Phased Conversion Planner

Status: Draft (intake from 2026-07-06 Utah Water Ways funding meeting) | ClickUp: none yet

Problem

Whole-yard conversion is out of reach for most homeowners — the money, the disruption, or both. From the 2026-07-06 meeting: roughly 80% convert a little at a time, 10–15% do one yard (front or back), and only ~5% do the whole yard at once. Today the platform produces one monolithic design and (eventually) one estimate; nothing helps the majority break the project into bites they can actually afford and build. "Suggest how they can break that based on the different irrigation zones… everybody can't do it at once."

Concept

After the design and irrigation plan exist, suggest a phased build plan:

1. Phase by irrigation zone. Irrigation zones are the natural construction unit — each zone is independently plumbable, plantable, and schedulable, so a zone-bounded phase leaves the yard in a working state between phases. Zone data comes from the Site Planner irrigation design (stateful zone/valve model per the Site Planner redesign Irrigation tab; per-zone scheduling entities per the automated turf irrigation scheduling spec).
2. Fit phases to budget. The homeowner gives a per-phase (or per-season) budget appetite; the planner groups zones into phases whose subtotals fit it, ordered sensibly (e.g., street-visible or highest-water-savings zones first).
3. Per-phase cost subtotals. Each phase carries its own subtotal derived from the estimate's line items. Dependency: this rides on the estimate surface (the job container's Proposal/Estimate tab — estimate as an editable draft from takeoff quantities + plant-roster BOM, per the job container spec — Scope) and the homeowner cost estimator built on it. Phasing without cost subtotals is still useful (a build order) but the budget fit is the point.

Constraint: rebate completion windows

Any phase funded by a rebate must complete inside that program's completion window, and the windows differ sharply by program — IRWD 60 days vs Utah statewide 12 months (LADWP 180 days, EBMUD 9 months, SNWA 12 months). See the cross-program comparison in the turf-rebate research report §7.1. The planner must therefore treat "rebate-funded" as a per-phase attribute: a rebate-funded phase gets a deadline from the program's window, and the planner should never suggest splitting a single rebate application's scope across phases that exceed its window.

Strategic Fit

This is the missing bridge between "here's your dream design" and "here's what you can do this spring." It serves the 80% majority the current one-shot flow ignores, keeps homeowners engaged across seasons (each phase is a return visit), and pairs naturally with district programs — a phased plan converts more total turf over time than an abandoned whole-yard quote.

Dependencies

• Site Planner irrigation design (zones/valves) — shipped/in progress.
• Estimate surface: job container Proposal-tab estimate + homeowner cost estimator (per-phase subtotals).
• Rebate program rules (completion windows) from the jurisdiction rules work in the turf-rebate cluster.

Stages

• Phase 1 — Phasing Suggestions: zone-grouped phase plan with budget fit and per-phase subtotals; rebate-window constraint applied to rebate-funded phases.

Open Questions

1. Where does the phase plan live — a view over the estimate, or grouped tasks in the job Build tab (zone-grouped task lists)?
2. Ordering heuristics: homeowner-chosen vs suggested (curb appeal first? highest water savings first? cheapest first?).
3. How do phases interact with a design that changes between seasons (re-planning on design edits)?

Version History

| Date & Time (MT) | Author | Summary | |---|---|---| | 2026-07-09 06:19 PM MT | Dan | Initial brief from 2026-07-06 UWW funding meeting + 2026-07-09 CEO session |