000 square feet and then that majority of the the retail and office space is in Springville. And so what we're contemplating in this interlocal agreement is that the cities will look at what the net benefit is to both cities. So we'll look at the sales tax that's generated in these 21.6 acres and in that 8.5 acres. the sales tax that's generated, the property tax that's generated. And then we'll look at the costs. And then when we're looking at the costs, we're just talking about the public safety, estimated public safety costs. And those numbers were pulled from our business license fee study that was just performed last year. There are costs embedded into that. So a cost for police, for example, is four hundred four hundred forty dollars and the cost for fire is 380 and so the assumed additional burden for those and we just looked at public safety because that is the majority of a budget item for a city and there's not additional revenues associated with a fire or a police call whereas utilities water and electricity you're the more you use the more you pay and so we're looking at those costs um subtracted from the revenues and then whichever city has the higher amount of revenue they would just take difference and and share half of it so both cities end up with the with the same benefit from this development and the um we brian and i have emailed extensively over the last week about this um ironing out some some questions some issues that have come up um one of them is triggering when would this uh potentially be triggered and it would be triggered and the agreement as it stands right now is once ninety percent of both the residential and the commercial uh is completed that's when the agreement would trigger and begin sharing revenues. And yeah, are there any other issues that you wanted to speak to, Brian?

I think that's the only one. So I guess two issues. I would say if you reviewed this over the weekend, there was a new one uploaded because of the changes that we made i would i don't think any of the changes that we made were substantive it was more like clarifying we put in a uh an inflationary adjustment table um we clarified the meaning of net income versus total revenue and some things like so it's all kind of clarification stuff the one the one that i had had some concerns about i mentioned to cody was the trigger because they said well If the commercial gets 90% built and the residential gets 85% built, the green never triggers and we never get anything. So that's been my biggest concern. Cody just forwarded me this a little bit ago, an email from Springville. It sounds like they're a little bit flexible. So between now and tonight, Cody and I will try to adjust that a little bit. Spencer Whitlock, yes.

So yeah, it's not just that scenario. It's the scenario where basically we're putting our revenue dependent on their leasing market. But they could build it all, but then still not lease the units, right? And then we would not get the revenue, even though our homes, we're almost certainly due to finish our part and take on the cost prior to them leasing the 90%. Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good point too. So I mean, the big thing though, I'm sorry, turn this up. Uh, Tony can speak this probably better than I can, but they seem to open to us. Wasn't 1 of the pros even we could just change it to as soon as there's a building built on each side. They were okay with that. So they seem pretty flexible about that. So that's the 1 part that I would still change before tonight.

Councilor Bogdan, so when I read it, it had. A sunset date, it would expire in, like, 15 years. That's not okay with me.

Okay. That was one of the issues that I raised. I asked Cody about it. He asked them about it. They said they didn't want it to last for longer than that, Springville meaning.

Then they need to make it more fair and they need to put more commercial units on our side and more housing on their side. If we're going to do this sharing, it needs to be in perpetuity forever. not that. If so, they need to come back with a new plan, in my opinion, because that's not fair on us. The other thing that bothers me is the school district, and I realize that we cannot negotiate for them, but we are stuck educating all those kids with very limited property tax values coming our way. That's not fair either. So it would be fair in my perspective if the school districts collaborated and if we collaborated, or if they just went ahead and just split it 50-50. We get 50% of the retail, they get 50% of the homes.

yeah and i understand that that is that is a concern on this the sunset date they are looking for something that's shorter we can absolutely um adopt what you feel is best for provo city and we can take that back to them and they can agree or come back and try and negotiate but absolutely we want to do what's best is it common to do a sunset on an arrangement like this i think in perpetuity going forever is probably a little bit onerous, and you don't know what's going to happen there in 50 years. And so it does probably, I think, make more sense to have a sunset date, even if it is 50 years versus in perpetuity.

So Cody, I think one of the commissioners, I'm sorry, Brian.

Well, I need to double check this now that you said that. But when Cody said that, it triggers, and I think, I need to look this up, but I think under state code, there's actually a 50-year limit on interlocal. Oh, there is? Okay. Okay. 50, though, not 15. Right, 5-0.

But that's close to probably what is a useful life of the development. That's what I was thinking as well.

Interesting. So I think one of the commissioners raised this point, Cody, and a few residents as well. This is to Becky's comment about the school districts and the impact. And what jumps out at you is, is why Springville wouldn't simply look to have this property annexed into their city and control the entire Springville rising development, um, which is 20% in Provo. What discussions have there been about that? Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, who's talking?

It's Catrice. Catrice, go ahead. Way more than 20% is in Provo.

Isn't it 20% and 10%?

I mean, as far as acreage goes, it's 20 acres versus nine acres. You see that red line? That red line shows you what's in- We should annex it. We should be annexing there. Yeah, exactly.

We should be annexing them.

Okay. The Provo Rising development.

yeah that would solve all the issues so did it come up in conversations i have not had any conversations with that i think is if gordon were here he could talk about utilities and where utilities are coming from where they're being supplied okay thank you cody i'm sure that would have a big you know impact on whether it makes sense to annex or not as on who would be supplying those utilities where the utilities are closest counselor whipple

Yeah, I just had questions about the property tax calculations. I would imagine that the property tax rates are slightly different between Provo and Springville. And so the amount of property tax revenue we would be getting is different than they would be getting if it were their property. And I was just wondering if Cody had looked into that when they were looking at the revenue sharing deal.

yes yeah so the the property tax rates are based on the actual rates for the city of provo and for the city of springville um right now springville's property tax rate is point zero zero one zero seven nine um whereas provost is point zero zero one six seven eight and so provost is um a bit higher than than springville's

And is that because we have the library component? Like, do we have more line items in our city property tax portion than they have?

I believe so.

Okay. Because I liked the idea of fairness that we had, right? Like in a low sales tax year, but high property tax years, we're giving them some of the property tax and high sales tax years, they give us some to equalize it. In principle, I think that sounds really good. But we are providing services like the library in Provo that we definitely need those property taxes for. i i think it makes sense to increase the agreement period the sunset to pretty much closer to the useful length of life of the development um i don't know 50 years but certainly 30 years i think i would be happier with um i'm sure they would not be happier with that but those are are my thoughts well one more I actually think this is a really good project. It's unfortunate that it straddles two cities so that we have to try to figure out something like that. But for the Southeast area of Provo and that entrance to Springville, this is a great way to revitalize that whole area. And I don't want to kill this project because I think that's going to be good for that whole South State Street area. I'm really happy that a local company, Clyde, is looking at doing this kind of reinvestment in its community. Like this is like... instead of us doing our redevelopment agency and figuring out funds for it, it's a private company that's doing this, that's building this really useful, good project that supports commercial and residents. I'm really happy to see it.

Yeah, as I stated at the very beginning, I think it's great to work cooperatively with your neighbors and have a sharing agreement that really shows equality in the benefit. When I was with Midvale City as their economic development manager, we tried to work with Murray City on a station area plan because the station was kind of bordered the two cities and they said, no, we're actually not interested in that, but hopefully they'll get better people up there.

Great comments. Thank you, Councillor Whitlock.

Yeah, just to echo, I was in the neighborhood meeting where this was reviewed last week, and I'll say generally very positive feelings from the neighborhood about this development. There's a number of factors in that part of Provo that I know the residents care about. It's a food desert. There's very few places to go and grab places to eat or to shop. The Spring Creek Elementary was on the list of schools that were looking to close because it's well below its cap, and so the students would be helpful. The concerns were primarily around the fairness of this agreement. Jennifer Partridge from the school board was there, also had questions about how property taxes would play into account, raising similar concerns as you. And so I like this development, I'd like it to happen, but I have a lot of issues with this agreement of some of which we've named as some of which we could talk for 30 more minutes about like i don't understand why we're only including safety as costs when we're taking on road plowing infrastructure maintenance you know road liabilities like anyway there's a lot of details we could get into here but that's my general feeling thank you counselor whitlock any other comments counselor bogdan

So Gordon will be here tonight to answer the infrastructure stuff because I know that's one that a resident has brought up was, where's that infrastructure coming from? Is it coming from Provo? Is it coming from Springville? So I'd like that answered. Also, gosh, what was there? There was another one that they had. Oh, just to clarify, we cleaned up a lot of Ironton and we paid a lot of money to clean it up, right? How much money did we pay for this parcel to be cleaned up? Or how much are we expecting it to generate to come back for that cleanup funding?

I can look into the small area plan which governs this area. I'm not sure that there's a dollar amount specific to parcels, but I can give you some details about the remediation efforts in that area.

Because that's also a concern. I don't know that Springville paid anything for remediation, did they?

I'm not aware of that.

And so I think that we also need money coming back for that. I mean, it seems like they're getting a lot of benefit for a lot of benefit. And it seems like we've done a lot to this area to bring it to where it is today.

Yeah, they also would note that they are also giving up. There's a used car lot and two restaurants on that site, and they're removing it to provide this development as well. So I think they would note that we're also giving up some revenues that are existing now for a future benefit to both cities.

I don't think the city did much remediation at all. I think we passed that responsibility on to the people who bought properties from us.

Okay.

David Hall. So we don't necessarily have much skin in the game, as far as I know.

Thanks, Cody.

Why don't you continue with the next two items relative to this? One is the zone map classification amendment and then the general plan map designation amendment. Let's just continue. And, um, Because they kind of... Oh, sorry about that. Okay. Cody, thank you.

Yes. And maybe we want to do this after we hear Aaron and Brian can jump in. But just as... Cody and Brian go back to negotiate development agreement. If the council does have very specific things they would like to see in that, motions would be helpful. And maybe after hearing contacts from Aaron's items, that might be a better place to do that. Let's do that. But motions would be helpful as they go to negotiate.

Okay. So you'll hang out, Cody, here. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll be around. All right. And so let's turn the time to Aaron.

Gary.

for the next two items, same development, but one regarding the zone map classification and the other, the general plan map designation.

Okay. So, because these items are gonna be on your agenda tonight, I won't go into like full presentation, maybe just save this time for questions that I could try to answer now or prepare answers for this evening. But essentially it's going from an industrial zone and general plan designation to a mixed use designation and a mix between medium density zoning and some general commercial zoning to fill the kind of vision of a Springville Risings project. Um, but if there's any specific questions I could try to answer now or for tonight.

Okay.

So when I read the development agreement, I guess the first question I should ask, do you have any idea why they procrastinated giving that to us until.

I think this council has gotten used to having development agreements at the time of the packet. In the past, that wasn't typical. So typically, in the past, councils have negotiated that development agreement at the time of the rezone hearing. But this council has gotten used to having those up front. So I don't know if it's a delay on purpose, but just as they kind of worked out the details with our legal team, the draft was ready when it was ready.

So to me, I still need to be able to read it, and I still need time to read that. And I like those with the packet. I think that's what we've established, is if you don't have things ready, then it gets continued.

Well, it's not a requirement, per se, is what I'm saying.

But what I'm saying is... to me that creates a council that doesn't have time to review it and it's like a rubber stamp council and that's not the council that i'm comfortable with i would prefer those documents earlier where we can review them and then of course we will have those conversations but we will be prepared to have those conversations during these meetings yeah council buck and that's a i mean it's a very valid concern it's a little bit difficult with development agreements because of the way they work uh i mean in some ways

we're almost kind of dinging this developer for having prepared one because most developers don't prepare one at all until, the normal process for development agreements, and again, this is gonna be contradicted in just a few minutes by Vesper, but Vesper, I'm gonna actually have some introductory comments about Vesper about the fact that it's a super unusual case. Normally, we don't have any idea that a development agreement is even, necessary until the developer is in front of the council and the council says, here are our concerns that we need you to address in order for us to feel comfortable with this rezone. And then normally in the meeting, the developer says, well, I'm happy to enter into a development agreement that says the following things. And you vote on a resolution that says, we approve this rezone and authorize the mayor to negotiate a development agreement that says what the developer said in the meeting. That's actually the normal process. And usually the council, in 90%, I'd say 80% of cases, the council never even sees the development agreement because it just is an executive function taken after the meeting to memorialize what they said in the meeting. Now, sometimes we get developers who are a little bit more sophisticated and they know that there's going to be a concern. So they try to address the concerns upfront. And so they give a draft. I don't want to disincentivize them for doing that by saying, if you do something that 80% of the other people aren't doing, you have to do it sooner. Does that make sense? But I don't disagree that it was very last minute as far as giving you something to look at. And so I understand the concern about that. But I think it needs to be tempered with, maybe we just need to have more discussion about what our development agreement process should be. But we have not, in the past, taken the approach that every time we learn at the last minute that you want one, that we continue it until you can see it. Does that make sense? So most of the time, you're never even seeing.

And sometimes there isn't even one.

Right. A lot of times there isn't one, because we don't know And this will go to comments that I was gonna make in the Vesper meeting. We don't know that the council has concerns until they're actually standing in front of you and you state what your concerns are. So usually the only reason we get one before that is because staff has concerns and they say, we're not gonna recommend approval If you don't do a DA that does the following things, or they try to guess like sometimes like with the home ownership thing, I mean, staff has been pretty proactive. Uh, sometimes over my objections to saying, we know that this is a big issue from the council. So you should, so you should react to it proactively instead of waiting until they tell you that it's an issue. Um, so, so sometimes we do get them beforehand, but it's actually the rare case, not the more common case.

Gotcha.

Interesting. So my personal feedback on what you just said is that instead of asking for them sooner, you should be really, really, really, really ready to continue things. Because it's going to be hard to get them beforehand, but I think instead of feeling pressure to vote on things that you haven't seen, you should say in the meeting where you see it for the first time, you should say, great, here are the things that I'm still not satisfied with. And until those things are satisfied, I don't feel comfortable approving this. So let's continue it until you address those things. That I think is actually the preferable method over asking for demanding stuff farther in advance.

right just continue it here okay so i do have a problem with the development agreement it seems like when i read it you can tell me if i read it wrong that they are saying that they are guaranteeing homeowner occupancy for two years they are saying that they will have homeowner occupancy for two years after they get the certificate of occupancy this isn't in perpetuity this is just the first two years of Occupancy.

Correct.

Okay. So that I would say no. I would say you need to do it in perpetuity.

And that is absolutely great and perfect feedback for tonight to the developer about why- Are they not watching any of this?

I don't have any idea.

So it's not every time the property changes hands.

It's not that way right now. Right now it is the initial two-year period. Okay.

That's how I read it.

That was, I think, one of the things that I called out to you when I sent you the draft by email.

OK. Just remind me, was there anything else that you called out by email?

The other thing that I mentioned when I emailed it to you is that I think there's five substantive subparagraphs to section four. Three through five don't really say very much. essentially versions of we'll try to do something to address something and but they don't they're not concrete at all and so i called that out as being something that i wasn't sure if the council would be comfortable with maybe that's something that we should consider continuing after we hear the presentations continue this until they specify what that is yeah and i think that's that is entirely what in my view what tonight's meeting is about is the opportunity for you to tell them your concerns and what you're dissatisfied with so they get a chance to respond to it. Because the development agreement is really just their proper. It's what they're saying they're willing to do right now, but they haven't gotten any feedback from you yet.

So the continuance you would recommend in tonight's meeting.

Right.

Not now, but in tonight's meeting.

Right. My recommendation would be you let them show up tonight. You let them make their presentation. You tell them any deficiencies that you see. They may be able to respond to those deficiencies on the spot, right? And then we might be able to do a hybrid version where we where we say you're approving a development agreement that will be changed to reflect what they promise in the meeting, more similar to the process that I described earlier.

But I think we only had a chance to study what they proffered first. It came so late that I don't know that any of us have really had a chance to really look at it.

Well, and again, I wouldn't expect you to, I would expect them in the meeting to walk very carefully through their proffer and explain exactly what they're proffering. And then for them, you to push back on the meeting because, and again, this goes back to the, to the Vesper issue, right? Because development agreements are negotiated with the council, not with the administration, your chance to negotiate it is in the meeting.

Thanks.

Does it make better sense necessarily to have these two items presented first, followed by the interlocal agreement, or the way it is here?

Well, I was thinking that is when Cody came to the stand. I think for the public, it makes more sense to do a proposal before the interlocal, because then they're seeing what's being proposed before we discuss the revenue portion of it.

as long as they're noticed on the same agenda it doesn't matter what order okay okay i think one note about that is from what i've understood about this whole development is if the interlocal agreement isn't there then the general plenary zone is probably not favorable right right sure yeah so you may

you may what you may want to do is read all three of them into the into the agenda have aaron present first about what the meeting is then have cody present about what the proposed interlocal is but not vote on any of them until you've heard all three of them and then vote on the interlocal first yeah okay let me think about that yes councilman yeah i mean it's interesting because

What I'm hearing is we as a council, we'd like this to happen, but we have a lot of concerns with this agreement. And it's weird to kind of take these items tonight when that's the crux of the issue. And we're not in a place where we can make a decision because we're negotiating with another party.

I mean, so the alternative is, I guess, again, and I get that too, because you're going to have public comment about something that you're not even. So the alternative is, If you know right now, without having the applicant here to tell you their answers to your questions, exactly how you want the development agreement changed, you could make motions about what you want changed about it, and then you could continue the item, and then staff would have direction based on your motions to go back to the developer and say, council doesn't want to hear your item until the development agreement says the following things.

Well, I think more of the concern that I was hearing is we have to have the interlocal agreement with Springville in place first before the rest of it makes sense. And right now, I think there's concerns with that interlocal agreement between us and Springville. Am I following the right path here?

I think so, yeah.

And so it doesn't make any sense for us to negotiate a development agreement if that makes no sense, if our interlocal agreement isn't going to pass. And it seems like we have lots of questions and issues with that interlocal agreement at this time.

Yeah.

If I could jump in. Oh, go ahead, Greg. If I could jump in. I didn't get a chance to weigh in at the end of the Springfield discussion, but I too have major concerns about the interlocal agreement. And so I think Becky's bringing up some very valid points. I just wanted to weigh in. Thank you, Craig.

For my clarification, just so I'm, were there issues with the interlocal besides the trigger point and the length of it?

I, can I answer that?

Okay, Councillor Whitlock.

So, and again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, so maybe, I don't know if Cody left, but the way I read the interlocal agreement was basically, okay, it's basically like net benefit minus costs, Whoever has the net benefit then pays 50% of the other side. That's kind of how it works, right? Yes. So my concern is that, like, my understanding is we all know that residential housing costs more to a city to maintain than businesses.

Right.

Yet we exclude all of the costs of... The truth, I think I calculated seven X basically, because we're only counting safety, we're excluding all the costs of supporting those homes. And so we could actually get a bad sales tax year where we're actually paying this ring bill. And that to me just fundamentally doesn't make sense when you look at what's actually happening in reality. So I just have like a really big concern with the fundamental structure of the agreement.

I think your point is valid, but it's not as extreme as you may be thinking because of the way this has been proposed, most it's gonna be private maintenance. These are private roads going through.

All in an HOA?

Yes. So I think you have a valid point, but it's just not as extreme as you think.

Maybe it's not 7X.

Right, exactly.

I was assuming we were taking on maintenance of the streets, the plowing, the sidewalks. That's not the case. The storm drain. What are our costs? But I imagine it's more than safety, right?

Yes. but it's not going to be snow plowing except for the public streets and there's only the ones on the perimeter. But to Becky's original point, I think that if there's not an interlocal agreement, we probably don't want the zone change, correct? So that's what gives that the higher priority.

Well, isn't that what we were kind of saying? That's what Aaron was saying, that the zone change, the general plan amendment, none of it makes sense unless this interlocal agreement goes forward. So to me, if council has issues with the interlocal agreement, it probably makes sense to just continue the other two items. even now and give everybody a heads up. And then we can, that gives us a chance to look at their development agreement just in case. And then we can have those conversations after we get this passed.

But to Amelia's point, it's really helpful for them tonight to hear what your objections are to the interlocal.

Yes. I would articulate it in principle, I would like the true costs of service to be represented in the interlocal agreement.

Okay.

And then I like, I, I, I shouldn't say I correct what I said earlier. I think at the highest level formula, it makes sense. Net benefit split 50 50. I just don't think we're properly accounting for the costs is my point. And then I agree with the duration as being a major concern too.

But I think my question would be how much of the cost do you want included?

Because to represent reality, like as close to reality as possible so that we are truly, so that the principle, which I think we're all agreeing on, and maybe that's where I would start with the negotiation with Springville is we want this to be fair. We want each side to benefit equally relative to the cost they're taking on. And I would try to make the formula represent reality as much as possible. And I don't think we're there.

So all ongoing maintenance, that will be the city responsibility. That's what you have to say.

We're looking for actuals, not estimates.

I mean, modeling is fine, just as long as it takes into account.

The concern on my side is just that we can get so granular

the transfer is going to be yeah and i think that's a totally fair point i just think we know roughly what the large categories are and then we could add assumptions into those i mean that's what we're doing please you're doing like a cost per call or something yeah i just when i ran some scenarios i could i could just easily see years where we're actually paying out to springville and i think that just fundamentally doesn't make sense yeah so understanding your concerns is very helpful and also um providing proposed

solutions to it is helpful for me.

Tell me if you think I'm wrong, by the way. If you think I'm making inaccurate statements, I'd love to hear it. I'm just trying to articulate the side as clearly as possible.

I'm not going to say you're wrong in just saying that.

No, but I'm saying if you think, like, for example, if you think that we are not going to actually take on more costs in reality and that Springle actually is going to take on more costs, then I'd like to hear that. But my understanding just based on residential, home, school district, all the things that you have, it tends on net net to be far more costly in businesses.

Yeah. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. My concern is administering the agreement and the more complex it is, the harder it's going to be to administer, the longer it's going to take. And the net benefit of that might not outweigh the cost and the effort of getting that exact number. So if we want to include additional costs that are larger into this I'm totally fine with that. We want to get granular and not make estimates for what the costs are, but really get in and have the police and fire sit over their data and the aggregate number of calls.

You could even just do a per home estimate that more represents the true cost to the city on a per home basis.

going to probably administer yeah no i respect that but jeff i mean first we need to figure out where the utilities are coming from are they coming from us or they come from springville or are they going to be split is springville going to cover their their portion and we're going to cover ours yes okay so gordon's going to have to but do we have sufficient utilities for ironton to go ahead and just fish down here is this going to be like a huge undertaking let's ask gordon Okay, so we're providing water, sewer, garbage, stormwater, and electricity all to the portion that's for Provo.

And main street maintenance. Only for the main street, main arteries, yeah.

How many public streets are in this project?

Aaron, would you put up the site plan? So point to the city streets, Erin.

They'd be the wider ones, right? So UDOT controls that. Then our city streets are just Mountain Vista and Sierra Vista.

So just those two.

The roads in between are the accesses to the different units and commercial spots are all private.

Even that big one? That one's in the middle.

The central one and the east-west one. Those would be private.

Really? It's just the curvy mountain vista and then the...

It's basically what we already have.

Quick question. So Becky mentioned sewer and electric and everything like that but we weren't including that in the calculation because those are services for which we already are recouping the cost of providing it right like we Charge the residential for their trash cans for electricity and everything like that. Is that right? I

That's correct. Plus we're collecting impact fees for those things. I would hate to split with Springville our impact fees. So let's be careful about how we calculate this.

Yeah. And just to be clear, the existing public roads that we already have an obligation to plow aren't changing and the new ones that are going to be added will be private roads and we won't have an obligation to plow them.

Correct.

Okay. Thanks.

Mayor.

just going to say in reference to the school district they would like to have more students they are losing funding because they don't have students this would increase property tax this would and it's not going to the reason that they sometimes get frustrated if we're adding students is if we are giving a tiff because then we're taking that increment this has none of that this is school district is not going to be bothered well i can't speak for them but this is not going to take money away from the school district well

But aren't property taxes included in the net benefit calculation? Yes. But it's just our portion of it. The school district will always get their portion of that and they're not- Yes. Okay.

And they would get the rate of pupil unit in addition. So I just, I don't know, that would be, I'm not saying we shouldn't add that, all the costs and benefits from that into it. I'm just saying that- That's a good point.

I think it is a good point. But what I was looking at is you get more property tax off of a business than you do off of a home. right and so springville is necessary they're not educating unless they go out of area to nebo school district they're not educating any kids and they're getting all that all those taxes i completely agree i just i think we have to consider what else would go here also i mean

Yeah, it's a delegate balance because we're trying to push you all to negotiate the best deal for the city and not kill the deal. So that's the balance, right?

And the school district has to negotiate their deal with them. But, you know, if we're looking at interlocal agreement, that was my point is, you know, maybe that's something they need to consider is a NEVO-Provo negotiation as well, because this is going to be a Provo-Springfield negotiation for our portion.

And based on my analysis, it's about 33% more productive to have this mixed use in this area versus the PIC where it could potentially be developed. And that is if it was there right now, but burning it is what to do in the bush. We don't know what would develop in this area or when. I think it's a good point.

So we will have the interlocal agreement discussion tonight first, and then we'll go from there.

Makes sense.

Okay. Any other comments? Okay. All right. Thank you, Erin.

Sorry. I was trying to unmute. I'm planning on being there tonight, but if I'm not able to speak for some reason, I want to be echoing the concerns that Jeff has raised. So just know that you're doubling his boat there.

It's still just one bubble. You're at one and a half, Tim.

Yeah, exactly.

so let's see um rachel it's it's number seven on the agenda you have you have the agenda right yes yeah i've got it i'll be watching it we'll see how it goes on that note gary those were supposed to be at the beginning i just noticed that mistake the springfield needs to be the beginning for both craig and i so that we can get off and

yeah counselor mccain they are towards the beginning originally um um item so we have items two three four and then five the chair notes i'm looking at say it's 15 and 16. oh oh yeah it's item seven right now it's seven eight and nine right now okay good yeah it got bumped up that works thank you okay very good

All right, we'll take a break and reconvene at 2.30 in seven minutes.

Recording stopped.

recording in progress okay we'll reconvene our council work session yeah our next item is

OUR NEXT ITEM IS A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VESPER AMPHITHEATER. WE'LL TURN THE TIME TO BRIAN BAYLESS, THE VESPER PROJECT MANAGER. WE WELCOME OTHERS.

Perfect. I was told, Kevin, are we going to have other people begin the presentation or am I going to start? I was told that there might be a few other people that would be presenting before us.

Okay, fantastic. Okay.

Is there a way to share my screen?

Perfect. And just so you know, Brian and members of your team, three council members are joining us via Zoom today who are traveling. Craig Christensen. Rachel Whipple. and Katrice McKay.

Everybody's here.

Fantastic. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to present. OK. How do I minimize that guy? There we go. OK. I think we're ready. OK. Yes.

And the laser pointer.

No. How do we, is there a way to show our screen on there?

So we can share the presentation on Zoom, what it looks like. But this screen is connected to this computer.

And that actually complicates it. Can their presentation be emailed to you and you can pull it up for them and flip through for them? Yes. Was it like 200 megs?

Like at least.

Do we have the ability to use a flash drive transfer? to transport that to a computer. I think we want to see this presentation, especially if it's a big part of it. I agree.

Can you zoom in on your computer?

Can you just zoom up on your computer so you can watch this presentation?

So if we share the screen on yours, then I can open Zoom here and make this presentation.

Right now, I'm sharing my screen. So if you go on, let me help you set up the screen share there. And then, yeah, that's a great idea, guys.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

No, it's fine.

Technical limitations, too. All right. Well, if it falls on somebody, it falls on me, Travis, not these guys. They'll be great to communicate.

No worries. That should be good. On my computer, it's saying the same thing that I'm also sharing. Can you see his screen from my computer? Oh, wonderful. Fantastic. All righty.

Okay, we are so excited to be here. This has been a long road to get here, and there's been a lot of information shared, and we're just excited to be in front of you having this conversation. I think if there were a couple of objectives we hope to accomplish today, it would be to walk away from this conversation with a very clear understanding of what additional information is needed for you to feel comfortable making this very, very important decision for VESPR. So, we've got a lot of new information to share with you, and so we'll get right into it. We appreciate the countless hours and attention and careful consideration you've already given the project. You guys have read a lot of emails. You've looked at a lot of things to get to where we're at. We recognize this is a significant and consequential proposal, and we appreciate the responsibility that places on each of you. vesper is a big bold project it has the potential to affect probe in meaningful ways we understand that a project of this scale deserves careful scrutiny and we also believe that that scrutiny has made the project better the project before you today is meaningfully different from where we started community input has mattered city staff input has mattered council feedback our conversations with udot oram and other interested parties have also resulted in meaningful changes um we have made significant adjustments to the project itself and strengthened the commitments and protections around it we want to show you where those changes have led us we see today not simply as a presentation but we hope to accomplish two things to show you our vesper stance today and to learn where your concerns questions or additional work still remain we want to leave today with a better understanding of what each of you needs in order to determine the best path forward We have prepared a structure so we can work through the issues in a logical order. At the same time, we want this to be interactive and flexible. We will pause at the end of each major section for discussion. And if something needs clarification as we go, please jump in. If there is an issue that you want to spend more time on, we're prepared to do that. First, we want to show you our VESPR stance today, how it has changed. Then we'll walk through the major public benefits and the physical transformation of the property. We would like to review the important economic and fiscal impact of VESPR. From there, we want to work through the substantive issues, traffic, parking, sound, scale, and long-term protections. We will then talk specifically about the development agreement and the distinction between what is being committed to now and what appropriately remains subject to later technical review. After we've worked through Vesper itself, we want to shift separately to the real estate purchase agreement. We know each of you have strong views about that transaction, and we specifically want your feedback on it. We want to make sure we first understand the project itself before we finally get into the real estate discussion and let that kind of take over the meeting. Finally, we want to identify any remaining concerns and work that needs to happen from here. So the vision for VESPR has come from the ownership leadership team. The technical information we're presenting has been developed with experienced local professionals in architecture, engineering, legal, finance, and venue operations. As we move through the specific topics, we will introduce the members of the team who have led that work and we'll let them answer the detailed questions that you might all have. with that framework in mind i'd like to start by showing you where vesper stands today with the project what the project how the project has changed through this process and what the project before you now actually looks like so these um Before we get into the individual issues, it's important to share where the project stands today compared to where we started. The project before you today is materially different from the original concept. The review process has resulted in meaningful changes to the actual project framework, not just the presentation. The original amphitheater was 25,000 capacity, which has been capped today at 20,000. That is a 20% reduction in maximum capacity. We have also narrowed the uses that can occur on the property. Rather than creating broad future development rights, the development agreement defines the uses that are permitted and ties the property to the VESPR project and its supporting uses. Parking has also been constrained. Instead of allowing surface parking to simply grow with demand, surface parking is capped at 15 acres. That has pushed us toward a more thoughtful transportation strategy using internal queuing, right-sized on-site parking, off-site parking, shuttles, rideshare, and other transportation options. The conservation component has become more specific. We now have defined obligations around undeveloped property, restoration, revegetation, public trails, and permanent conservation. Traffic and parking have also been moved from a concept discussion to an enforceable requirement. Before large-scale operations can begin, the project must have an approved traffic and parking operations plan and obtain the applicable city and agency approvals. More broadly, many of the exceptions that began as project intentions are now being incorporated into an enforceable development agreement. I want to emphasize that these are not simply refinements to how we are describing VESPR. Rather, these are changes to the actual rights, limits, and obligations that will govern the project. VESPR remains a bold project. We have not tried to make it small or insignificant. What we have tried to do is responsibly bound the project while preserving the things that make the opportunity meaningful. And so I guess before we move on to the public benefits and the individual technical issues and the financial, the fiscal impacts, are there any changes on this sheet that you would like us to clarify? Or are we generally on the same page?

I'm not okay with a lot of things, but I mean, to ask this is pretty broad, especially when we got materials yesterday. night that we haven't had time to look at. Yeah. Why is that?

Why is what?

That we got these materials yesterday instead of last week.

Well, because we were finalizing that financial, the fiscal and economic impact study. That information was coming in as recently as like yesterday. So we were working through those issues with Benj Becker to make sure that that information was accurate.

So the date stamp on that for the 24th of July is not accurate?

That is not accurate, no. So that was when the original report was prepared, but there's been a lot of interaction since then that we've had to verify and clean up and make sure it was accurate.

So I'm not, I haven't had time to review that yet.

Yeah.

And I'm not going to tell you that everything on here is going to be okay. Yeah. I've got to have time to prep before I can...

Yeah, we're not asking for you to say everything is okay, Becky. Absolutely. That's not what we're asking for today. We just wanted to see if there were any inconsistencies that you saw there that you wanted to have a specific discussion about.

In other words, Councillor Bogdan, issues, questions that you expect to raise today, are they included in these topics or are there other things that you anticipate might not be included here?

Yes, there are questions that I would have with these topics. Yes.

How much of your pre... How long is your presentation? Quite a bit? I would say, yeah, I mean, then I would say, let's go ahead and get through the presentation and we can see what it addresses, what it doesn't address. That's just my two cents. I'm only one of seven council members, but I would say, let's see what you have to say. And then I think that'll give Becky an idea of what's not covered. Okay.

Let's do it then. That's great. We start with the fiscal impact. Becky, that's the report that was submitted yesterday. So at a very high level, these are the numbers that we are just going to walk through really quickly. We've actually had some pretty extensive conversations with Cody Hill on the community development side. And we've kind of coordinated a little bit on those numbers to make sure we weren't looking at things inaccurately. That was part of the coordination that needed to happen, Becky, and that was one of the reasons why the delay took place. But these are the high level assumptions. So we've got $540 million. Let's see. At the most basic level, Vesper represents more than $540 million of initial private construction investment in Provo. Piper Sandler estimates that construction activity could generate approximately $864 million in total economic impact based on a multiplying factor. That's very consistently applied. That's where you get that eight hundred and sixty four million So these are the two two numbers eight hundred and forty million is based on direct construction costs and the eight hundred and sixty four million is based on a multiplying factor that that is typically and generally accepted as an industry standard For the construction impacts that had that they have on the general region the fiscal impacts to Provo Piper Sandler projects the number that I think is most relevant to the council is the net fiscal impact to Provo. Piper Sandler did not simply calculate the taxes the project could generate. They also modeled additional city expenses associated with the project and the new population expected to result from the employment it creates. After accounting for these projected costs, their analysis concludes that Vesper would generate an average positive net fiscal impact to Provo of approximately 2.3 million per year. In over a 30-year analysis period, that equates to approximately $67.2 million of cumulative net benefit to the City. The analysis also assumes that event-specific police, fire, and emergency service costs attributable to VESPR are reimbursed by VESPR, rather than becoming an ongoing burden on the City. As with any 30-year projection, these are estimates, not guarantees. The analysis relies on the project's current land use, phasing, employment, and financial assumptions, and actual results will depend on how the project develops and operates. But the conclusion of the analysis is clear. Under the current project assumptions, Piper Sandler expects the economic activity and new revenues generated by VESPR to substantially exceed the incremental costs to Provo. Um, so these, these analyses kind of looked at both the property tax impacts. So that's one kind of component that they look at to come up with the total $2.3 million. And then they look at the point of sales impacts as well. And so that's where you come up with that $2.3 million of additional net fiscal benefit to Provo. So, um, what questions, how do we, how do we want to break this down? Do we want to get into the specifics of this or are we good to just keep moving forward?

A quick question. Did you do the fiscal impact for Orem as well because it's so close?

We did not. No, we did not do the fiscal impacts to Orem. These would be regional impacts. So I would say it's all inclusive in these numbers. So there would be an impact to Provo. This was specific to Provo. Excuse me, the $2.3 million is specific to Provo. And then there would be additional impacts to Orem in the surrounding region. But no, we did not look at Orem specifically. These are just Provo numbers.

But you did have some numbers for the county, as I recall. We did. In there. Yep.

So do you have a breakout of this?

Well, this is Provo's. In this study, they had some numbers for the county as well. I think it was $6 million regionally that they projected. So of that $6 million, $2 million is for Provo. The other $4 million would be for other parts of the county. Don't quote me on that. I might have...

Right, but 2.3 is broken down into property tax.

Oh, you mean where does that all come from?

Yeah, where's the breakdown?

I think it's in there. It's in the report, yeah. We didn't get into that level of detail, but I can pull up the report and we can go through that.

Like I said, I haven't had time to go through it. I'm sure there's other counselors that haven't either. And so we probably should, like Travis said, go through it and then give us time to digest it and go through it because there will be more questions once we see those breakdowns.

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Okay. So let's jump into the next section then. So that would be section four. So this is the property transformation and public benefits section of the project. So before we talk about the amphitheater, I think it's important that we start with the property itself. This is not an untouched portion of Provo Canyon. It is a long disturbed gravel operation at one of the most visible gateways into the canyon. The opportunity is to reclaim and improve a disturbed property rather than develop a pristine canyon landscape. One of the fundamental opportunities with Vesper is to take a disturbed property in such an iconic and important location and create something significantly better than what exists today. Vesper, so this is the transformation. So this is the site today. And then this is what the new rendering that we've got for the site, which really, as you'll notice, a lot of the structures and facilities don't change that much. The change has been in the site plan to really accommodate traffic and access to the site. Those are the most important parts as well as traffic and some other things. So we'll get into the specifics of the site, but Vesper is not simply placing a venue on the site. It creates an opportunity to fundamentally improve the character and function of the property. The project would reclaim large portions of the disturbed site. It introduces restoration and revegetation. The architecture is intended to respond to the canyon setting rather than ignore it. The project creates a more intentional gateway experience at the entrance to Provo Canyon. The project... Public trails, pedestrian connections, conservation, and landscape restoration are part of a broader site plan. The venue itself is only one part of the transformation. We want the council to evaluate the complete site outcome, not simply the stage and audience area. The goal is to take a heavily altered industrial site and convert it into a place that both serves public and cultural function. the question we have been trying to answer is not simply whether an amphitheater can fit here it's whether this property can be transformed in a way that improves the canyon gateway creates meaningful public benefits and does so with long-term protections we think the difference between what exists today and what can exist here is one of the most important parts of the vesper story um yeah becky go back to that slide can you go back yeah okay so our property there you can see

You can see the road. That looks like a dirt road. What's going on with that?

What's going on with the dirt road? That's right here?

Yes, and it goes up. What are you doing with that? I can't see that portion on your drawing.

So this is what the overall site plan, Becky, looks like. So we're kind of jumping into this part of the presentation, but let's go ahead and get there. There's a flat portion of the property that is ideal for additional parking up there on that site, Becky. So that allows us, that's not a gravel road, it's a paved road, and it allows us to get additional traffic and parking up to that site.

So are we basically doing like a switchback in a parking lot and a switchback in a parking lot up there?

No, it wouldn't be a switchback. It would be climbing from right here. It would be climbing from the parking field up to that site.

How come we've cut it off? How come I can't see the full?

Oh, because the parking solution and event management system, this is a big part of this conversation. And it just is taken up on that to get it to fit.

Is there a way that we can get what you see going further up that hill? Like, could you get us more of a better site of what's going on up there?

Yeah, yeah, for sure. Is the orange that you see there, is that that's the parking you're talking about, or would there be additional parking beyond that orange?

No, no.

Okay, so that would be all the parking?

The orange comprises all of the parking, Travis. Yeah, that right now shows 14 acres of surface parking on the site. And we're in the development agreement, we've committed to not exceeding 15 acres.

that goes up that on the provost city side yeah there's a there's a current road that goes up that side already right yeah that's what i was talking about that's a dirt road already and so what i can't see is that an acre's worth of parking that you have up that dirt road I can't even see how that looks. That's part of why I wanted the elevations. I wanted to see what was going on with that hillside. I can't see that in any of the renderings. I appreciate the renderings because I did ask for them. I think it was Craig and I that asked for them, but I can't see what's going on in any of this. Then if we go back, some of the stuff that was pointed out to me through my communications with Orem City Council. We've got that roundabout there, and then we've got a flyway.

Nope. The other roundabout right there.

Yeah. Then we've got a flyway coming from their parks and stuff like that. one of the concerns they had is vesper people parking at their parking lots and walking across that flyway right what what have we got in plan for protecting some of those orange parks and why why do we have that going over that far anyway this this flyover yes it starts here

Right. That's just to get access to that parking structure there, Becky, in order to get, so there will not be access there. So part of one of, one of the UDOT, one of the UDOT concerns that they've had Becky is the left turns. So if you're coming, if you're coming out of Provo and Orem and you're going up 189, taking a left turn into the Canyon View Park, as well as Mount Timpanogos Park, those are problematic left turns. And so one of the things that UDOT has consistently said all along is they would like to, if possible, get rid of those left turns. And so right now, the left turn to get into Canyon View Park goes away, the way that it exists right now, which it would be located about right there. And we've met extensively with Orem City Council and the mayor, uh karen canlis here the last couple of weeks so we've been able to clarify a lot of this information with them becky um but right now if you were coming in and you wanted to go over to the canyon view park you'd come in uh on vesper probably the better exhibit is to go to this one

Okay, so essentially what you're doing is it's an ancillary benefit of this. It's an additional benefit. You're creating a left-hand turn into the park. That's right. It's not to accommodate the Vesper concert traffic.