[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[15:10] To the September 21st, 2023 Park City Council, semi-annual strategic planning retreat. All the council is present today. And we'll go ahead and start with public input if there's someone that would like to make a comment about something that's not on today's agenda. Please come on up and do so.
[15:35] Do we have any hands up online?
[15:37] somebody watching online.
[15:42] Okay, great. Thank you. We'll close the public input portion then and I've been asked by our planning department to remind everyone to come and share your thoughts on affordable housing opportunities and pedestrian bike and transit improvements for developments in Park City.
[16:00] Lisa Wise consulting and sub-consultance cascading of partners and fair and peers, we hold
[16:06] in a community meeting on September 26 from 5.30 to 7 p.m. for community input on potential
[16:13] amendments to land management code. The consultants are exploring opportunities to reduce barriers
[16:19] to affordable housing and missing middle development. And to establish criteria for transportation,
[16:25] demand management that supports multi-modal transportation. The meeting will be facilitated
[16:30] by the consultants remotely and with an in-person attendance option in council chambers.
[16:35] For more information, please visit the planning website or email planning at parkcity.org.
[16:43] So with that, let's move right into the good morning.
[16:51] Let's move right into the strategic objectives prioritization exercise and update.
[16:57] We
[16:59] did.
[17:06] Are you going to?
[17:09] Yeah.
[17:13] Okay.
[17:14] Testing.
[17:16] All right.
[17:17] Thank you.
[17:18] Matt Dias City Manager.
[17:21] I just do a quick introduction here.
[17:24] Just move right into it.
[17:26] I've been told to keep short and sweet.
[17:28] I always appreciate that.
[17:30] First, I just want to make sure we think the team that puts this on.
[17:34] Unconventional.
[17:35] We do this twice a year, not once a year.
[17:37] and believe it or not, as you can see,
[17:39] looking around the room, it's a significant lift.
[17:42] Just immunotechnology and preparation that goes into this
[17:45] through staff reports, presentations,
[17:48] preserving the room, getting the food, setting this up.
[17:50] It's a significant amount of work, and I know we make it look
[17:52] really easy, but I'd be remiss if I didn't
[17:54] think our technology team and the executive team and all
[17:57] the managers and departments that push us together
[17:59] for you.
[18:00] I like you, they also believe in the productivity of this,
[18:04] doing it twice a year, as opposed to once a year.
[18:06] As you know, we had a lot of questions about why I twice a year, but it does give us a valuable opportunity to sort of revisit where we are, make sure that there's no drastic changes that you might want to make midstream.
[18:18] So thanks to the team.
[18:20] I also want to thank.
[18:22] You know, on behalf of the management team and the staff, Maxim Beckett, think it'll be your last retreat with us.
[18:30] And so gosh, we've done a lot of these in the mayor and I were talking on the way.
[18:34] How many of these have we done together?
[18:36] So just really, is it realizing that you spent a lot of time in this room with us,
[18:41] deliberating, debating, discussing, helping us make decisions, supporting us.
[18:46] There were implementation, and we had an management team the other day, and it was really important
[18:50] to the folks that we thank you for your support of staff and all of your community service over the years.
[18:56] So, one more to go, you're not even close to home yet.
[18:59] We've got a full day with one of the make sure we make sure.
[19:03] All right.
[19:03] So I will do a quick, what I'll call a brag in both section.
[19:08] As you know previously, we did a non-scientific, statistically irrelevant survey.
[19:16] In the end, I'm using my words intentionally.
[19:18] I mean, look at the survey that we did before.
[19:20] It's supposed to tease ideas for the same resource
[19:24] that are diametrically opposed or competing.
[19:27] Part people in town, catch them out of town.
[19:30] We want to provide affordable housing.
[19:32] It's not the job of the municipality to do something like that.
[19:35] So often we get a lot of competing public input,
[19:38] competing input from stakeholders and partners.
[19:41] And so this survey was actually really helpful
[19:43] that we did before to sort of tease out where council
[19:46] is help us prioritize and then feed that into the budget process.
[19:50] And so, I will just hit on some of the high points from the previous survey that the Mayor and Council said was very...
[20:00] And the progress that we've made in some of these areas that I'm going to hit them really hard, really fast.
[20:07] So the previous survey, the engine house or homestay public private partnership, kicking off a regional housing authority discussion, the light deed program, we're ranked very high.
[20:17] All three of those initiatives, significant progress underway, I can't say enough about the hard work about them on the transportation realm.
[20:25] The mayor's convening multiple task forces adopting the long-range transportation master plan
[20:31] and peak day traffic mitigation, new routes for winter service plan, implementation of the micro transit pilot program.
[20:39] I can't say enough about how hard that team is working in driving your initiatives and the environmental front.
[20:46] We obviously have our conventional term as cash for grass, but our landscaping incentive program,
[20:51] I'm amending our water rates to continue to propel conservation,
[20:57] I'm remeading the soils on the homestakes site,
[21:02] our wildfire mitigation program, hedging our natural gas consumption,
[21:07] just a myriad of initiatives on that front and a lot more coming,
[21:10] all those were ranked very high.
[21:13] The DEI social equity front, obviously coming up at the first major contribution
[21:19] to a future senior center or affordable housing public private partnership, the one million dollar
[21:24] one-time childcare subsidy program, relaunching our social equity committee, continuing to approve
[21:32] our municipal or our MI index score, which is a national ranking of municipalities and how they're
[21:37] doing on the LGBTQ front. In terms of the resort economy, continuing to power resources into protecting
[21:45] our neighborhoods where our primary residents are living. So, a new position in streets and parks
[21:52] and police and regulation and enforcement. Those are great words. If you're a resident,
[21:57] sometimes you feel like one getting the tickets are getting pulled over or receiving the citation.
[22:03] But things like the neighborhood first committee, lowering speed limits, really trying to roll out
[22:07] resources to better protect the balance of resort economy with neighborhoods.
[22:11] on the recreation front, major contributions to renovating or completely redoing the building
[22:18] in city park which hosts our summer camps, major contribution to overhauling the pools of the
[22:25] mark, our aquatic facility. Obviously the recreation general obligation on the pickle ball pilot
[22:32] program adopting a real trail master plan and more efforts in terms of trail heads in our neighborhoods
[22:39] that become desirable for a lot of daytrippers and visitors from the Valley,
[22:44] protecting those neighborhood trailheads in a myriad of ways.
[22:50] A lot of stuff on the organizational front, so that's sort of external facing,
[22:54] but internal facing, continuing to make our organization more efficient and more effective and more accountable.
[23:01] So we, you know, we did our health insurance out this year.
[23:03] We had almost a half a million dollars in saving.
[23:05] It's the first time we'd get out our health insurance and more than a decade.
[23:08] We've overhauled our procurement policies, you enable us to hire the first procurement manager
[23:14] or individual for the organizations.
[23:16] We have a new position now that's overseeing that function.
[23:20] So those are the quick hits, and I'm doing it too fast because I'm not doing them at
[23:27] fair amount of service for the work and effort, but I hope it demonstrates how hard we're
[23:31] going to work for you and work for the community.
[23:33] That being said, we don't always get it right, you know, I heard someone in the other day.
[23:39] I heard someone say the other day.
[23:41] You know, your job isn't always trying to get it right.
[23:43] Your job is to work as hard as you can.
[23:45] Be as honest as you can.
[23:46] Be as effective as you can.
[23:47] Be as transparent as you can.
[23:49] And your job is also making mistakes.
[23:51] You have to make mistakes.
[23:52] You have to make them fast.
[23:54] You will have to be willing to accept responsibility and move forward.
[23:57] So, so that being said, you can't do nearly the amount of work that we've done here
[24:01] and the last year without making some mistakes without bumping our toe, everyone's no
[24:06] wow without a little slip trip or fall. But our job is to be accountable for those
[24:11] try to fix them quickly and be transparent about accepting that responsibility. So hopefully
[24:18] we've done that too. I'll wrap it up by saying, although we're going to talk about the new survey
[24:23] that we did and comparing contrast it to the previous survey of priorities and strategic
[24:29] I want to be a little bit wary to speak on behalf of the team about adding in new policies, new programs, new initiatives, new projects.
[24:39] While we can do that, and while we always do that, because we have to propensity to always want more and do the next thing.
[24:47] The strategic part of doing the survey now is it feeds into our budgeting process, where initiatives, policies and programs that are new,
[24:54] that you determine to prioritize a focus on,
[24:57] have to compete for resources that are already in place.
[25:01] So, what we're not looking for is a new bandade of a bunch of new initiatives. Of course, we'll consider that. The things that do rank high will be feeding those into the way we did it before with our President for outcomes process.
[25:13] So that was quick. A lot of information. Anything on that before we kind of kick it over to the survey.
[25:20] So you're saying you know how an 11 month budget process.
[25:24] Last year, I think it was nine, technically, from six to ten, and I think nine felt healthy, robust, rigorous, I didn't say the word lock, but hey, I think to be fair, that's what was desired and we did a lot of great work.
[25:43] It provided us additional time to analysis and depth and meaningful discussions, and so we're preparing for that again.
[25:51] I just want to say thank you to the team. It's nice to see how far we've come. I don't think we've taken a time to realize what we have done and and all the hard work that's gone into it and we sometimes are just always looking forward but we never take the chance to live in the present moment of gratitude to the team and to this council.
[26:11] All right. Great. So we'll do a little bit of the jet and match show now. You want to
[26:15] check them down there. Why don't I come up there and just help you out. So you can use your computer
[26:20] to learn.
[26:21] Yeah, I'm on the same set.
[26:23] There you go.
[26:35] Right.
[26:35] So 920.
[26:39] We're done at 945.
[26:43] Okay.
[26:44] I want to spend a lot of time talking about the survey results.
[26:48] rather than, I think, at the preamble that this basically gives a little of the timeline.
[26:54] Yes, we are extending the budget process, but hopefully it's more because we want to make
[26:59] sure that we're getting Council's feedback and the sentiment correct. It's not that we're
[27:04] doing budget meetings every single week. It's we want to make sure that when we're strategizing
[27:08] that and looking at how to allocate resources that we're having that kind of back and forth
[27:13] with Council before we just, hey, here's the budget in May.
[27:19] Let's see.
[27:21] Again, just a little refresher.
[27:22] Since we did this last year,
[27:23] I don't want to spend a lot of time on like,
[27:25] how we came up with this methodology and everything,
[27:27] but we have kind of seven areas that we focused on.
[27:30] And I think we will point out
[27:31] and we said this kind of in the instructions and everything.
[27:34] There's a lot more that we do at the city.
[27:36] It's not just these seven areas
[27:37] and there's a lot of things that have to do with life,
[27:40] safety, health, that kind of thing
[27:42] that we're not showing in here. We're basically trying to really talk about the things that
[27:47] Council wants to talk about. The things that we feel like we're doing pretty good at,
[27:51] they're not represented here. So, for example, public safety isn't in here because we feel like
[27:56] it's going to be good in that regard. So we don't have a lot of public safety questions in here.
[28:04] Okay.
[28:06] So we do want to leave some time for discussion and make sure that Council can kind of react
[28:12] to this. We sent out the survey results last night. So hopefully you've had a chance to look at it.
[28:17] If you haven't, you don't take a look right now. The difference between this year and last year
[28:21] is we have two sets of data now. So the blue in the smaller bar represents last fiscal year.
[28:30] So I just put in FY23 and then the orange represents this fiscal year. So what you just took
[28:35] this week. You want to mention any highlights here?
[28:42] And so everyone knows if you're just looking at this graph, obviously the orange is 24, the blue is 23.
[28:50] Score of one is not important. Score of three is somewhat important, and obviously a score of five is very important.
[28:58] You know, the one that sort of jumps off the page you're right away is the one that has perhaps the greatest disparity from one year to the other.
[29:04] The other note is that not all of these questions were identical to the previous year throughout the survey and we'll see that as we move along.
[29:12] But, you know, this year we compared the continued to fund affordable housing programs that retain existing housing stock.
[29:17] This is something that's come up fairly frequently is there's a lot of housing stock out there that exist and it's incredibly expensive time consuming the entitlement process financing partnerships and otherwise to build new units.
[29:30] And we have an entire array of programs devoted to that it comes up very frequently as like well why don't you have a buy down program and we have something similar to that in terms of light deed program, but it's not nearly as comprehensive as a true buy down program where we're taking existing inventory that's on the MLS or is out there for sale and we're buying a unit at a market rate and just simply converting it to an affordable rate.
[29:54] So it's something interested in your thoughts on it to be fair.
[29:57] I don't think that were too surprised on this.
[30:00] Based upon the new developments that are either underway that are in the entitlement process with the engine house and the film studio and a potential public private partnership with the seniors.
[30:10] There's a lot of other things about delivering new units. So this wasn't that surprising to us, but curious what you think.
[30:16] Yeah, same. It seems like a natural thing where as we get more successful and build the pipeline that you start to capitalize on, you think, well, what are the other opportunities and you start to look at your existing housing stocks. I'm not surprised.
[30:29] by the change and I brought up Lisa locals that are last meeting. So continue to look at what we can do there and we'll evaluate light D that's coming up whether that's the right way to go.
[30:40] I would say I think we were surprised how quickly mountain lands was able to partner with your valley and look at different options there so perhaps that was a great indication of where we could go.
[30:51] Um, I would also like to highlight that I'm, I was excited to see that, um, the regional housing authority, even though right not a lot higher, it did bring cires. So I think we're on the right track and I feel like we're doing well with the amount of time and energy we're putting into that.
[31:13] It looks like the deeper into the leads we get with housing with this group, it looks like everybody just wants more.
[31:22] That's what it says here.
[31:23] I think that maybe engine house and that public private partnership might be just a little bit of an indicator with the create a new source of funding just because we're actually looking at that public private partnership thing and
[31:37] And that might relieve the stress on funding everything ourselves and that's the only place
[31:42] that drops.
[31:43] So to me, it just says, we still need to keep doing more.
[31:47] So that would agree and leading into this slide.
[31:51] The context in which we answer that question, right, it can be looked at as we're supporting
[31:56] more of housing investment than housing expense and pure subsidy because a lot of that
[32:02] could be taken the wrong way where we say, well, that's about making sure our old house
[32:07] housing we made affordable remains affordable and I think the other lens there is looking
[32:12] forward focusing on investment and return on that investment investment in a community which
[32:17] isn't always related to dollars. City benefit is also an extension of that investment.
[32:24] So it's the folks who make this place run and how do we make sure we keep our staff and
[32:28] whatnot. Great thank you and as you know the survey has these open and it has an open
[32:34] that bar at the very end and so these were the comments that we received and you know I think
[32:41] the one in the middle was probably the most interesting to us is just is it time and we are
[32:46] constantly assessing we have to file our kind of annual moderate income report we currently are
[32:50] working with the Gardener Institute to update some of our housing information and so we are going
[32:56] to look at this 15% goal, how many units it's something that I think by statute I think every city
[33:01] towns going to have to do, and that's actually underway.
[33:04] I've heard actually that a lot over the last couple of years, maybe not as much as past
[33:08] year, but I've heard that from the public 15% is your goal.
[33:12] That just seems really low, and even though when we set that goal, it sounded eight years
[33:19] ago, that was really aspirational, and people were like, there's no way you're going to
[33:22] be able to build 800 units, but it does feel like, especially since that last housing
[33:26] assessment came out and it up to the number to keep it at 15% to closer to 1,000 units and then also
[33:32] thinking about 15%. And it is, I mean, again, aspirational, inspirational hard goals to raise it, but I
[33:41] think that it's really important that we can keep evaluating that and adjusting it based on
[33:48] what the studies are telling us and then the data we're getting and then also what we're hearing from our
[33:52] community. I think it's critical that we really look at that, especially with the development
[33:59] that's happening on our back door. And that's going to really impact our workforce. So we've
[34:04] got to be creative. We've got to be proactive here to make sure that we can retain a workforce
[34:09] but then housing's a big part of that. I think we hear a lot of inquiries. That's an important element
[34:14] moving forward. Keep going. Is that okay? All right. So on the transportation front, we obviously added
[34:22] new question at the top. This would jump off the paper at us just overwhelming support for
[34:31] the way I would summarize this is just continuing to impress upon the built environment. These
[34:36] other modes in making them easier, safer, more accessible. So biking, walking tunnels,
[34:43] wayfinding, making our built environment around town safer to do something other than drive your car.
[34:49] And this is the challenge of any city or town, probably in the world right now, particularly in North America, where a lot of our cities are designed for getting cars in and out and our two major corridors are up.
[35:00] One by obviously the state in 224 and 248. And so we got a lot of work to do, but overwhelming response for that number one, that was very compelling. And then the sort of the other two, I'll just draw attention to would be continuing to prioritize the 248 corridor and park and ride options and transit priority lanes. And I think this is just affirmation for us all the work that we're doing in this corridor. You'll hear a lot about this later about a little bit of widening for bus lanes, working on the corridor facility, potentially,
[35:29] there's some type of a regional catchment facility up at the junction.
[35:33] So there's a lot of work underway and this is affirmation that it's a good use of our
[35:37] time and energy that we're spending because we are spending a lot of time in this corridor.
[35:41] And then sort of two areas of disparity, I'll call them or something that just changed from one
[35:46] year over the next was continuing the regional transportation convening. We look at this and we say
[35:51] because we are doing so much work, it's easier to deprioratize it a little. I don't think you're
[35:56] asking us to actually depriorate us.
[35:58] You're going to hear a lot about all the work
[36:00] that's being done, but collaborating with folks
[36:03] on the Wasatch back, the Transformation Law
[36:06] Disruptors Committee.
[36:07] That's how we're addressing this as saying,
[36:08] because we have so many initiatives underway.
[36:11] It probably feels maybe less important than it did before.
[36:14] And then pretty compelling was a new transportation
[36:16] funding source.
[36:18] There's really one specific transportation funding source
[36:22] at a city or town level that the legislature
[36:25] would let us levy that we are not set another way. There's only one sort of additional
[36:30] fee or tax when it comes to transit of transportation that Park City isn't levying. So we're
[36:35] doing everything we possibly can, except for this transportation utility fee. It is purpose-built
[36:40] around roads and road infrastructure. That doesn't mean you can't add bike lanes and safety
[36:46] for pedestrians and other things, but it is really geared towards roads and roadway maintenance.
[36:51] there are a few cities in towns that currently levied this fee. But anyways, just thought it was an
[36:57] interesting thing here that, you know, before it had ranked a lot higher and now it had gone down
[37:01] a little bit. So just drawing attention to that.
[37:07] When on this page is that it does seem like we're getting
[37:09] into more becoming more aligned around the importance of parking in town. Good point. Or lack there.
[37:17] Yeah, but. Good point. And it's probably almost half now it's dropping down the more we know the more we know
[37:25] But more cars will have in town,
[37:27] the more traffic we have in town,
[37:28] that seems like a pretty logical conclusion,
[37:31] and it's starting to play out here.
[37:34] Yeah, I think this is gonna be one of the hardest,
[37:36] one of the most difficult,
[37:37] one of the most controversial conversations
[37:39] for any city or town for the next several decades,
[37:42] the way our cities are built and the way they function,
[37:45] and so these are gonna be huge changes.
[37:47] And if you go to any conferences,
[37:49] if you go to any leadership training,
[37:50] And if you go to any, you know, ULI conference or planner, class, academia, otherwise, everyone
[37:58] is very challenged over this last night.
[38:00] We had a discussion with the group that went to Toronto for the, but as a district
[38:06] and it was, that was the primary takeaway is the changes in the parking paradigms and that
[38:11] city alone are just transformational.
[38:13] I would like to mention now, just regarding that, like Park City, whatever it was, 10 or 12, 15 years ago decided we were going to be leaders from an environmental stewardship standpoint.
[38:29] We dedicated to that. We were ahead of a ball and now cities and towns all over the country are doing similar things to the things that we were doing.
[38:39] And so the concept that, you know, we can't be out in front on this particular thing. I think we can be.
[38:53] town to a more walkable, bikeable town, less cars in town. If we're all dedicated to it and
[38:59] you're right, it's going to be hard conversations and people are going to say it's, you know,
[39:03] a fool's hand, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. I'll just have three things really quickly
[39:11] to say it first. I'll go on record as saying I was probably one of those people who has changed a
[39:16] little bit. So you guys can got that on record. I think there's some creative solutions out there that
[39:22] I think we get a little bit stuck in like how you can get around in the summer and then winter comes and we're like, oh my gosh, how are we going to do this?
[39:32] So I will just say that on record. And then number two, I'm actually working on giving you guys a update from our utility facilities and towns conference that that a few of us attended.
[39:42] But the word of the conference is parking. So we should be very cognizant that going into state legislature this year.
[39:49] they will be focused mostly on parking.
[39:53] It's important. Thanks.
[39:54] I was going to say though, you know,
[39:58] you're starting to see more alignment.
[40:00] Once, one of the things that we've talked about for a long time is being a car optional community. And it's taken us a long time to get to the point where we're actually talking about reducing parking or not requiring as much parking.
[40:13] And so if I had any thought for like the transit and transportation team, like take good note of this because there is good alignment there for, you know, the first time in a long time. And this is a good opportunity to actually start talking about how.
[40:28] We don't build more parking and what are the options it and for the projects coming up
[40:33] I forgot my third one
[40:36] Is yesterday being up at banana fly or it reminded me of how important
[40:41] Different kinds of shuddling and like transit into trails is going to become in the next few years
[40:45] And we had a really great robust conversation about where do we allow parking at our trailhead?
[40:50] So I just want to get that on record that that's it. I think that's something we should really be focused on
[40:56] Thanks
[40:57] All right, I'm going to check in with the mayor.
[40:59] Nan, how are we doing?
[41:00] Am I doing okay?
[41:01] Going too fast?
[41:02] OK, all right.
[41:04] Let's see, next one's environment.
[41:10] OK.
[41:12] Let's see, on the environmental front, you know,
[41:15] got to be honest.
[41:16] When we looked at this and we reviewed the results,
[41:19] sort of to ask those further, further reaffirmation
[41:21] of many of the initiatives that we have underway.
[41:24] I mean, obviously, the way we read this,
[41:27] is saying that the work that we're doing, the time, the money and the resources in terms of
[41:31] wildfire mitigation continues to be incredibly important to you and a priority. Perhaps even
[41:37] more so than the previous year. So we are spending considerable time and resources in this
[41:41] enables us to continue and the way we review this. Secondly, the work that we did with
[41:48] with soils in terms of updating our soil ordinance, homes take, dealing with the soil
[41:53] out in Gordo continues to be a priority for you. Obviously, you know, we have a new environmental
[41:58] manager and this is something that is very sensitive. We have to be incredibly careful
[42:04] and in our administration of this. And this is just for the re-information that that new resource
[42:09] that we refilled was very well spent. Anything else on environment? I think the zero waste
[42:15] thing the way we would categorize that is we currently have the initiative underway where we're
[42:27] I think that sometimes when you start having success, you take your hands off the wheel a little bit, and I think this might be an example of that.
[42:36] We feel like we've done a pretty good job and now our focus is somewhere else. I just want to caution us not to not to forget how we got here and not to recognize that this is kind of put us on the on the stage up mountains 2030 and all these things.
[42:50] It's that I understand how this can kind of happen.
[42:55] We need to refocus on things.
[42:57] We haven't been doing well, but let's not take our hands off
[43:00] the wheel on this one, because I think it's one of the one
[43:05] of Park City's proudest sort of accomplishments
[43:07] is that we've been a leader in this area for so long.
[43:10] I would say, I think one thing is that we don't hear about it.
[43:16] So I can't remember when we, I think it was a year ago,
[43:19] was the last time we heard about it.
[43:20] So maybe maybe more like updates of our progress,
[43:23] just keep it fresh in mind.
[43:26] I also feel like for me, the bottom two questions were,
[43:30] an example of oppositional kind of questions
[43:33] where it was, should we be focusing our staff time
[43:36] on zero waste initiatives,
[43:37] or should we be collaborating with others
[43:39] and have encouraging others to work on it?
[43:41] So that was how I answered it.
[43:44] I might so I ranked higher on the pursuing a collaboration with our important partners.
[43:51] We have partners in the community.
[43:52] We have our cycle Utah and you know, the county doing waste and we should be working with
[43:58] them on doing more zero waste in our community and doing some of that and then so that was
[44:04] kind of my thought that was one of those oppositional ones and it wasn't that I didn't think
[44:08] it was important that we do it but I really appreciate all the initiatives that we've
[44:11] in-house on our energy use, and being more sustainable, and some of the things that have gone
[44:17] on in-house as far as that goes, I feel like that's been a better use of our time than
[44:23] focusing on the waste piece, which seems to be a more natural fit for other organizations.
[44:30] And thanks for pointing that out, because I think after you're at a survey, you always wish
[44:33] just might have changed the way you rode a sentence or two. We've gotten some feedback from you as
[44:38] but I had a sentence seen the little funky so I appreciate you like sharing with us
[44:42] the lands with which you were comparing. Yeah and I think if you had asked about continuing to
[44:46] reduce our carbon footprint and moving towards that net net zero carbon reduction,
[44:56] I would have pushed that much higher because I'm really proud to Max's point and really
[45:00] Out of what we've done in that area, but I mean, I think kind of to your point, we've made progress on that, so it's not even on the list to rank.
[45:08] And so it's the question you asked was about, like, waste and I don't know if waste is our.
[45:14] Should be our, where we're devoting a lot of our time when we do have to other organizations in our community that should.
[45:21] Could be doing a much bigger lift for us.
[45:25] Yeah, I agree with most of what's been said here, when we look at these things, you know what, I mean to keep it real, Park City is not going to save the world from waste, but we can set an example, right, we can be the tip of the spear and lead on this.
[45:40] Once we get to a point where we've run out as much value as we can from those initiatives,
[45:47] it is time to look broader and partner if that's regional, if it's state, if it's federal,
[45:53] whatever the case is, banging our heads against the wall isn't going to do with those.
[45:58] So once we get to that 80% solution, 90% solution, which it feels like we might be at,
[46:03] it's into maintain mode and then collaborate mode versus us spending a lot of time and a lot of resources
[46:11] trying to bring that last bit of a value out of it versus getting to 80 or 90 percent on the next
[46:17] thing and setting that example. So I actually rent it lower than I did previously for that reason.
[46:24] Okay, interesting. I don't think we need to make much more of a push in this space. I think we need
[46:30] to start to look broader and invest our internal resources on the next thing.
[46:36] Here, cool.
[46:37] Good point.
[46:38] Interesting perspective.
[46:39] Thank you.
[46:43] Okay.
[46:44] Let's see.
[46:44] On the equity front, we, we, to be fair on question number two about an ongoing funding source to
[46:51] subsidize qualified Park City Choker.
[46:54] We changed that question a little bit from last time.
[46:57] So again, the opportunity to be statistically relevant.
[46:59] there, you know, this isn't a longitudinal survey that's statistically relevant. We actually
[47:04] changed that question to reflect a new policy decision that you made through your budgeting process.
[47:09] But continues to be a priority. You know, the way we look at the senior center question at the top
[47:15] is just affirmation that we are plowing a ton of time and resources into working with the seniors of about
[47:20] a potential public private partnership, not really a reduction in your level of focus.
[47:27] Any other kind of discussion in this area generally.
[47:30] I mean, I think sometimes the miners hospital question surprises people, but we are looking
[47:36] at our facilities and assets.
[47:37] We are growing organization just because our community is growing and their demand for services
[47:42] is growing.
[47:43] It doesn't mean we just want to grow government, it's just meant we're trying to respond
[47:46] to the demands that people are asking of us.
[47:49] And so I can't help but think there might be a higher bet and better use of that facility.
[47:52] And then obviously, you know, we are standing at, we are contemplating standing up the multi-cultural committee viewing that is maybe why that's a little less important because you guys know that's under ways.
[48:03] You're not actually saying it's less important, but you do that initiative was underway.
[48:09] I mean, I'll say it. I'm not sure I agree with that. Okay. Again, we have a lot of things on the plate.
[48:15] There's a lot of stuff that has direct benefit. There's a lot of stuff that has indirect benefit.
[48:20] When you look at this and say everything can't be the top priority, we did a survey and some things fall towards the bottom of that.
[48:28] So personally, I'd say we take these results for face value and focus on the things that ranked higher like the last page says.
[48:37] I don't feel about that.
[48:38] It's not that it's not important in the big picture either.
[48:41] I don't want that impression. It's just we're force ranking here.
[48:45] Well, this is really helpful for me because Sarah Pierce and I have been kind of exploring different models of multicultural committees and task courses or whatever different cities call them and I think where we've been hung up is now one seems to have a model that has been super effective.
[49:04] Everyone seems to be struggling with what is this group supposed to be doing and you know how are they funded or should they be funded or where should they report within the organization.
[49:13] And so that's kind of been where we've installed and and so this is helpful for me to know how much more effort we should be putting into that.
[49:23] Yeah, that that was I answered it and in the way of, you know, knowing we talked about a multicultural committee, but not having like a real clear scope and objective for what that would be same thing with the DEI manager, I don't want to hire somebody and then figure out what they do.
[49:39] want to think about a need and then go figure out whether that is an FTE. So just I was just not
[49:46] quite sure about scope and so it didn't jump out as important as it was phrased.
[49:51] Yeah, I would actually agree with what Ryan said and also this goes to can the city do it better or
[49:57] hand someone in the community do it better and we help.
[50:00] Provides services through special service contracts or through some sort of funding. Sometimes I think we think we can do it really well, but we might need to work with our partners on our nonprofits as well.
[50:12] So that was my thinking too, is this something that we want to take head on and put a lot of resources in or do we want to partner with groups that are already doing it?
[50:19] That's actually really helpful feedback. I think for us in the room and I know the team in the back is listening to you. That's really helpful.
[50:25] what does feel a little bit like with a governmental body that has a changing dynamic
[50:31] at our leadership level every two years it puts staff in a really really difficult position
[50:38] trying to educate a new group every two years considering that these are basically shifting grounds
[50:44] all the time you know doesn't matter where you are this is a really difficult issue for a
[50:51] mental agency to on so I agree with Tana. But if we can find some other group to sort of lead the way
[50:58] and we can try and trust that we also need to pass down to some of the information trust some of
[51:04] that input that we get, how future leaders understand that this is a long, ever evolving process.
[51:11] But for us to drive it, I think that we would probably set ourselves up for failure.
[51:18] And I think, you know, to some degree, this is something you can't take your eye off the ball on.
[51:24] To some degree, we've kind of accepted the fact that we had a, you know, a strong Spanish speaking population.
[51:32] And English, you know, 25% of our population we believe to be, you know, immigrants of some sort,
[51:40] whether they're first generation or they're, you know, the people came during like the 80s, but we know that right now we also have
[51:49] growing Filipino population and we know that also we want to be that embracing warm community,
[51:58] especially as we talk about potentially having the Olympics come back or work for shortages like we
[52:06] want to keep people in our community, we want them to feel welcome. And I also think, you know,
[52:14] the, I haven't really researched, I don't know, but I just saw that, you know,
[52:17] brief article about our schools needing support for different populations that aren't being
[52:22] served as well. And I think that it really is a community discussion, you know, the schools can't
[52:27] do everything by themselves. They can't support all of our Spanish speakers or English second language
[52:32] learners by themselves and so it didn't rank that high, but I think you don't want to take
[52:41] this out, you know, take this off the plate or not keep some attention to it because this
[52:46] is one that can come back and really hurt us down the line if we're not being sensitive to
[52:51] some of the issues going on in our community and making sure that we keep paying attention to
[52:55] the diverse needs of our community. We know that we are based on that last sentence, you know,
[53:01] we seem to be getting, you know, older, wealthier, wider, but there is still, there are still diverse
[53:08] communities in our community that need support, and we need to make sure that we're at least
[53:12] aware of it, and keeping our eye on that ball, because if you drop it, it can be, it can get really ugly.
[53:17] I think one thing that happened this year that we should be very proud of is the mayor,
[53:21] convening a seasonal workforce group, stakeholder group in our community that is addressing,
[53:26] you know, and that's a lot of the seasonal, but it also is raising awareness of
[53:29] of things like people who speak different languages who are coming here and maybe getting green
[53:33] cards or what not, but I think that some of these things end up happening a little bit organically,
[53:39] and that group is moving along really quickly, and I think it's been really great to get different
[53:44] members of our community to come together to actually just have those conversations.
[53:49] Well, thank you. I mean, I think what we're hearing, you know, kind of oversimplified, but
[53:54] these things are important, continue to be important. You're not going to solve them in a day,
[53:58] And that to voice them up, we need to work together and collaborate, these aren't just like, you know, things that we're just going to solve as a municipality or government. That's what we're hearing. There's other creative strategies, not that they're not important. So, thank you. I think that's super helpful. And I know the team in the back is listening because they've been working on these.
[54:16] All right. Let's see. Let's have an organizational infrastructure. Okay. This is an interesting section that we have in the survey. I mean, designing these questions is is it's harder here than perhaps it is maybe any other.
[54:28] areas. But a new question, obviously, about our technology and
[54:36] administration that had come up during the budgeting process, about auditing.
[54:40] And then we can't help but throw in this kind of traditional roles of government, public health,
[54:43] safety and welfare. There's always a good one to have in there. And it's not a great question,
[54:49] because like what does it mean? It's undefined. But some interesting results in here.
[54:53] And I don't know if there's anything you want to talk about.
[54:57] It's just briefly, yeah.
[55:00] Health safety welfare, I think includes what Becca just described as making sure we take care of everyone in our community, and that they feel safe, and they feel welcome and have a great experience being part of the community.
[55:16] Probably why that last one looked a little different to moving forward into your point Matt, it probably would be helpful to have kind of a supplement with this to explain some of the questions that folks
[55:31] said, you know, this was unclear, so I answered it based on my interpretation. Because if we put that
[55:37] out there, I bet this would rank a lot higher versus, you know, an interpretation being this means
[55:44] just focus on the basics. Because I don't think that's exactly what this means.
[55:49] Yeah. Do you think the multicultural question would have ranked higher if it had said
[55:53] multicultural committee focused on the public health safety and welfare of our diverse populations,
[55:59] So, I mean, I guess that's kind of a trick question right there, too.
[56:05] Yeah.
[56:06] Potentially, yeah, I get it with the pen, right?
[56:10] As I read deeply into those 12 words or whatever,
[56:15] I think it was the word refocus that implied that we've overreached in what we're doing.
[56:21] So if you change word refocus, it's probably a little different, because I had the same thing,
[56:25] like there was a lot of community conversation around child care.
[56:28] Is that what we should be focusing on health safety welfare?
[56:31] Well, I think of child care as a health welfare and safety right
[56:36] all three.
[56:37] So I think it's the refocus that I said,
[56:39] that's not really important.
[56:40] I think we're in, I think we're like kind of living in the right space
[56:43] where we are today.
[56:44] Okay. Yeah, and again, these questions.
[56:45] This is the tough section.
[56:46] These questions could be viewed a variety of different ways.
[56:50] I appreciate that.
[56:50] Yeah, they can be very subjective.
[56:52] I mean, your health could be our mental health.
[56:54] you know, there's there's so many people.
[56:56] I'd be on a point out one thing though, in the last question with a third party audit question.
[57:03] I just, but do you use some of your words?
[57:06] I'd be remiss if I didn't say, we have a really talented staff in house.
[57:11] To me, there's a question about trust, trust in the people that we have doing the work here.
[57:16] If we're going outside, always asking for this outside lens to come look at what we're doing.
[57:22] I feel like we put cause in the wheels and I think this shows that we have a lot of faith in our staff here and they can do most of the work we need done.
[57:31] Well, don't we already get it?
[57:32] It's already on it every year and that's what it confused me.
[57:35] I was like, I don't think we already do it.
[57:37] Yeah, it's a bit weird.
[57:38] And that's what council member Rubel hit us with.
[57:40] You know, we have to do so many audits every year in a variety of ways that are required.
[57:45] They're statutorily required to meet our office management and budget practices that are required.
[57:51] So I think we could have worded this question in a different way, like over and above, what
[57:56] is statutorily required, either a performance audit, a financial audit, there's a bunch
[58:00] of different types of audits that you could do and it had come up over time.
[58:03] So I think to be clear, we probably could have worded this better.
[58:06] Still wanted to smoosh it in here, and I think moving forward, we could figure out how to do
[58:10] it better.
[58:11] Put some color on this, right?
[58:13] People tend to have that negative reaction when they see a word audit.
[58:18] Audits aren't always a bad thing either, right?
[58:20] doesn't mean you're questioning the work, it also can mean it's a way to give public confidence
[58:27] that you're actually doing what you should be doing and pushing the envelope and it gives
[58:31] air cover to be a little more aggressive in some projects. So, you know, depending on how you
[58:36] approach an audit, it could be a good thing or it could be like when someone thinks about the
[58:43] IRS knocking on your door and it's a bad thing, right?
[58:45] Yeah, good point.
[58:47] I would just say that.
[58:48] Yeah, good point.
[58:49] Based on what we have to do, maybe what we're not doing is showing people the number of,
[58:55] you know, the amount of oversight we already have, right?
[58:59] Like just saying we're going to do another one, I think it indicates that people don't recognize
[59:04] where there's a microscope on us all the time, and our stuff is killing it, and all
[59:11] of our audits are showing that we're doing pretty darn well on almost every metric.
[59:14] So, maybe we're just not advertising well enough how well we're doing, but that's like, that's hard to do. How do we go out in public and just continue to pat ourselves on the back all the time? That's not the easiest thing for anybody to do, right? Not in a humble environment.
[59:28] We could have work sessions regarding the audit, at least it's out there. We usually do. We get a review.
[59:33] bigger. I think I just like to fall on the sword on this. This question could have been
[59:39] worded much differently. My comments earlier about maybe taking accountability when
[59:45] something could have been done better. Next year, I think we'll try to rephrase this question
[59:49] perhaps differently that allows you to evaluate it. I mean, I think I kind of go back to Jeremy
[59:55] point about this is about prioritizing in where we want to spend it.
[1:00:00] What resources in one way or another, just the audit's just take a lot of resources in time. And so if we're doing it and we feel confident in the results in it, then maybe to access point, we should be sharing it more, but it's so hard.
[1:00:12] The reason that people hate being audited by the IRS is that you have to pull out all your papers and go back and find all your documents and share them and it takes a lot of time and effort and we have a lot of papers and a lot of documents and probably not paper anymore.
[1:00:25] but a lot of files and it's just, it's so much work in our, so I just want to make sure we're using our resources and our staff time efficiently and not just creating a lot of work.
[1:00:37] If we have, if we already have the information that we need, we're just not sharing it properly.
[1:00:42] Great, thank you for, thank you for the discussion.
[1:00:45] We'll just keep moving here, we'll run a little short on time.
[1:00:47] This is always an interesting section.
[1:00:49] If we added it last year and we had a lot of discussion about it.
[1:00:55] an entirely new question was the second from the bottom.
[1:00:58] We put this one in here about special events.
[1:01:01] It look like if you've been in this community for the last 10 years,
[1:01:03] then a lot of swings, one way or the other with regard to special events.
[1:01:07] I mean, it's so much can be said about the partnership, the collaboration,
[1:01:11] the professionalism with which we brought special events into this community
[1:01:14] and why culture, economics, myriad of reasons,
[1:01:20] but then obviously the swing back in terms of mitigation,
[1:01:22] the amount of effort that goes into them impacts on residential neighborhoods. So this
[1:01:26] question was really devtailed around like local special events, which is something
[1:01:30] it's been percolating lately. Maybe it's not the big mass of special events that requires
[1:01:34] transit and police and pedestrian management. Maybe there's smarter, cuter, funnier, more creative ways
[1:01:41] we can interspersed real community events in our neighborhood pockets in other areas. So maybe the
[1:01:47] question wasn't worded as well as it could have, but that's sort of what we meant by that.
[1:01:51] And then the other one that was really interesting to us was although it's not a large jump, but the third from the top about creating new economic development plan and a toolkit.
[1:02:01] So have appropriate use for redevelopment authority, tax increment, community reinvestment areas, cities and towns all over Utah are using these financial tools.
[1:02:10] We have had a lot of experience with them in the past, but most of them have run their course and they did so naturally.
[1:02:15] they did so organically because they met the needs, or the
[1:02:19] desirability of what we were trying to do that that time.
[1:02:21] Create a parking garage, or grow the resorts, or this and that.
[1:02:25] We don't have a lot of them in place now, and I think what we're seeing here is that shouldn't
[1:02:29] negate our ability to assess these, or renew them, or propose them moving forward.
[1:02:34] So I think that one was interesting to us, but I'm curious what you all thought.
[1:02:38] Can you talk a little bit about the bottom one, actually?
[1:02:43] Yeah, there's actually a question about this, too, if you go to the next slide,
[1:02:50] I think this one has come up from time to time.
[1:02:52] Council has been saying, or other things that we could delegate to staff administratively.
[1:02:57] In terms of creating more efficiency and things where I think the mayor and council thinks,
[1:03:03] you know, look, we don't have a lot of wiggle room on this.
[1:03:05] Why are you bringing this recommendation to us?
[1:03:07] It's already been adequately vetted by a border commission that you've delegated your authority to.
[1:03:13] Some of these are required by law.
[1:03:15] Some of these are statutory required.
[1:03:16] And we don't have discretion, however, this is a little bit of a fearful area, sometimes for staff.
[1:03:23] I mean, making administrative decisions can sometimes be very controversial.
[1:03:28] And community will appeal or run to you and say, you know, look,
[1:03:31] staffs really taking the tiller here and moving the boat at a different direction.
[1:03:34] And so we're very sensitive to the notion that we probably want more administrative control, right?
[1:03:40] That's not our goal.
[1:03:42] Often, it's, it's actually easier for us to make the professional recommendations, do the
[1:03:47] do diligence, hire the correct professionals and provide you with the recommendation and the
[1:03:51] responsibilities yours. But this is a constant balancing act in any city or town, particularly
[1:03:57] in Park City. Well, my question was actually more on the public hearing part of it and I immediately
[1:04:03] thought of cities in Utah that don't allow for public hearings. That's where I was like, that's where
[1:04:08] my mind went with that question.
[1:04:11] So, yeah, if you want to just maybe mention some of the stuff
[1:04:14] you've been hearing at the Legislature, I think that might help.
[1:04:18] All right, so yeah, at the Legislature to be fair,
[1:04:22] particularly in the land use area, the Legislature is looking at
[1:04:25] minimizing or diminishing the amount of public hearings when it comes
[1:04:28] to land use decisions and making more of them administrative.
[1:04:31] You see a lot of the planning directors, you see a lot of legal counsel
[1:04:35] Utah saying, it's a great notion for accountability, but it's also going to create a mess with
[1:04:41] the public's ability to feel heard, to feel represented, and how, if you're, like, a public
[1:04:46] that feels like decisions are being made without their input. And so there's a dichotomy here
[1:04:51] about the legislature wanting efficiency, process, getting things done on the supply side of our
[1:04:57] increases in the myriad of other areas.
[1:05:00] Trying to make that process more efficient, but continuing to make sure that there's adequate public hearings, transparency, and otherwise, this is going to be the balancing act moving.
[1:05:07] And I think I asked you at one of the meetings we were at.
[1:05:10] I was talking to a city whose planning commission does not take public input at all, and their planning is completely different than the way that we do it.
[1:05:17] And I had never heard that before. So that's where that's why I was thinking about is that we would just completely forego public comment during planning process.
[1:05:26] Do they not even have, they have to have public hearings though, right?
[1:05:29] They don't comment.
[1:05:31] Yeah, well, I think only for what is statutorily obligated that a single
[1:05:36] second mark under very strict terms, very strict rules.
[1:05:40] Where our city tends to be more inclusive.
[1:05:41] You delegate a lot of your authority to boards and commissions that you don't have to.
[1:05:45] You do by choice and by resolution.
[1:05:48] So there's clearly more efficient form, but you get less input.
[1:05:51] I think it was last year's session.
[1:05:53] correct my femuron max and Matt, but that there was this conversation at the legislative level
[1:05:58] that they might take that away to make it easier for the developers to get through the process
[1:06:04] that cities and towns were doing too much public input and that was what was holding people up
[1:06:10] from getting their their developments approved right on that it was last year last year yeah.
[1:06:16] So there's a couple things to wrap this one in right before we get too far into any specific
[1:06:22] The first concept here is we're talking really about a pendulum swing, right, where we heard
[1:06:29] from the community, we've heard from commercial and residential that some folks felt, and
[1:06:38] I would say a majority, that we were going too far towards the resort economy and not doing
[1:06:42] enough for our residents and taxpayers.
[1:06:46] And there have been a lot of strides made in the past 12 or 18 months on this front, right?
[1:06:51] goes back to one of these earlier questions of, well, is it a lower priority because we feel like we're
[1:06:56] settling in pretty well to an operational mode? I'd contend yes. We're partnering with the chamber,
[1:07:03] right? They're taking more of the business community stuff and we're finding a nice sweet spot to work
[1:07:08] in there. We launched the relaunch that neighborhoods first program, which has really promoted mitigation
[1:07:15] in our neighborhoods and is wildly successful, you know, everyone,
[1:07:20] there's this, there's that, yes, things can always be better and we're continuously improving,
[1:07:24] that programs running every month. We're actually about to launch another engagement effort out
[1:07:29] to the residents to let them know about it and invite them to join in if there's anything they'd like to raise.
[1:07:35] But we can't, it's not that this is less important, it's settling into that that lane.
[1:07:41] We talked a little bit about revenue generation on these new economic development plans.
[1:07:47] Again, that's saying can we ring the towel on the resort economy a bit to be perfectly honest
[1:07:53] when we see average daily rates over a thousand dollars a night versus increasing taxes on our
[1:08:01] residents who are having a hard time living here as it is. We've seen, I mean, personal experience,
[1:08:06] cash out of pocket of 70, 80% the last two years on property taxes, and that's with zero increase from the city.
[1:08:14] That's, you know, folks have to call the county about that, so we need to do what we can as a city to say,
[1:08:19] are there other places we can get money to fund these programs without making it harder to live here,
[1:08:25] which then keeps that equity cycle devolving.
[1:08:28] So it's really like, what's the problem we're trying to solve?
[1:08:31] What are the methods in solving that problem and getting creative?
[1:08:34] And the last one around the public hearings and boards, I mean, our last council meeting was
[1:08:41] case in point.
[1:08:43] We had three items, I think, that complied with our code across the board, that were unanimously
[1:08:50] recommended by the Planning Commission.
[1:08:52] Yet we had staff spend time generating new reports, being there at night to present to us.
[1:08:58] We had to hear it, right?
[1:09:00] We had to vote on it.
[1:09:01] is that really the best use of everyone's time throughout the process when it's already been through
[1:09:06] the public process? Does it need to go through two or three public processes for something like that
[1:09:11] when it is full compliance or if there's an issue with it, should that really just be a recommendation
[1:09:16] from staff to say, hey, Council, this one complies moving forward. You might want to look at the code
[1:09:21] around this and that's where our focus should be, right? And to that note, we'll talk about it in a
[1:09:27] minutes, we have to help our staff prioritize these initiatives because that is on the plate,
[1:09:33] right, the case by case determinations is on the plate for planning the approval of 30 matrix
[1:09:37] is on the plate for planning but we keep adding more and more and more before crossing things out
[1:09:41] the list. So like we force rank in this exercise a bit, let's get into some some ideas
[1:09:47] is how we can help them be more successful in bringing those things forward so we don't get trapped
[1:09:53] in an inefficient cycle.
[1:09:55] Thank you.
[1:09:56] Yeah, Jeremy's second point was how I read this was.
[1:10:00] But there are a lot of things that I think are just, yeah, I mean, we don't like to say we represent it, but if it's already gone through the planning commission that's already gone through our staff, and they're just coming to us for like a lot line that's a simple move.
[1:10:17] It might not be worth all of our time reading through all these packets and long things and trying to make sure that we're well informed just in case there's something that we should be aware of, but really there's not that much that we need to be concerned about.
[1:10:28] So I don't know, I think, for some of those things, it would, it would help to have some sort of review as to what needs to come before counsel, what needs to go before planning commission, and make sure that we're all being as efficient as possible with our time.
[1:10:42] Would could it, I mean, this is for you and the mayor, but could it just be on consent agenda?
[1:10:46] Well, I think what we're hearing is you want us to continue to look at this to analyze it and come up with some recommendations, and I think that we're more than willing to do that.
[1:10:54] for always going to have a slight, you know, reluctance to try to any notion that we're seeking
[1:11:00] more authority or more administrative powers, but it's clear you're interested in having that
[1:11:03] conversation and we're more than willing to do that. But I just want to ask a question.
[1:11:07] I think it's worth where this question sort of originated from at the legislative level.
[1:11:14] You know, just be careful. We have to be really careful because as soon as you start
[1:11:19] chip in a way at these public processes, especially in this state.
[1:11:25] I mean, let's just not beat her on the bush.
[1:11:28] This whole push at the legislative level was because of Dakota Pacific and 700 people showing up saying
[1:11:34] they don't want a development that the state wants.
[1:11:37] So they are trying to stifle public input for development,
[1:11:42] and they're doing it through the lens of more equals more equals more,
[1:11:45] where in Park City, we tend to want a deed restrict and sort of regulate and use our existing housing stock rather than just build build build build so we just need to be careful not not disagreeing with the sentiment here that like yeah we have some little things low hanging fruit that we'd like to not come to us if possible but I think it's worth going through the process of just doing those lot line adjustments and platemens to make sure that the people always have a voice and this state is
[1:12:15] going to continue to try and hammer down on not giving them not voice because that those people are not telling
[1:12:22] the legislators at the state level what they want to hear and we've seen time and time again
[1:12:27] They're trying to figure out how to not have to answer that question.
[1:12:30] All right, so let's put a pin in this one so we didn't get too deep. I know that Rebecca Ward's in the room since she's got another item on the agenda
[1:12:38] In a little bit, so she'll probably speak to us a little bit because I think some of this is underway and I think the team is excited to bring some of this back to you
[1:12:45] But let's keep rolling if that's okay, all right, we'll be a little over.
[1:12:50] All right, the last one recreation, then gentle, take it home and summarize.
[1:12:53] Obviously, the first question is brand new, training, response to some additional community
[1:12:58] dialogue that we've heard as well as the last issue that we've been hearing at the last
[1:13:03] item that we've been hearing around the golf course.
[1:13:05] And so I think the first one, you know, our first reaction was, wow, you guys are serious
[1:13:09] about this.
[1:13:10] And we can continue to take a look at this.
[1:13:12] And luckily, it's not like a new capital project or initiative.
[1:13:16] We don't have to build something.
[1:13:18] We don't have to go through an engineering study.
[1:13:20] Our recreation facility managers,
[1:13:22] I think you're here in this loud and clear,
[1:13:24] and they can feed this into the annual budgeting
[1:13:26] for outcomes process.
[1:13:27] So this is really clear direction to us
[1:13:29] and actually really helpful.
[1:13:32] Anything anyone wants to say about this?
[1:13:36] To say one thing.
[1:13:37] I just, again, just a word of caution.
[1:13:40] We have a county that's building a ton of things.
[1:13:42] they're gonna be spending a fortune on recreation going forward.
[1:13:47] I do think that in Park City,
[1:13:49] we have sort of a limited amount of time
[1:13:51] to build enough stuff and provide enough recreational resources
[1:13:57] to everybody to sort of stay in the boat.
[1:14:01] I think our residents will eventually be hurt
[1:14:04] by isolating ourselves from the county.
[1:14:07] I'm not sure if that's what you're going for here,
[1:14:10] but I do think that we need to make sure
[1:14:12] that we're always in lock step with basin rack,
[1:14:16] in lock step with the people who basically consider
[1:14:18] themselves Park City because I think we all use
[1:14:21] those resources, that reciprocity is really important.
[1:14:26] And I just don't want to make sure
[1:14:27] that we at least keep that ring sort of school district ring
[1:14:33] as our focus in terms of our community.
[1:14:36] Maybe outside and out, I totally understand
[1:14:38] some kind of conversation,
[1:14:39] but I don't want to get lost in this, you know, white barn to the PCL is it. I think we would
[1:14:46] hurt ourselves long term if we shrink ourselves into that small of a circle. And I don't think
[1:14:51] we've done that yet, but I just want to, you know, word of caution. I actually agree with you. That's
[1:14:56] I was thinking about it as well, is that it is the...
[1:15:03] I agree with that. I looked at this through the lens as well of people coming up from the valley. I have heard so much frustration this summer from our residents about the overcrowding on our trails, especially.
[1:15:15] And many, when you look at who's using the trails, a lot of it is people that don't live within our area, whether that school district or within the city.
[1:15:27] So I think that anything that we can look at to prioritise our locals we need to be doing.
[1:15:34] Yeah, yeah, I agree I thought of as out of area, not including the basin and I guess it's more of a convert this was my comment here and I guess it's more of a conversation maybe after we see the results of the record but when we think about we're going to live in this world where any recreation we develop we're going to be a minority user of those facilities so especially if the public comes back and says we don't want to vote facilities where we're only going to be 30% you know whatever it is.
[1:16:02] We have to think about, well, how do we continue to develop recreation in a way that we can
[1:16:08] caution what the folks who will be that majority, which is going to be the basin, basins
[1:16:12] doing more and more to max this point.
[1:16:14] And so you immediately go, how do you put it all together into a pot that we manage collectively,
[1:16:19] and there's a ton of cost and benefit to that, obviously, like from Spanich control quality,
[1:16:24] how we think about, how do we think about ourselves?
[1:16:28] So I think there could be a really interesting conversation out recreation to have after
[1:16:32] afternoon November based on those results. Isn't that what areas to find as on here? I mean,
[1:16:38] whenever we talk about recreation area, we're talking about us plus space and raccades.
[1:16:42] I know you just helped us define that for a person, presumably. Okay.
[1:16:47] I think there's a fine argument to be asked, hey, what are we talking about?
[1:16:50] Park City Municipal only? Or the school district or a rec base? I know if I'd already just helped us
[1:16:56] define that a little bit. Yeah, with the managers that are running nice and evolve horse and a mark
[1:17:04] The IE, they pay more than PC residents. We have a lot of conversations about what is a PC resident.
[1:17:11] So those, I mean, we just need to be real clear about what's why. Because yeah, I took it.
[1:17:15] I read that part and I'm like, well, yeah, that's a 406L PC resident is a 406L period. That's it.
[1:17:23] Yeah, this might be one that can be worded better in the future, because we do have an active agreement with Jason Rack, right?
[1:17:30] we do share resources, there's a value exchange.
[1:17:32] I mean, you outlined a lot of the benefits max.
[1:17:35] Perhaps PC residents is the wrong term here in Rekaria.
[1:17:39] Is it better term to use moving forward?
[1:17:42] But then I'm not going to be knowing right next time.
[1:17:48] OK, now we're over time.
[1:17:50] I'll just have a couple of closing thoughts here.
[1:17:53] The idea behind this, obviously, it's not that,
[1:17:57] because you vote a certain way that that's exactly
[1:17:59] what we're going to do.
[1:18:00] I think we want as much information from Council as we're putting the budget together, and as we're trying to implement Council's desires and priorities.
[1:18:11] One way to think about it is the things that are above a four.
[1:18:15] Five is considered very important.
[1:18:17] So anything above a four is things that we have a lot more consensus on.
[1:18:21] I think things there between three and four.
[1:18:24] I think might need a little bit more discussion.
[1:18:26] And I think that's part of kind of the next several months is coming back to council and exploring some of these ideas that we're being that we're presenting to you anything below a three.
[1:18:37] We're kind of looking at as not as important and may drop from a future survey if you look in your packet you'll see the survey from last year we could drop things and that was intentional because again the whole point of this is really to add focus so that we can make sure that we're implementing.
[1:18:54] all these things as much as we possibly can.
[1:18:57] I think another good thing to take a look at is where there's been a lot of change positively
[1:19:01] or negatively and keep track of that just because I think that shows growing support
[1:19:07] or maybe lessening support, even if it's not falling out of one range or another, but it
[1:19:12] is just interesting to kind of track.
[1:19:14] I thought the parking one to just track how that was moving or, you know, some of those
[1:19:19] things where there's big, even if it's not falling into the higher one, just where there's
[1:19:23] positive motion is interesting to see that's continuing to grow that sentiment is continuing to grow and that would be the other thing I wanted to just throw out the council is if you find value in this I really like that we had the data set from last fiscal year that you could see where that was going
[1:19:38] I'd propose that we keep doing this and you know at this time next year
[1:19:44] Discounts will agree with that sentiment. Do you find a lot of utility in this? Yes. I do. Yeah. Yeah, this is one of those things where, you know, we need the answers even if we don't like the answers, right? Right. And the other comment I was going to make is we wrap this up is
[1:20:01] For the lens as we do this next time, let's be careful about a distinction between residents and taxpayers.
[1:20:09] We do have a lot of non-resident taxpayers in Park City Municipal, even in broader areas we talk about.
[1:20:17] And really, the discussion should be around, are we delivering value to their tax spend, not ignoring them in favor of people who live here full time, which can be defined.
[1:20:30] It's been defined 10 different ways in the past year, depending on what we're talking about.
[1:20:35] So it goes back to the what's a local.
[1:20:37] This is about municipal service delivery.
[1:20:40] I'd like to see that moving forward if we can.
[1:20:43] I would just two two suggestions one being a little more time for us to take the survey.
[1:20:49] As I said, and then the second being perhaps asking us if there's anything we would like to see on the survey in the future.
[1:20:55] I know that you left an open space but I was in a pretty big hurry and now like 50 things have come to my head.
[1:21:03] So perhaps that would be a suggestion for the future.
[1:21:08] Just the last thing is we'll have some new council members soon and I'd like to have them take it as well.
[1:21:15] And then we also kicked out some of the questions with recreation and we wanted to kind of re-survey.
[1:21:21] So there are a few more things, maybe before the February retreat,
[1:21:25] they will resurface some of these things. I don't want to have you all retake the survey,
[1:21:29] but just in very specific sections. Okay, thank you. Thank you. It's just great.
[1:21:35] Is there anybody doing okay?
[1:21:39] All right.
[1:21:41] Really quick.
[1:26:46] That's about everybody in here. And start looking at our long-range planning efforts and initiatives.
[1:26:55] And we'll start with the city's general plan. Take it away, Rebecca.
[1:27:01] I'm sorry, I thought it was, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, thank you, thank you, thank you, mayor, moral, and also it's good to be with you this morning,
[1:27:19] so I wanted to take a moment to provide,
[1:27:28] is this working now? Okay, I wanted to start off with just a few updates to follow up on.
[1:27:36] the last discussion. So we did hear the input about making sure that review of planning
[1:27:44] applications has meaning and that it's being reviewed by the best board or commission.
[1:27:54] So we started with the appeal panel. That was a change in the code to shift what was coming
[1:28:02] to the City Council on Appeal from Planning Commission approvals to a three-member Appeal panel.
[1:28:11] And that's been a change in the code that's adopted and we're currently recruiting for the three
[1:28:16] members to serve on that panel. And then additionally, something that the Planning Commission
[1:28:22] prioritized this year was looking at reviews of plants and lotlines. And a lot of these applications
[1:28:29] that come to the city council and they have been conducting work sessions and they're scheduled
[1:28:36] to provide a recommendation to the council next Wednesday and their recommendation is that
[1:28:44] the the plats and those types of projects and with the planning commission is the final approval
[1:28:50] authority and so that is something that is in progress that's being discussed and that will be
[1:28:57] coming before you in October, October 26th, for the general plan, the comprehensive update. This is
[1:29:08] an update on the direction that we were given in the September retreat from last year regarding
[1:29:15] the long range planning initiatives of the city. And so our general plan is a blueprint for growth
[1:29:21] and development. It is required by state and there are elements we will have to cover like
[1:29:27] transportation, affordable housing, and land use, but really it's a plan, a community plan that
[1:29:34] is developed through community engagement. It's based on community values and the community's
[1:29:41] vision. And if you think about your favorite place in town, the general plan may have had something
[1:29:47] to do with that. So the general plan is an opportunity to step back and look at the big picture.
[1:29:56] This image is taken from our current general plan.
[1:30:00] And it shows that we have a lot of development, not just of the Wasatch front, but the Wasatch back, especially along the Jordan now, we now have the might of made-powered development.
[1:30:14] We know that there will be future development in the Snyderville basin, and so it gives us an opportunity to evaluate our existing conditions and what's planned for future growth.
[1:30:25] We know that we have more people who work in Park City 11,000 than live in Park City 8,500 and that of those 8,000 of the workers are commuting from outside of Summit County.
[1:30:42] And with the goal that was just reiterated for 15% of the workforce to live in Park City were at about 6%.
[1:30:51] And the general plan is an opportunity to explore our resort town and the balance with visitors and residents and also to look ahead at what will be coming along through changes in technology changes in climate and a potential Olympics on the horizon.
[1:31:13] The general plan is aspirational, it's an opportunity for the community to envision what what we want to see where we want to go.
[1:31:24] And like I said, the foundation is based on identified community values.
[1:31:30] It's a blueprint for how we get there and it establishes goals objectives and then strategies that we can implement.
[1:31:38] And in 2019 there was a mountain and resort town planners summit and one of the points of discussion was what are our blind spots as planners, there were elected officials and planning commissioners in attendance as well.
[1:31:58] And there was a lot of discussion about driverless cars, drone deliveries, changing climate and the way we design our cities and our infrastructure.
[1:32:06] But there was no discussion of pickleball.
[1:32:11] There was no discussion of global pandemic.
[1:32:15] That wasn't on anyone's horizon at that time.
[1:32:20] And there was also no discussion about the transition
[1:32:24] of companies similar to time shares moving from condos
[1:32:30] into single family homes in primary resident areas.
[1:32:35] But our general plan, while we can't envision everything that's going to happen in the next 10, 20 years,
[1:32:44] it gives us a foundation to be able to address those changes as they come along.
[1:32:52] And they help shape code amendments that we could put into place for pickleball to support that where it makes sense and also to protect residential areas.
[1:33:04] And with our general plan from 1884, when the city was incorporated to 1970, there was very little change to the city boundary.
[1:33:14] It looked like this for a very long time, 86 years.
[1:33:18] But every decade the city has increased through annexations.
[1:33:25] And this is our current city boundary, and to the north, we have additional acreage that is city
[1:33:33] old, not within the boundary, including round valley, and to the south, the lands of flat.
[1:33:47] So, we have over the years adopted these plans to help shape the way that the future of Park City is
[1:33:57] It grows, and in 1985, the image to the right is from Main Street, 1975, and the goal of the plan at that time was to redevelop and a manner which will enhance the towns appeal as a place to live and visit while preserving the unique character of Park City.
[1:34:16] The next general plan was in 1997, and this was a plan that really explored a sense of loss.
[1:34:26] There was a feeling of loss of community identity, loss of open space, loss of affordable housing, loss of quality of life.
[1:34:34] So that plan provided recommendations to help address some of those challenges.
[1:34:41] Our current general plan was adopted in 2014.
[1:34:47] It is based on a 2009 visioning process that was done community-wide, and there were four
[1:34:56] values identified small towns under community now.
[1:35:00] And also through that process, there were different neighborhoods that were created for our commercial areas, our residential areas, and our resort areas to address the different needs and different challenges for each of those neighborhoods.
[1:35:20] There are 16 goals that span from directing growth inward to growing as an arts and culture hub to our parks and recreation facilities,
[1:35:35] and I'll give just a few examples of how the general plan has shaped some of the the code changes that have helped in the way that we use and develop our land.
[1:35:47] And the first is that one of the goals is that Main Street remains the the heart of the community and 2016 to 2018 there were series of code amendments that were prioritized by the community to make sure that the street level remained vibrant and active to put restaurants and bars and other uses like that at the street level and then to put residential and office spaces in the upper levels.
[1:36:12] There was also an effort to balance local and unique businesses with chain businesses, and then there are continuous updates to our design guidelines to preserve the historic character of our historic districts and to work toward compatible info.
[1:36:33] The second is the community's prioritization of open space and in 2016 the voters approved
[1:36:42] the $25 million bond for the NASA flat area and acreage and in 2018 the $48 million
[1:36:50] bond for the treasure hill and the principles of the general plan and the priorities helped
[1:36:57] to zone the the treasure hill property that had once been vested for development as recreation
[1:37:03] open space to preserve that in the long run. The other is affordable housing since 1984.
[1:37:12] The code allowed for a 20 bonus density, density bonus. If a project was developed with a 100
[1:37:21] for Santa Fortable Housing.
[1:37:22] And in 37 years, there was no project
[1:37:25] that ever came forward under that bonus.
[1:37:29] And so in 2018, the Council directed staff
[1:37:31] to look into what the obstacles were in the code.
[1:37:35] Why wasn't that enough?
[1:37:36] Why wasn't it working?
[1:37:38] And the city hired a consultant, Cascadia Partners,
[1:37:41] who came back and ran the numbers
[1:37:43] and showed just what it takes to incentivize
[1:37:47] private development and public private partnerships
[1:37:49] of affordable housing.
[1:37:50] and now we have the engine house approved and slated for development with 99 affordable units
[1:37:57] in 24 market rate and then the hope affordable master plan development, which is the holiday
[1:38:03] village and park side properties that will be redeveloped. It's proposed to be redeveloped in
[1:38:09] a phase to approach so that residents can be transferred on site and eventually we'll have 300
[1:38:15] in 17 affordable units.
[1:38:19] So why now? This image of Quincy Junction shows where things were when
[1:38:28] the 2014 general plan was adopted and this is Quincy Junction was a thousand acres at the time.
[1:38:38] Park City Heights was proposed. It wasn't under construction yet. Studio crossing
[1:38:45] Well, well, was the film studio and what was anticipated to be developed on that site was 374,000 square feet of commercial uses.
[1:38:55] Since that time, studio crossing has now been approved as a mixed use project that will bring around 185 affordable units and 100 market rate units mixed in with 60,000 feet of commercial.
[1:39:10] So, the future of this neighborhood has really will be shifting and it's time to reinvision
[1:39:17] what we currently have intended for this neighborhood.
[1:39:23] We also have the Southeast Quinn's Junction annexation which doubled the acreage in this neighborhood
[1:39:28] with the Clark Ranch and the Richardson Platt properties shown here with our ever expanding boundary.
[1:39:38] We also have an opportunity to go back to the community and see what the community input is.
[1:39:47] We finished the Vision 2020 report and one of the questions through the Vision 2020
[1:39:55] visioning process was, what are the tangible and intangible-
[1:40:00] Commence of the community that if lost would fundamentally change the character of Park City.
[1:40:06] And the report establishes five strategic pillars and calls for a bold action.
[1:40:14] And those five pillars, environmental leadership, transportation, innovation, sustainable tourism, arts,
[1:40:20] culture, and local economy, and affordability and equity.
[1:40:23] The 2009 visioning document was the foundation for the 2014 plan.
[1:40:29] The 2020 visioning document is a starting place to go back into the community and to check in and see how this can apply to the way we plan for and use our land.
[1:40:43] So back in September of last year, the direction given by the city council was to move forward with
[1:40:51] of important planning initiatives, the Bananza Park,
[1:40:55] neighborhood plan, which is about 200 acres
[1:40:58] where we will see redevelopment in the coming years.
[1:41:04] And this is a really key opportunity
[1:41:06] to go out to the community,
[1:41:08] getting input on what the future of this neighborhood
[1:41:12] can look like, establish a plan, get it in place,
[1:41:15] and then move forward.
[1:41:16] And within that neighborhood,
[1:41:19] the five acresite owned by the city. Also going out to the community and finding out what
[1:41:27] the hope for is for this property. We know from the phase one results that the
[1:41:34] community is identified. This is a place for locals moving through the neighborhood. Could be safer
[1:41:40] and more intuitive and there are opportunities for pedestrian bike connections. Workforce housing is needed
[1:41:46] And then this could be the right place for density and height and as we move into phase two will be looking at different scenarios going out to the community getting input on what what scenarios they would and would not like to see in this neighborhood and then move into phase three.
[1:42:05] These planning initiatives are scheduled to wrap up in March of next year.
[1:42:11] And so what we're proposing to do is to obtain consultant services and issue a request for proposals this fall.
[1:42:21] And then go through the selection process and come back to the City Council with a recommendation in January of next year.
[1:42:30] What that would allow the consultants to do would be to complete existing conditions while the Bananasah Park neighborhood plan is being completed and then to initiate community engagement in May of 2024 starting at the neighborhood level and then moving into the community at large.
[1:42:54] We would set a goal to work toward a draft document by the fall with potential public hearings
[1:43:01] with the Planning Commission at the end of next year and a draft, a recommended draft for city council review in early 2025.
[1:43:14] So that gives an overview of where we are in the planning processes and where we're planning to go.
[1:43:20] We'd like to check in and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:43:30] I feel like I had a good understanding of that, but that was really good to put it in context,
[1:43:35] especially of the old general plans. Thanks Rebecca. One kind of sort of a knit question,
[1:43:42] but could become a big question about general plans. As I think the legislature, as you mentioned,
[1:43:47] the staff report is looking seriously at making general plans binding, which would have really wide
[1:43:53] ranging effect on a lot of things.
[1:43:55] And I was wondering if we, as a matter for future consideration,
[1:44:00] should we think about an amendment to the current general plan
[1:44:02] to sort of address the degree to which it
[1:44:05] differs the land management code and it's self-binding
[1:44:08] that documents nine years old.
[1:44:10] And you can get into a lot of squirrely fights
[1:44:13] about what that general plan says
[1:44:15] if you're looking to do development.
[1:44:17] So it's curious about your perspective on that.
[1:44:20] Thank you, and that's something we'll be following very closely
[1:44:22] the next legislative session, I think that's an interesting idea to have something as that develops
[1:44:31] through the legislative session that if needed we could go through and do a short term supplement
[1:44:39] to the general plan that might clarify some of those areas. Okay. Two questions for you.
[1:44:47] Are we still thinking that the general plan will be a smaller document than it is now
[1:44:56] The general plan right now is very comprehensive, which is a...
[1:45:00] Great, it's great. But it is two volumes. And what we're hoping is that the content can be consolidated and a little easier to navigate in one volume.
[1:45:14] Okay, and you had a Y now, a session, which I appreciate with the Quincy neighborhood, and what is the community want?
[1:45:22] What do you take from the planning department as items that would continue to stay? Like, we're on the right path in these specific areas from the original general plan.
[1:45:32] I think that would be an interesting question when we first go out at the community level, because I think we do have the residential neighborhoods where
[1:45:43] there may not be much recommended change,
[1:45:48] but then we have, at the tail end of Bananza Park,
[1:45:51] potentially the prospect or neighborhood.
[1:45:55] And so as we go out at a neighborhood level
[1:45:58] to get some input on where the pressures
[1:46:03] or desire changes are.
[1:46:05] Okay, yeah, the reason I ask is I think of one
[1:46:08] that's interesting, almost coming full circle
[1:46:10] where there was an innovative idea of doing these like trolley cars across your value drive and
[1:46:16] up towards me straight and I think we're looking at some of these like big bold solutions
[1:46:20] for transportation that take decades to come to fruition. So I guess one question going into
[1:46:26] it would be is this a document we want to I know that we continually have to update but are we
[1:46:33] thinking too big when we go into these and we need to be thinking just the next decade or
[1:46:38] are we thinking Olympics?
[1:46:41] I mean, I just want to understand kind of
[1:46:42] because I look at that and I'm like,
[1:46:43] well, how these are great solutions,
[1:46:45] but we didn't move forward on a lot of these things.
[1:46:48] And I think that the general outlook is at least 10 years
[1:46:53] and then keeping the big picture in mind,
[1:46:56] but then acknowledging that there will be supplements
[1:46:59] and updates to the plan right now.
[1:47:02] We have Park City Forward, the Transportation Plan.
[1:47:05] That's a supplement to the general plan
[1:47:07] And then also by state requirements, our moderate income housing plan, that will need to be continually updated every five years.
[1:47:18] So I think keeping the big picture, but making sure it's implementable.
[1:47:23] Sorry.
[1:47:24] Well, you have an Olympic focus, even though we haven't been granted to the Olympics in your RFP, thinking bigger picture of this.
[1:47:32] So the RFP does acknowledge a potential, you know, potential Olympics on the horizon.
[1:47:39] Yes, it's
[1:47:43] a thing.
[1:47:44] Yeah, a couple things specific to the procurement, then big picture.
[1:47:50] In there, it looked like we were only asking for a T&M type bid.
[1:47:54] And if we've considered a fixed fee for this with the outcomes of what we're trying to achieve,
[1:47:58] just to box it a little better and manage our resources.
[1:48:00] And the other one was the scoring criteria, it looked like requirements and outcomes was only 15% and the rest was other stuff, would urge staff to look at that and see, you know, is that more important?
[1:48:17] It feels like it's a little light. Big picture building on the comment earlier, and I don't know the best way to go about this, but it's like here's another thing we're going to add on the list for the planning department.
[1:48:31] right and get it's an RFP, but someone's got a manager, someone's got to evaluate it, someone's
[1:48:35] got to work with the consultants.
[1:48:38] They would be really helpful, I think, for the council,
[1:48:42] to see from planning, all right, here's all the stuff you've asked us to do,
[1:48:47] here's what we're in flight on, here's when we think we'll finish it based on our capacity, right,
[1:48:51] here's the stuff we haven't started because we're busy doing the in flight stuff,
[1:48:56] And get a recommendation of prioritizing for our sort of as-built current capacity with the context being if you want us to do more or accelerate, you know, this is where we go next. We either need to add people or we need to hire more consultants or whatever the case is or scale back on the engagement.
[1:49:18] I mean, right, there's a lot of different levers we can pull, right now it feels like we keep throwing stuff at the planning department without the right expectation of when it comes back and a lot of that stuff when it comes back if we prioritize it efficiently could help increase that capacity exponentially, right?
[1:49:38] I don't know. We seem to be missing that piece if it's something that can come back to
[1:49:44] a council meeting of people supported or if it's for the next retreat or what not. But
[1:49:50] and I'd love your opinion too on this, if that's the case and we just keep stacking, stacking,
[1:49:56] stacking without being clear where those.
[1:50:00] Where we fit in the capacity box, let's say.
[1:50:04] That's helpful. And this has been on the horizon now in a way that we've been able to structure internally, and re-organize within the team.
[1:50:17] So that's something that we can provide information.
[1:50:22] I'm in bigger picture even, right? Like this is one line item on there.
[1:50:25] And absolutely agree this should move forward,
[1:50:27] super supportive might be a better question
[1:50:31] for that and the end of work through.
[1:50:37] Sort of like understanding when we layer something
[1:50:39] else on to planning, how does that shift,
[1:50:43] how does that shift the list, what falls off,
[1:50:45] where do things go?
[1:50:48] I sort of have this understanding.
[1:50:50] I think similarly of what's in process,
[1:50:52] but not necessarily how it fits together
[1:50:54] and how that matches up to your capacity or projects for applications, and that would be helpful,
[1:51:00] I think, in terms of really just making sure we're not overloading you or under-resourcing
[1:51:07] you if we have a lot of priorities in planning.
[1:51:11] Yeah, I think that these are good points right here,
[1:51:15] that, you know, overloading staff, you guys are getting ready to have new council members,
[1:51:20] We just went through this once and quite frankly, a lot of the requests that came in the first year were things that were requested by new council members because they weren't up to speed on everything and so we got a bit of a backlog because of that is not to say that it's not necessary or that you shouldn't have all that information but you're about to go through that process again and so I think your request is
[1:51:46] good is the timing is right right get a less so that we understand where we are so that when new
[1:51:52] council members come in and ask for more information on something they can see where it is on
[1:51:58] the priority list and then they can ask specifically for it to be raised or lowered where we did not
[1:52:03] have that the last time. So I think that that makes sense right now. As for the general plan update,
[1:52:09] I mean, I'm looking forward to watching it from the outside.
[1:52:13] I also, you know, I'm looking at these highlights from 2014 or from the goals and objectives and strategies and I'm having a hard time thinking that we're going to come up with new buckets, right?
[1:52:28] Because these things all seem to resonate with our residents as it is, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how people respond to what we have had in the past
[1:52:37] And how they're going to come up with something better than a small town, natural setting, sense of community, historic character.
[1:52:45] I mean, these are things that we all understand and identify with as residents in Park City.
[1:52:51] And for something to knock one of these off the list, it's going to have to be pretty compelling in my mind.
[1:52:56] So I look forward to that process.
[1:52:59] I really like your suggestion, Jeremy, that we go ahead now.
[1:53:02] And Rebecca, I'll be happy to work with you on that.
[1:53:03] just see what all is on the plate of a planning commission. I do want to compliment you on the
[1:53:09] timeline that that you've come up with. I was on the planning commission in 2014 when the
[1:53:14] general plan was done and it was a several year internal project and it was arduous and you know
[1:53:22] we thought we'd never get done with it. And so I think that you're wise to bring in some outside
[1:53:28] help to do that, and it can get done in a year. It looks like, so I commend you on that.
[1:53:34] And I also like the piece that after that's completed, you're going to go back and look at the
[1:53:39] land management code to make sure that those bit aligns with the new general plan,
[1:53:44] because that didn't happen last time. I think we're still making corrections for that.
[1:53:49] Yeah, I agree. I agree with Nan that piece is really important. I know that there was a lot of
[1:53:54] struggle, getting some of our more sustainable goals,
[1:54:01] sustainability oriental goals, windows and solar,
[1:54:05] and things like that integrated into the code
[1:54:07] to help us move forward.
[1:54:08] So I do hope that if there are pieces of the general plan
[1:54:11] that are forward thinking that you pull those to the top
[1:54:16] of for LMC adjustments so that you can make sure
[1:54:19] that we are being responsible to future generations.
[1:54:35] Okay, I'm thank you.
[1:54:42] Matt, that is city-minute.
[1:54:44] I'm just going to poke my nose in here because I see an opportunity and maybe get some additional
[1:54:48] direction and clarity.
[1:54:50] To Rebecca's point, and you picked up on it, the last general plan took several years
[1:54:55] to complete and was incredibly comprehensive, and I'd argue it was a little bit of a
[1:55:00] Anything. It was a strategic plan. It was a general plan. It was an update for land use decision-making. And I think there's an opportunity from what I'm hearing here Rebecca, obviously review our workload with the mayor. But perhaps get direction to harness the effort a little and at least initially focus more on the statutory requirements and the land use aspect of the general plan.
[1:55:26] and maybe a tad less on the broad super comprehensive sort of tactical plan, strategic plan,
[1:55:35] land use plan that the existing general plan is. I would argue, you know, we could get it done
[1:55:41] faster to Ryan Dickie's point. It probably provides us a little bit more latitude with the legislature
[1:55:47] moving forward and maybe it's a little less load on our workforce too and our staff about doing
[1:55:54] a multi-year initiative, as opposed to a little bit of a smaller exercise that's really
[1:55:58] focused on the statutory requirements.
[1:56:01] And as I'm saying that I'm realizing you probably don't have the definition to make that
[1:56:04] decision now, but maybe that's something that we can come back with, there's sort of those
[1:56:08] two alternatives.
[1:56:09] Alternative one is the state we've done before, very, very comprehensive.
[1:56:14] It's tactical.
[1:56:15] It's strategic.
[1:56:16] It's land use.
[1:56:17] It's everything.
[1:56:18] doing number two is statutory what's required and then and then maybe an item or two that we'd
[1:56:24] want to add to it because Park City is so unique and we are working so hard to protect it.
[1:56:30] But that'd be okay.
[1:56:32] I think that's really smart.
[1:56:34] And to bring back those definitions and let us compare that.
[1:56:36] Yeah, because you don't have the information to make that now.
[1:56:38] But I'm hearing that you're open to that and it sure would light in our load long term.
[1:56:43] Right.
[1:56:47] clear that we want to prioritize those things and sort of a potential dual phase approach
[1:56:53] harness, you know, folks who have done this and do this for a living to make a recommendation,
[1:56:58] how to piece it out, to accomplish what you just described. All right, so Rebecca, I stepped
[1:57:03] on your toes. Do you think that works for, you know, the merits, does that work for you in the
[1:57:07] the planners, do you think? Yeah. Okay. That will work. That's great. That's great.
[1:57:17] That's
[1:57:18] move on now to the Historic Potential Historic Park City area plan.
[1:58:04] Apologies, it says my screen share is loading.
[1:59:03] It just keeps crashing over and over every time I try to screen share.
[1:59:47] Let's run.
[2:00:21] And
[2:00:56] I get a different laptop, I think someone else is like,
[2:01:09] I think
[2:01:13] I'm
[2:01:26] like,
[2:01:41] what snack is next?
[2:03:17] I think we can see the presentation now. My apologies. I received, I got a new computer yesterday,
[2:03:28] and every time I attempted to screen-chair the Zoom was crashing, so we're going to
[2:03:33] to the older hardware that's seemingly more reliable.
[2:03:39] Thank you for the time this morning.
[2:03:41] This is Eric Dana's economic development and data analytics
[2:03:44] for the public record.
[2:03:46] And before we start on the conversation today,
[2:03:49] I do have a little bit of a preamble that I wanted to mention.
[2:03:54] Occasionally in the staff report,
[2:03:55] and even in the conversation today,
[2:03:57] I sometimes use the phrase historic park city,
[2:04:00] Old Town and Main Street, and I know that in the community these phrases have some specific definition and meaning, so if I miss speak or reuse different terms to mean the same things at different times.
[2:04:14] My apologies, but I'm generally talking about Park City's historic core as part of the conversation today.
[2:04:20] And then, secondly, I wanted to mention that the intent is to provide sort of a recent
[2:04:26] history of Main Street investments and some contacts for current economic conditions
[2:04:32] in the Old Town Corps and then lastly to ask the council the question about how they
[2:04:39] would like the staff to proceed with potential future investments in that same area.
[2:04:45] And then lastly, I wanted to mention that today I'm presenting, but this report was a staff
[2:04:50] collaboration across many, many departments and multiple managers that helped educate me on the history and current needs of the mainstream areas.
[2:05:00] I wanted to say that while I'm up here, it's the effort of a team behind this that you're seeing today. So moving forward, the key headline that I'd like you to have in your head is that some things in life you have to do and then some things in life you can do. So we believe that renewed investment in Mainstreet is needed.
[2:05:23] And I think obviously recent history provides examples, but that that need has perhaps been
[2:05:31] building for some time, and that there are opportunities for systematic infrastructure
[2:05:36] reinvestment, regardless of the council's vision for any future vertical asset development
[2:05:42] or economic development opportunities.
[2:05:46] And then the second question that we want to ask you today is, is, you know, a discussion
[2:05:51] about what I would call discretionary opportunities, but may still create value for the community.
[2:06:00] Before we go forward to those questions, I do want to provide a recent look back.
[2:06:05] So over the previous, let's say 15, 16 years, the history of investment in Main Street is there
[2:06:11] with over $20 million of combined investment coming from two primary sources or vehicles.
[2:06:19] The last instantiation of the Main Street RDA was in 2005 that vehicle expired in 2021 but over its lifetime provided funding of $10 million into the Main Street Core.
[2:06:33] And then since 2012 the additional resort city sales tax has also been used to provide infrastructure investment in the street and the surrounding area.
[2:06:45] And that tax of course has not been exclusively used in the old town core, but it has been deployed primarily for open space and downtown investments.
[2:06:59] Diving a little bit deeper into the history, the recent history of the Main Street RDA.
[2:07:04] I surface this in your staff report and in the presentation today because we want to provide as much transparency and visibility as we can into where that money came from and where it went.
[2:07:15] So the way RDA's work is you gather a bunch of governmental entities to participate with you in the last version of the Main Street RDA.
[2:07:24] We had a significant participation from the Park City School District Summit County Park City Fire District.
[2:07:31] And then there were a few other taxing entities like the mosquito abatement district, which is not a significant slice of the revenue but still did participate with us.
[2:07:41] That provided revenue for approximately $10 million of debt proceeds.
[2:07:47] We took that revenue as collateral into sales tax revenue bond that provided funding for multiple projects.
[2:07:55] But as you'll see in the chart on the left, the biggest slice was that $10 million for the Main Street RDA.
[2:08:02] Of that, 10 million, the biggest portion of that went into expenses associated with China Bridge and parking infrastructure
[2:08:09] in this part of town and additional funding went toward some downtown revitalization projects,
[2:08:16] which means sort of like pocket parks and walkways and then old town stairs.
[2:08:24] There is a nominal remaining balance in this fund even though the RDA is closed down as a vehicle for revenue.
[2:08:31] It does still have some remaining minor balances and those are programmed for old town stairs projects.
[2:08:38] Next up, the additional resort city sales tax, this is probably too much to absorb in a presentation, but is provided in the staff report.
[2:08:47] I've highlighted all the lines in green are expenses associated with the downtown core or streets approximate to downtown.
[2:08:57] So as you'll see in the information provided the additional resort city sales tags also collateralizes multiple sales tags revenue bonds and then there is additional free cash every year that arises from that revenue stream.
[2:09:10] Combining the two sources of expense cash and debt we have spent most the majority of that funding has of course gone to open space acquisition and was part of the deal associated with treasure hill.
[2:09:26] I've been said that there are additional investments that have occurred, and this is a primary funding source for what's referred to as Otis, but that stands for Old Town Infrastructure and Streets, I believe it's actually studies, but I may be miss quoting there.
[2:09:43] This money was also used to help pay for the granite sidewalk uplift that occurred and you'll see later on we'll have a little discussion that that granite sidewalk project was also used to improve telecom and natural gas utilities in the mainstream.
[2:10:00] Yeah. So the total of these green lines is the $10.6 million from additional resort city sales tax.
[2:10:07] Hey, Eric kind of jump in to ask you on the RDA, the the 60% participation rate on the corresponding property taxes, is that just an allocation of existing taxes, or has an additional tax now fallen off in 2021 from RDA. I can't.
[2:10:24] Yeah, that works. Yeah. So there's no additional tax. It's just a it's just a reader.
[2:10:30] direction of where the tax revenue is going if that makes sense.
[2:10:33] So then specifically, your marks at two are, yeah, that's correct.
[2:10:36] Yeah, so you draw geographic boundary around a specific parcel or a specific area of the city.
[2:10:42] The taxing entities that have jurisdiction in that region agree to give up 60% of their revenues that they otherwise would have received from the assets in that region.
[2:10:51] So if you have, you know, if there's a, if there's a small hotel,
[2:10:55] instead of all of the revenues associated with that going to the school district they say will just take 40% of that will give you 60% and what you should do with that is incentivize further asset growth such that 15 years down the line we're now receiving more revenue than we otherwise would have if we didn't play ball with you.
[2:11:15] But there is no new increment from that.
[2:11:17] It's just a reallocation of existing taxes.
[2:11:21] And then the last thing I'll say with that is historically
[2:11:25] PCMC has always provided a mitigation payment
[2:11:28] to the Park City School District on two of its rates
[2:11:31] that were initially part of that, 60%.
[2:11:35] So they realized the number that's lower than 60,
[2:11:38] excuse me, they gave up less than 60% impractice.
[2:11:42] Yeah.
[2:11:42] And that's also the case with the lower park RDA.
[2:11:45] That's still happening today.
[2:11:51] Moving on to what I'll call, we're moving from history now to the current moment.
[2:11:55] We wanted to provide a little bit of an update on the current economic trends associated with Main Street.
[2:12:02] And the main headline here is that the revenue growth of Main Street is still on a positive trend,
[2:12:08] but it's losing market share.
[2:12:10] So there have been two significant forces that were not as the same as in 2009, there have been two changes all say that have grown and while Main Street's rate of growth has been more steady.
[2:12:26] The big two forces that play are the growth of Dear Valley as a significant revenue contributor and source of business.
[2:12:34] And then what is labeled in this chart is indirect point of sale that comes to us classify that comes to us classified as such from the state and what it means is online sales, but also sales and use taxes that are associated with payments to businesses that are not based in Park City.
[2:12:52] So you'll be surprised, but if you have a outie lease and outie is not a business that's from Park City, that is counted as an indirect point of sale use.
[2:13:05] That would be the excuse me.
[2:13:09] That's the Trider Mountain segment.
[2:13:16] So Main Street and if we look back ten years Main Street was usually at the top or above excuse me,
[2:13:24] at or competitive with the other top sectors of the segments of the city
[2:13:28] and that divergence over time has been happening.
[2:13:31] I'll say one other observation, you'll see a significant hit to Diwali during the COVID period,
[2:13:37] but they've rebounded and are at or above the previous trend at this stage.
[2:13:44] Can you define entryway?
[2:13:47] Entryway would be your snow creek to kind of jams area if that makes sense.
[2:13:53] Yep.
[2:13:55] Then looking at visitor visitors to the core directly, this doesn't perfectly correlate with sales revenues,
[2:14:02] but it is an indicator of the path of potential sales revenues. The headline here is that as other
[2:14:10] sectors of the city saw significant bumps associated with COVID, Main Street did as well,
[2:14:15] but since that period in time, the visitor volume in the Main Street Corps is fading.
[2:14:22] So the geographic region that I've defined for this chart is actually Main Street itself,
[2:14:28] So very specific to the, um, the boundary being suede and excuse me, low, low, low, low, or no,
[2:14:37] park out. I'm sorry. Um, and so one of the things that we've seen is that the businesses were
[2:14:44] able to price up. They had pricing power over the course of the previous few years. They were able to
[2:14:51] hedge inflation by increasing that price for transaction, but at some stage you need
[2:15:00] People to actually conduct those transactions. And if your people number is heading in the wrong direction, inevitably, at some point in time, you're revenue number heads in the same direction.
[2:15:11] The last thing I wanted to cite and just provide some information for you is that, of course,
[2:15:17] Park City customers are actually a significant, they are a relatively significant customer
[2:15:23] to mainstream relative to their population size, but they still comprise only about 10%
[2:15:29] of visitation to the street. The significant, the single largest customer base is Wassage
[2:15:34] front, and then it's also very important to preserve the business that comes from California
[2:15:40] Florida, Texas, and the other large metropolitan course that you consistently see across all
[2:15:46] major destinations of Park City. So any potential future plan I believe should recognize this seek to
[2:15:53] preserve it and or enhance our key customers.
[2:16:00] Looking forward now, I will mention some opportunities
[2:16:04] which is to look at what I call underutilized assets. This is a very specific metric that I'm using
[2:16:13] And it does not necessarily recognize other qualitative uses of land, so I want to be very clear about that ahead of time.
[2:16:21] But one solid filter, if you will, for looking at land use efficiency in a community, is to look at the market value per acre of that land.
[2:16:31] And so over the course of the previous several months, the my department and the city's technology department have actually been collaborating on data science infrastructure.
[2:16:41] And one of the first products, if you will, that we've been able to produce with that new infrastructure is synchronized every night with the state database.
[2:16:52] We can do this for actually every parcel and every county in the state of Utah, if we wish, I've created a dashboard specific to Park City for your review.
[2:16:59] And this is what I'll call just a high level start for an analysis, analysis on where you may have potential asset efficiency and where you may have underutilized assets.
[2:17:11] So if the public, any member of the public can go to this dashboard today and download all of the data associated with it.
[2:17:19] I mostly wanted to highlight this to the council as well to say this staff does what we say we're going to do.
[2:17:25] So you provided $150,000 for us in the FY2030 budget for data science tools.
[2:17:30] We've used less than half of that to get the product that we needed, the tools that we needed.
[2:17:35] And I will say we have what I'll call a contemporary modern data science tool kit that allows us to do
[2:17:42] things that we could not do before. So this is a small product, but look for more public dashboards
[2:17:48] like this in the future. And we can expand the capability of analysis now with the much more,
[2:17:54] I would say seamless effort that we could be for it.
[2:18:00] So now looking ahead, the key questions that you may want to have in your mind or the infrastructure needs of the street.
[2:18:07] These are the elements that I said are the things in life you have to do.
[2:18:13] And you can feel free to disagree with the categorization here, but that's the the thematic message I'm trying to share.
[2:18:20] And we're quite well aware that one of those significant needs is water infrastructure in the street.
[2:18:26] Working with our public utilities director, we can see that there's likely a need for systematic
[2:18:33] replacement of main lines and laterals on the street.
[2:18:36] That's a project that would likely require more than ten million dollars of funding
[2:18:40] and could be possibly two or three season efforts.
[2:18:44] At the same time, we would take storm water improvements into that effort
[2:18:48] and would collaborate with Snyderville Basin water reclamation district to replace sewer lines,
[2:18:53] as our staff would be improving the water lines. I mentioned previously that the granite sidewalk
[2:19:01] project provided uplift for the natural gas electrical and telecom utilities in the street,
[2:19:06] that's actually very a good thing and many of those elements are in solid condition. However,
[2:19:12] that works stopped at Heber because there was no granite sidewalk improvement on lower main.
[2:19:17] That could be an interesting conversation for the future.
[2:19:21] Also, mention that lower main is more contemporary than upper main, because it's construction
[2:19:25] just came more recently in history, so the need at the time was not as severe, but it could
[2:19:31] again be taken into a future analysis. Working with our public work, our public work
[2:19:37] director, I understand that there's a needed crown correction, grind significant street improvements,
[2:19:44] barring any change in vehicle traffic use, we could do temporary extensions, which would be something
[2:19:49] like a seal coat, but at the end of the day you can look at the condition of the street and see
[2:19:54] that it needs some help. Parking maintenance, we always, we always,
[2:20:00] Deak to assess the state of good repair on some of our key assets to our engineering team is looking at a condition assessment on the China Bridge parking infrastructure itself.
[2:20:10] And then I will mention that Council, I mean, you'll you'll recall that you recently took action to approve waste management contracts for the street within, you know, recent history.
[2:20:24] Then looking to the future, some of the key questions that could be asked in a potential
[2:20:29] area plan are in the following, but I'll also say that the value proposition that is coming
[2:20:37] from staff or asking for your consideration is that an area plan would be a supplement and
[2:20:43] a complement to the general plan. It would not replicate the same high level analysis. We believe
[2:20:49] the opportunity in the area plan is to go into more detail. So it would be something to the effect of
[2:20:56] looking at traffic flows, looking at specific sites and feasibility analysis with certain redevelopment.
[2:21:04] And of course, the existing form of the historic core is not likely to change a lot. So we don't
[2:21:09] expect an area plan to make significant recommendations associated with changing zones or forms
[2:21:17] that's not something that would likely come out of that project, but the list of opportunities
[2:21:25] is here. I'll also just close some of those points, and I'm not going to read the whole
[2:21:31] site to you, but I'll say that I believe that Main Street has on the order of a billion dollars
[2:21:36] of additional asset value potential. That growth can complement the existing forms and uses of Main
[2:21:44] Street, and that that would seek to preserve
[2:21:47] visitation and improve the velocity of transactions in the core.
[2:21:52] So we would be seeking, it would be complimentary
[2:21:55] to the existing businesses, and that would be the target
[2:21:57] of potential future growth in that area.
[2:22:01] The last thing I'll say is that this is not a zero-sum game.
[2:22:05] So I believe that you can seek to improve one part of town
[2:22:09] and it does not need to be at the cost of other parts of town.
[2:22:12] And I think those are the key things I'd like to leave you with, and we have a appendix, but I'll say I'm ready for questions and any questions that you have or discussion.
[2:22:30] Oh, sorry. I drafted potential options, but I think you can we can talk through them.
[2:22:42] Well, when we look at the options, because these are the same ones that we're in the report.
[2:22:47] to mention. Yeah.
[2:22:51] And really boiling it down. It seems like we're asking should we be reactive
[2:22:56] or proactive from an infrastructure standpoint. And then we have this other question around
[2:23:02] future improvements area planning, you know, how do we accommodate what's coming.
[2:23:09] In terms of the proactive on infrastructure question, has there yet been analysis done
[2:23:15] on sort of answering the how proactive.
[2:23:21] So we have the experience of the on the ground conditions,
[2:23:28] a deeper analysis on providing specifics
[2:23:32] of the cost of those, the elements that would need replacement.
[2:23:35] That's an effort that I think would still need
[2:23:38] to be undertaken.
[2:23:40] Is that a, maybe it's the previous slide
[2:23:43] that starts to answer it
[2:23:45] and it's the evolution of that to say we can do these things as a building block because
[2:23:53] there's a waterline in the middle of the street and we're assuming there's always going to be
[2:23:56] a street there so it's safe to proceed with that. Versus we're going to do something where the
[2:24:03] sidewalk meets the street and we don't really know the results of the area plan and if that sidewalk
[2:24:08] might become wider or narrower, you know, whatever the outcome is. We might want to hold off on that
[2:24:15] project so we don't do something twice. That's I think that's the key point that we're seeking
[2:24:23] to raise is if you if you wish to preserve the existing form, there are activities that could happen
[2:24:29] without risk. If future uses are going to be ball, we don't want to dig up the wrong thing.
[2:24:37] Yeah, so it's maybe the next step in that what is preserved the existing form mean, right, and like, what are the safe boundaries there. Yeah, and we don't have an answer to that. Okay, so we're not at that point. No, we're seeing into your feedback on whether you'd like us to pursue a more specific answer.
[2:24:54] And then the second question would be what we've talked about a few times now on capacity.
[2:25:00] I mean, can we do this now? Like, do we have the people? Do we have this drawn out timing wise, given the demands of parks, stuff going on? The general plan we just talked about, the other list of priorities is staff comfortable saying, you know, if we give a thumbs up, would be in good shape or not?
[2:25:25] And I believe this project would lean on myself, Jen and Rebecca, I think we're all comfortable that we can handle this in parallel with a general plan update, but in terms of the it would likely need to follow somewhat.
[2:25:40] On the heels of the demands of part process.
[2:25:46] Okay, thanks.
[2:25:48] I guess the thing I've gone back and forth on my mind is a thought about this question is.
[2:25:53] You know, just broadly speaking, the more, you know, small area plans we do, we're kind of planning in a silo when the interconnectivity among the neighborhoods is so important.
[2:26:06] And are we missing something?
[2:26:09] By having a, now we have a second small area plan.
[2:26:13] And not just wrapping this work into the general plan at a higher level.
[2:26:18] I'm seeing as you've laid it out, there are some really specific things around infrastructure
[2:26:27] and maximizing assets that really wouldn't belong in a general plan.
[2:26:31] For me, I think the inner connectivity between this work and the general plan is really important.
[2:26:40] To make sure we don't miss those connections to how do people get to Main Street,
[2:26:44] what's the connectivity between the neighborhoods and all
[2:26:46] town, but the scope of work here does seem like a big opportunity
[2:26:52] for us.
[2:26:52] So I like the idea of this plan, you know, generally.
[2:26:59] So is that leaning more toward the option to type, right?
[2:27:04] No, I think I think option three, I'm sort of leaning towards
[2:27:08] option three, but there has to be an interconnectivity between
[2:27:13] And somehow, whether it's an interlock with the actual general plan work or how you actually
[2:27:18] conduct a small area plan, then make sure you're not missing out on connections.
[2:27:31] Oh, we're just expanding on the conversation there.
[2:27:34] I guess one of my concerns with incorporating any future development or growth in the reading
[2:27:45] this area into the general plan makes sense to me. The infrastructure needs, I mean, I think
[2:27:52] you have a really good question here. What's our capacity? When we fix something, we want to fix
[2:27:57] it so that it can handle potential future growth. But then do we not fix it because we're not
[2:28:03] ready to contemplate that future growth right now? I do think that this particular area of town
[2:28:10] has been through this a couple of times. NANDs been through that, that has been through it.
[2:28:14] anybody's been in Park City for a long time has been through a number of different contemplated
[2:28:19] growth options in the area,
[2:28:24] all of which have sort of fallen flat because we can't get
[2:28:27] an agreement and I would hate for other parts of our community where we have a much greater impact
[2:28:38] that can be realized could get held up because of a main street plan, which, you know, as your chart shows,
[2:28:47] is the most valuable part of our community. We have other areas that have a lot of potential, and as our community grows,
[2:28:56] I think that those are the areas that need our focus. That said, I don't, we do have failing infrastructure in this area.
[2:29:02] We do need to be proactive to your point, Jeremy, so figuring out how proactive is really important, I think, but if we are sort of handcuffed by, well, maybe we'll develop these parking lots and maybe we'll do now we need all this extra feedback.
[2:29:20] We've heard from our community, the tired of these questions and I haven't heard really from any community members that they want to see Main Street get a ton more attention right now.
[2:29:31] other than infrastructure upgrades. Everybody's talking about bananas apart. Granted, we've been put
[2:29:38] putting that out in front of everybody, but that is clearly the blaring piece that needs our
[2:29:43] direct attention and Jeremy to points earlier. Find departments stretched. We don't have the
[2:29:48] resources to actually contemplate everything that we could potentially do. So is there an option to
[2:29:55] here that, like I'm kind of landing in the option too.
[2:30:00] One, a, two, zone, just because I don't want to get distracted from the positive progress that we're having in these other areas that have far greater positive impact potential than what we're talking about up on Main Street because we've kicked this can so many different times and we can kind of predict how it's going to go.
[2:30:21] I would hate for this to be the ball and chain that drag down other really progressive work that we're doing.
[2:30:29] Just add on to that real quick.
[2:30:32] I agree with everything Max just said in terms of priorities and the way I'm looking at this is kind of what's next after Benanza Park.
[2:30:45] Also, we'll caveat that with, I think we can learn from the Binance of Park process, and we have done this a lot.
[2:30:56] We have a lot of material to rely on, bringing in new thought and new ideas as times change is always a good thing and evolving is always a good thing.
[2:31:07] If we do go more towards an option, like, let's say, towards the option three side of the spectrum,
[2:31:14] I'd hope that any efforts here would be a little more tangible at the onset, right?
[2:31:20] So that we're not going to the community and asking everyone to dream big and do some blue sky exercise.
[2:31:26] And then spend months refining it.
[2:31:28] And then, months after that, we get to a concept, right?
[2:31:32] There's certain places in town where that makes sense, given all the work that's already been put into this area of town.
[2:31:38] I'd hope that we could start further along that spectrum where what we're really doing and if it's staff that does it or if it's a consultant that does it.
[2:31:47] Bringing forward ideas saying here's what we think good looks like.
[2:31:52] Here's where we have some opportunities and we'd like to explore further, but it's a much more narrow scope and a much more narrow focus.
[2:32:00] So that we can actually accomplish it without kicking the can and just having a bunch of people argue about what their vision of good looks like.
[2:32:08] We need to be really clear in those outcomes and and how we get there.
[2:32:13] Otherwise, I'd lean away from it to be honest because I think we would end up in the same place where we're going to do another study.
[2:32:19] Have a bunch of ideas and have a hard time executing on them.
[2:32:23] Yeah. So to go to Max's point and Jeremy's point, the way I look at this is it's, it is,
[2:32:31] it's Park City's Main Street. It's our community,
[2:32:35] everyone who's part of the community would be part of this conversation. It wouldn't be specific
[2:32:39] to one group or to one stakeholder organization. I would, I would see it being very similar to what
[2:32:45] we're doing at Benanza and having as much community involvement as possible. I think we need to be
[2:32:52] cognizant that the Olympics are more than likely coming and we want to make sure that we are
[2:32:57] not five years behind or ten years behind when they decide where things are going to go.
[2:33:03] Do we want to continue to have Main Street be the hub of the Olympics or what it may be
[2:33:07] go to Mayflower because Mayflower's new or Canyons has built something. And so I want to be sure
[2:33:13] we're thinking five to ten, fifteen years ahead. And then also this group just said that
[2:33:19] including myself on record that we were not in favor of building more parking in town.
[2:33:24] So I think that that's a big indication that we're maybe interested in looking at how much
[2:33:29] parking we have in Old Town and how much parking we have on Main Street and how often is
[2:33:34] our turn-of-bridge full, basically Sundays of Silly Market and a few times during the winter.
[2:33:39] So re-looking at our parking lots, which are the most underutilized and as Eric went to
[2:33:45] expensive property in town with so much potential. I think it's a great opportunity for us.
[2:33:51] I don't think it's just doing something for individual businesses. I think it's doing something
[2:33:56] for the community as a whole. And maintaining this is the economic driver of our town.
[2:34:05] Well, I appreciate a lot of that. And I think it is really exciting that Main Street businesses
[2:34:11] are looking at doing different things with their parking because I know for many years. That's
[2:34:17] really divisive. I, when I look at the two pieces, the, you know, the infrastructure needs,
[2:34:25] I have heard a lot about the, the, the type-spraking and electrical needs going down,
[2:34:32] and especially when that happens during some of our busy seasons or leading up to
[2:34:36] our busy seasons that can really make or break some of our small businesses. I think it's really
[2:34:41] important that we do address those, and we address those as soon as possible, some of
[2:34:47] that, yeah, the water, and that, that's kind of an absolutely needs to have. Some of the other
[2:34:54] items as far as what the change on Main Street might look like, like how we, of,
[2:35:00] Of our parking and waste management, I really just feel strongly that we need to work hand in hand with our businesses on Main Street. Well, it is our communities Main Street and we all go there.
[2:35:14] The people that, you know, are there day and night on Main Street do need to have a voice and how it works and where they how they see their businesses evolving.
[2:35:22] But the hard part right now is that they are also at this precipice where they are facing some big changes.
[2:35:28] And I know the last time we had really good alignment on the HPCA was back in like the early 2000s when Andy was the the president.
[2:35:36] And he worked really hard to do visioning and get alignment on where the business district wanted to evolve and change.
[2:35:43] and they did come up with the sidewalks
[2:35:48] and some of the oldest plans.
[2:35:49] And then also the plazas,
[2:35:50] which we were never able to get through
[2:35:52] because by the time we got that far down the road,
[2:35:55] down the road, sorry, down the road.
[2:35:58] There, we had lost that alignment
[2:35:59] on our business district.
[2:36:01] And it made really hard while we were talking
[2:36:03] about some really big and exciting projects
[2:36:05] for the Wasech Group of Plaza.
[2:36:07] And even some smaller minor plaza programs
[2:36:09] with renewed stages and bathrooms
[2:36:11] to make it really nice.
[2:36:12] And there were so much conflict.
[2:36:14] We didn't get through any of those things.
[2:36:15] They all kind of fell off.
[2:36:17] And then we just put that money towards treasure.
[2:36:19] So I think if we're going to talk about, I do think that an overarching plan of the
[2:36:27] old town area, including how the neighbors connect with Main Street, how we want to use
[2:36:33] some of those spaces, if there wants to be a rebirth of the Wasatch, a group of Plaza,
[2:36:38] or a renovation of some of the smaller plosas is going to kind of
[2:36:43] kind of align. I think that's a good idea looking to the future. I do
[2:36:46] think we want to make sure that we are taking care of our areas and making sure
[2:36:50] that are there opportunities to make it bring more locals back to
[2:36:53] some of those areas as well. But I think that we might want to
[2:36:58] wait till we get through to your point the bananas of park area plan and
[2:37:03] the feasibility study and our general plan.
[2:37:06] And give HPCA some time to reconnect with its members and have them come back to us with what they want to see on the street.
[2:37:15] We can't talk about pedestrian.
[2:37:17] I mean, we've tried to talk about pedestrianization.
[2:37:20] That's a hard word.
[2:37:22] On Main Street.
[2:37:23] And unless we're doing that hand in hand with the business district, it's really going to be hard.
[2:37:29] So, you know, the areas that I think the infrastructure needs,
[2:37:31] some of the infrastructure needs are absolutely we need to move forward.
[2:37:34] So that's like kind of to your point option one A, and then a long term vision to the future of where Main Street is going in the small area plan.
[2:37:45] We, I think we put that on the horizon and find ways to organize and encourage the business district to find some alignment so that when we get there.
[2:37:57] There's more consensus on where we're going.
[2:38:02] I think the business districts three years ago came and said they wanted to do something like that but they didn't have the money to do it.
[2:38:09] So are you suggesting that they pay for their own consultant versus us doing that?
[2:38:14] I think there's a lot of ways you can ask for money for that because I think the request from us was pretty unreasonable and reasonable on a lot of levels, it was more than we spent on our own visioning.
[2:38:23] And I think that there are ways you can do it, you can have a strategic plan, you know, you can hire a consultant and go through a strategic planning process or visioning process.
[2:38:33] And I think that that should probably be done on Mainstreet and the business districts because there's really a couple things going on.
[2:38:40] And we look at what's going on in the small area plan, you know, there's a lot of redevelopment that's going on in that area and that was one of the first things Eric said was that there's not going to be a lot of rezoning and redevelopment in that old town core.
[2:38:53] It's more how we're using some of the spaces that are there.
[2:38:57] So perhaps we could sparse this out because part of this conversation is the city owned property
[2:39:02] of all of most of one half of speedality, which is parking, and so that HPCCA would not necessarily
[2:39:08] be saying what they want to do and not area that's.
[2:39:11] They do.
[2:39:12] But every time, I guess that's the question is, I mean, this isn't, this is a little bit different
[2:39:17] than small area because we didn't ask the businesses in the small area to come together with a
[2:39:22] what they would like to see, we decided to do that as a whole. So I'm just asking
[2:39:26] like, how would you sparse this out? Because I think HPCA can decide what they would like
[2:39:31] to do with the city's parking, but I think that's also a community discussion
[2:39:35] of residents as well and other stakeholder groups.
[2:39:38] Can HPCA request that we build that parking garage? I mean, that's the point, right? Like,
[2:39:43] they came in and said, hey, we want this. They were aligned on that. We built them a parking garage.
[2:39:49] So now to come back and say that they're not, we shouldn't have their specific input on how to use.
[2:39:56] I mean, they've been so impactful on every decision we've made.
[2:40:00] On public property, in that area, I do think it's their responsibility to come to the table with a clear, concise idea of what they want to do.
[2:40:10] And my wrong was it $300,000 they wanted for a feasibility study for their area. I just I found that to be a little bit too much as well. And I don't remember what we spent, but it was like in that zone for a year-long study on everything we did in the whole community.
[2:40:26] And last we have an overwhelming number of our residents saying, yeah, that's how we should spend their money.
[2:40:33] I have a hard time getting on board with signing us up for that.
[2:40:38] I just, I don't see alignment on Main Street enough yet to, to say, let's move the city in this particular direction.
[2:40:52] Sure. Thank you. Matt Dias City Manager.
[2:40:55] I'm going to speak on behalf, I think of public utilities and public works for a minute, and I'll frame why.
[2:41:03] Well, first of all, thank you for the discussion. I think everyone understands the importance of Main Street and what it means to the community.
[2:41:10] And regionally, and otherwise, I don't think any of that is, isn't understood.
[2:41:15] If I had to simplify, I think the question that we're asking from a staff perspective is,
[2:41:22] Some of the infrastructure needs in this area are incredibly disruptive and they're likely to take years.
[2:41:29] As someone who's experienced this in another community, I'll go so far as saying,
[2:41:34] we're worried about the impact on some of the small businesses.
[2:41:36] I mean, these are multi-year, incredibly disruptive construction projects.
[2:41:40] And so, as a collective team with public works, public utilities, stormwater, economic development,
[2:41:47] And when you're making infrastructure adjustments of this magnitude, you do have an opportunity
[2:41:53] to make a transformative adjustment to the built environment.
[2:41:58] And you mentioned some of them, I think Ryan and Jeremy Hitton, a couple of you can
[2:42:01] expand clauses for eating, is it going to be a pedestrian only?
[2:42:05] And so our point is you may have one opportunity to consider transformational adjustments
[2:42:11] to Main Street, given the gravity of the infrastructure overhaul that we're undertaking.
[2:42:16] I mean, as you know, our public work structure has been here for 30 years, our public utility
[2:42:19] structure has been here for 15, and they're both terrified of this project for the right
[2:42:24] reasons.
[2:42:25] They're terrified of the impacts of the community to the small business owners and to the visitors.
[2:42:29] And so we can't help but think there may be a good reason to take a pregnant pause and consider
[2:42:37] for one moment if there's anything transformational we want it to do here differently, because
[2:42:41] you're likely to lose that opportunity.
[2:42:43] you will experience, you know, the pain and the adjustments of the infrastructure upgrades,
[2:42:47] but you'll forego the opportunity to do something really transformational or different.
[2:42:51] And so that's the premise of, it's sort of weak and incrementally do the infrastructure upgrades,
[2:42:56] but potentially lose the opportunity to do something wild, to do something different,
[2:43:00] do something creative. Now none of us want to live through to council member Rubel's point.
[2:43:06] An unconstrained exercise that takes another two years of our lives,
[2:43:11] into your point. People say, here goes the city again, planning at Nazium. It's time to get something
[2:43:15] done. That's why we have Eric. That's why we have someone like Eric leading this type of an initiative.
[2:43:21] No one wants that again. So I think some of your comments thus far about focusing on the utilities
[2:43:26] first, but having a constrained exercise that isn't just, you know, willy-newy anything in the world.
[2:43:32] I mean, that is something that we would look favorably on as a team. We appreciate your comments
[2:43:37] about staff time and load and exercise. And that is the reason that Eric would be leading this initiative
[2:43:43] and not Chen and Rebecca. We appreciate your sentiment that maybe it comes after the area planning
[2:43:48] exercises and bananas and it doesn't compete with it. It doesn't compete for our time and resources.
[2:43:53] And so we do believe it can happen sequentially or even concurrently with the general plan.
[2:43:58] But just to be fair, simplify, don't want you to lose an opportunity.
[2:44:01] And then I'd one follow on comment that I left on said on the back of Matt's comment which is if if we think about this as separate needs and if and we just say infrastructure investment only that means that Clint is going to need to come back in the FY20 or budget with a 10 million dollar capital project proposal funded on some version of this city's own book meaning existing revenue sources.
[2:44:31] If we're willing to think about this as a cohesive plan and strategy, if that infrastructure investment is followed by vertical asset growth, we can set up a path for that vertical asset growth to pay for that infrastructure investment, but it's only with with that plan and faith in the execution of the vertical growth that that can happen.
[2:44:54] So my question is, is our infrastructure failing.
[2:45:00] At such a pants on fire level that this, because if it is, then it needs to jump to the front of the line and we need to be really clear with our community, the impact of that on these other initiatives that we've been working so hard on and we traveled around the country to study and if that's the case, let us know.
[2:45:21] I have a hard time thinking considering the conversations we've had about load that I think it's always great to say we can do it all.
[2:45:33] But we've seen historically that that's very difficult to do and that we end up not doing very much well because we're trying to do everything at once.
[2:45:43] So, understanding exactly where our infrastructure is, how bad it is, and then figuring out where that goes in the list,
[2:45:51] because I appreciate what you're saying. We don't want to miss opportunities.
[2:45:54] But if that opportunity, and that infrastructure is failing at such a level,
[2:46:00] then I genuinely believe we have to put something else aside, because I have not seen us actually execute really well
[2:46:08] through the expectations of our residents when we've tried to do everything out once.
[2:46:14] I think though, sorry guys, jump in. So I think that's maybe a little bit of a overly
[2:46:19] black and white, you know, way to look at as much as I take your point. I think you can look at
[2:46:23] this list of infrastructure needs and there are things that are clearly toilets are going to
[2:46:27] flush in this direction in the future that project is not wasted work, right? Water has to go to
[2:46:32] these locations. There's things that are that we can move forward on, things that we might want to hold
[2:46:37] not the whole list. I think Jeremy's point about specificity is pretty important. There's got to
[2:46:44] be a little blue sky in this, but then even here on the slide and the key questions, right? If
[2:46:49] the area plan, specific concepts redeveloping our assets since we sweetally brewpubs in here,
[2:46:54] but brewpubs still sitting there, focusing on specific opportunities. I know there's always a lot of
[2:47:01] rolling about our focus on mainstream, our focus on the old town, a lot of folks consider
[2:47:07] an over-focused and what about this other area. I mean, I think we are at the beginning of
[2:47:13] a really intense competition with our neighbors, with a healthy and intense competition with our
[2:47:19] neighbors in Kenyan's village, and a Mayflower, and this asset of our historic Main Street,
[2:47:25] an old town is a major driver of visitation. Sort of the Jeremy's point too earlier about we're
[2:47:31] is managing this ebb and flow of our neighborhoods and visitation, but we've seen how
[2:47:36] attitudes have changed in the last six months. As we've seen that, visitations start to decline.
[2:47:43] We know that visitations really important to our small businesses, so I don't think it's
[2:47:47] inappropriate to focus on this core that drives traffic to human traffic to park city aside from
[2:47:55] the resorts. So I think if we say specific, if we're practical about infrastructure,
[2:48:01] Eric's point about values is so well taken, because we think about how can we grow our
[2:48:06] Garov values to pay for this stuff. I just seem to make it a ton of sense,
[2:48:11] then it's just really a timing question today. Yeah, put a, just a, if I could put a quick bow on
[2:48:17] my position here, which I don't think your comments will change anyway, is, you know, you give us
[2:48:22] options. We're coming up probably with five or six. You know, I'd probably land in that two to
[2:48:29] three range where, as it's been described by Ryan, Max and others, you know, Eric, he said,
[2:48:37] let's use the opportunity of leverage. Let's focus on the very low risk improvements
[2:48:43] immediately, right? As soon as we have the capacity to do so, that's core function of government,
[2:48:49] We've got to keep the water flow and we've got to keep the gas run and all that kind of stuff.
[2:48:55] At the same time, let's not step on the Bananza Park study.
[2:48:58] I think if we do it the same way, we did the Bananza Park study with that much engagement.
[2:49:02] It would be a huge mistake to be honest.
[2:49:04] We've got to leverage our previous efforts.
[2:49:07] We've got to be specific in the assets that we're examining under this wrapper.
[2:49:12] We do have a problem to solve.
[2:49:13] We have those pressures of developments outside of our area.
[2:49:16] shiny and new people always like that, right? We see actually it's not even six months. There's six years of declining visitation to Main Street. If you throw out COVID
[2:49:27] And say that doesn't count it's still a very compelling case that there is a problem to solve and we do need to progress and evolve to revitalize visitation to the area to some degree.
[2:49:39] And if we do this well, it's almost like we won't feel the impact of the work as much as we'll feel the impact of the projects delivering the work, which is the zone we need to be on on this one.
[2:49:53] Yeah, that would be the goal. I mean, the goal is to realize the goal would be to realize.
[2:50:00] As much positive value and minimizes much negative value by talking to each other, talking to our key stakeholders, which you would help us define.
[2:50:09] The specific questions is certainly an approach we can take.
[2:50:14] And then I think, you know, the capital investments that are in absolutely can.
[2:50:19] They don't need to necessarily be contingent on the higher the further exercise.
[2:50:26] I'm not going to speak with specifics for Clint, but I asked him if you were going to replace the main line, would you change the size of the pipe, depending on future growth or not?
[2:50:38] And he said no, I'm going to, I would do the best possible implementation regardless of the future plan, because that's what it makes sense for the long term.
[2:50:51] We lost plant, that's okay.
[2:50:52] I'm paraphrasing, I'm paraphrasing and glossing over the practicalities, but I think that would be the idea.
[2:51:00] So if I was going to push a little, if that's okay for enough direction, I think first of
[2:51:07] all, we're beginning a process and we're asking for the ability to take the next step.
[2:51:13] I think you've provided us with enough direction to put something together narrow the scope
[2:51:19] and come back to you.
[2:51:20] I mean clearly there's a lot of public input, a lot of process on the way.
[2:51:23] We don't have a contract.
[2:51:24] We don't have a scope. Well, Ericsson already wrote a scope, but because he does everything like that.
[2:51:29] But, you know, our pants aren't on fire. No one's going to be going in and digging up the road tomorrow.
[2:51:33] We do have considerable infrastructure upgrades. We want to make sure that we're taking a meaningful opportunity to do assess things work closely with our business district.
[2:51:41] And maybe what I'm hearing if I could oversimplify is enough support to at least take the next step and scope that out.
[2:51:46] And then return to like we would for anything else of this size magnitude or otherwise.
[2:51:51] And one further point, which I highlighted in this slide, but I left on set as well, is that we believe that staff members, which would be inclusive of myself, can collaborate with any external consultants on this and provide much higher, well, I shouldn't say much higher, but high level of specific analysis with regard to some of these questions.
[2:52:13] So we do have some of these capabilities internally,
[2:52:17] and that would hopefully, with your blessing,
[2:52:19] lower the potential cost of any study or plan as well.
[2:52:23] All right, what could be really helpful for us
[2:52:26] to make a decision on this is splitting into two questions.
[2:52:29] One would be, what are the critical infrastructure improvements
[2:52:32] that have to happen?
[2:52:34] And what are the opportunities related
[2:52:36] to those critical improvements?
[2:52:38] The second one would be, OK, now bigger picture and strategically
[2:52:43] what are the opportunities that lie ahead?
[2:52:46] Once we get through that critical list,
[2:52:48] you know, so maybe that critical list is like the zero to two years,
[2:52:51] and then the rest is two plus wherever you want to snap that line
[2:52:54] and say, okay, now to look at that bigger picture,
[2:52:58] we'd have to back into that date, right,
[2:53:00] and start a study by X time,
[2:53:03] we'd have to go to RFP, we'd have to hire a consultant,
[2:53:06] whatever the case may be.
[2:53:08] If we get caught in a single question of the big picture,
[2:53:12] The fear would be we don't address the actual critical infrastructure stuff with the leverage opportunities in a timely fashion.
[2:53:20] As Kiko back, it's like, so where would you put this stuff into your questions?
[2:53:29] I best have to be honest. I look at it from that we have to do this and here's what it'll impact and here's, and if the answer comes back,
[2:53:37] Hey, look, to get through the critical items, we have to do everything, then that's what the answer comes back.
[2:53:43] I'd contend it probably not the only answer though.
[2:53:46] The must do is the top bullet on this list of this slide.
[2:53:50] If I, I mean, I can answer that now. This is more or less the must do.
[2:53:54] Then everything else can flow from there.
[2:53:57] And I would put this list in your, if you were drawing a line, let's just say hypothetically that two year plus destination,
[2:54:03] And then this list would probably be in that to your plus segment.
[2:54:09] But we can, we think I'm not going more specifically.
[2:54:11] I'd like to know the timing too, because when I've spoken with different staff members,
[2:54:16] you know, if we think about the length of time and it's taken to plan park avenues reconstruction.
[2:54:22] You know, to take up our main street, it's going to take a lot of planning.
[2:54:25] It's going to take working with the business district.
[2:54:28] So I'd kind of like to know what all those steps are as well and how long that process.
[2:54:32] realistically would take. If we decided today that we wanted to
[2:54:37] tear up the infrastructure on Main Street, what would that planning process look like?
[2:54:42] So it sounds like there's a willingness to conduct that analysis. The next step is
[2:54:46] for us to come back with much more specific timelines and we'll do that exercise of
[2:54:51] looking at some target dates and backing into this sequence of events that must happen
[2:54:55] flowing from those dates. Yep. Great, exciting.
[2:55:00] Thank you. Thank you. All right. We ready to move into Rocky Mountain Power Infrastructure. You need a break. Okay. Real quick break.
[3:00:41] If you could take your seats, please would like to get started again.
[3:00:49] All right. Hello, everyone. My name is Luke Karten, environmental sustainability manager for Park City Municipal.
[3:00:56] And we're going to talk about the world of kind of power infrastructure coming out of this community.
[3:01:03] And the reason it's important is just like a water infrastructure on these other things. These are key pieces of infrastructure that roll into our community.
[3:01:12] And they're also located kind of near the key pieces, right?
[3:01:15] We need electricity delivered to our city to power the backbone of our economy as well.
[3:01:22] But the infrastructure also crisscrosses through our community.
[3:01:24] You can actually see some of the transmission lines, which I'll discuss here in a minute,
[3:01:28] that literally go across the hill here, they go up and over the area, go through Main Street,
[3:01:33] and are located in key pieces of the community.
[3:01:37] The substation and associated infrastructure we're going to talk about here,
[3:01:41] the easiest way to view it is it drives a lot of pieces.
[3:01:45] There's over 20, between 20 and 30 million dollars of just electricity sales in our community every single year.
[3:01:51] That's just within that.
[3:01:54] The county assessor values just that eight, eight tenth of an acre piece that the infrastructure sits on and all that's improvements.
[3:02:00] It's values $12 million a year, not the land, but the input, the utility infrastructure that sits on that.
[3:02:07] So these are very high costs.
[3:02:10] And we're also dealing with Rocky Mountain Power.
[3:02:12] They're a regulated utility in the state of Utah.
[3:02:14] So that means they have certain rules.
[3:02:15] They can do and certain rules.
[3:02:17] They can't do.
[3:02:19] And my goal is just to really try to keep this as maps, as high level.
[3:02:24] But I'd really, really encourage council or people who are curious about this.
[3:02:29] to go walk around, especially from bananas to drive out to monitor driving back, to see the impact of this utility infrastructure.
[3:02:37] Because it's large and it's through the middle of a lot of things, but it also needs to be there as well.
[3:02:44] A lot of this discussion is going to focus on the transmission line keys.
[3:02:48] These are just way to view the transmission line and they've associated sub-substation.
[3:02:51] are this is the high amounts of power that come in and then the
[3:02:56] substation makes it so it's usable within our community. A lot of the power
[3:03:00] from our community comes out of that 810th of an acre site. So there's a lot
[3:03:04] of aboveground infrastructure, but there's also a lot of belowground
[3:03:07] infrastructure, which makes something as you can't just simply move towers
[3:03:12] or a substation, there's so much stuff tied into that. The way I
[3:03:17] wait, again, we'll get to this discussion in the phase two part of it, but if we
[3:03:21] to move the substation, it's the equivalent of moving Kimmel Junction. You can move the traffic lights
[3:03:26] in that side of it, but you still need all the roads and everything that ties into it. When you
[3:03:30] think of, there's underground infrastructure that comes out of that site that feeds everything from
[3:03:34] dear valley to park meadows to prospector. So again, it is a very complex issue that I don't want to get
[3:03:42] too far into the weeds, but if there are questions again, happy to go show you stuff, getting them
[3:03:47] detailed drawings. But along the story short, you have all these different things that tie in
[3:03:51] to the substation. I'm going to zoom in here just a little bit to show you that is our
[3:03:56] tenth of an acre site. And you have three major transmission lines, which again, you see throughout
[3:04:02] this community that tie in. That purple line is the Snyderville to Park City transmission line. That's
[3:04:09] a line that you can actually see the substation just below the ski jumps. And it kind of follows
[3:04:15] to 24 all the way in, goes across the backside of Boot Hill, comes through the cemetery and ties
[3:04:22] into that.
[3:04:23] The yellow and blue line are the airy and judged transmission lines.
[3:04:28] So what you do is you actually try, you tie substations together, right, so that way if you
[3:04:34] can take a substation offline, or they're always fed in different ways.
[3:04:38] The nice thing about these lines are, they're the ones you can actually see that go right
[3:04:42] right across their window here.
[3:04:43] So one goes, and they split, one goes up and over the airy, and goes out to the, they call it the Silver Creek Substation.
[3:04:50] Wind's Junction, there's a substation out there.
[3:04:52] The other one, Judge goes, actually up and over Park City Mountain, takes a left, kind of near the top of Payday Lift, and goes out to the.
[3:05:00] Judges of station as well. So these again, these are the big, big towers that we see around, but also I don't want to diminish that almost all of the city's electricity comes out of that little sub station right there.
[3:05:12] So what we, what we were asked to look at was to say, hey, could we move this, could we get some or all of these parts out of where they are out of this potential kind of economic and community zone and move it.
[3:05:27] And first of all, the substation is put where it is because it needs to be near electricity load.
[3:05:32] Right? When this was put in previous even the 1960s, this whole area looked a lot different.
[3:05:38] Park meadows looked a lot different in that side of it.
[3:05:40] So if we can move it, we can move it a half mile.
[3:05:42] We can't move it 10, 20, 30 miles. So that's just a key kind of restraint to view.
[3:05:49] Also the other thing too is any time you move pieces or undergone pieces outside of it,
[3:05:54] You're moving a lot of strings and there's also a lot of stuff in that area, right?
[3:05:57] We can't just say, well, it was buried all and make it all disappear.
[3:06:01] You have water lines, natural gas lines, roads, all these other pieces.
[3:06:04] So again, it's just to put in perspective, this is a very complex problem.
[3:06:10] So what we did was we broke it into two kind of phases, as to try to make this into bite-sized
[3:06:15] chunks.
[3:06:16] And you can do it all once if you wanted to.
[3:06:18] It does get very expensive, or you can do it in phases.
[3:06:21] The interesting thing is, the phase one phase two approach, if you said, hey, we just wanted
[3:06:26] to do a phase one, that doesn't tie you to moving to substation in the future.
[3:06:29] It doesn't say, hey, you did this, now you're, you're, you're, you're pregnant with
[3:06:33] that, yeah, you have to move on to that side.
[3:06:36] Um, I think, and I'll, I'll show you the map side of it because again, you can talk about
[3:06:40] transmission lines, distribution lines, KVs, and all this other stuff, but there, there
[3:06:44] is some land impacts to this as well.
[3:06:47] So phase one is taking that purple line at Snyderville line and running it, the Snyderville transmission line and conduit to the base of boot hill kind of behind Zion's bank.
[3:07:01] Then from there, once you hit that kind of, again, I have a map of this, it would be taking that underground line going above, you know, back above ground somewhere on the boot hill kind of behind Zion's bank area.
[3:07:13] And then having that proceed above a above ground or overhead and tying it back into the existing snider of the line.
[3:07:21] The reason we don't I don't suggest doing it underground everywhere is to just do a single circuit of transmission line.
[3:07:28] It's it's about 2,600 dollars a foot.
[3:07:31] Underground.
[3:07:32] So it's very very very very expensive.
[3:07:35] What I'm also suggesting here is a transmission line plus condo it for another transmission line to that boot hill site.
[3:07:41] That puts it in the roughly $3,200 of foot range and I'll show you why I'm suggesting that here in a second.
[3:07:48] The ballpark cost of just undergrounding the Snyderville line is about nine million dollars.
[3:07:55] So again, it is an expensive piece.
[3:07:57] And again, there's ways, there's wiggle room in there and again, we can redefine that.
[3:08:01] But if we wanted to do that phase one approach, what you do is you go out and you commission a feasibility study with Rocky Mountain Power.
[3:08:09] It's a $150,000 study that takes it out of the theoretical.
[3:08:14] We think it's a 9 million, but it goes into you need this easement.
[3:08:17] At this corner you need this junction box.
[3:08:20] It really, truly goes from the, hey, I want to bake a cake to, this is the recipe for the cake.
[3:08:26] Then you take that feasibility study, you can put it out to the market to bid, and you can
[3:08:30] refine that 9 million down to the, you know, literally a bid document, right?
[3:08:34] Saying, hey, I want to build a 3,000 square foot house.
[3:08:36] this is how many, you know, to toilets, bathrooms and bedrooms
[3:08:40] you want inside of it. So, um, and again, I'm going to run through this and that the
[3:08:45] goal on this was just to get a bunch of the information out and then go back and have
[3:08:49] that discussion because there's a lot of moving parts to it. So, this is kind of the key part
[3:08:55] of what this phase one concept would be is it would take the purple line and that purple line
[3:09:00] would mostly disappear except for that where the yellow and the purple meet up in that
[3:09:04] the corner. So all of this purple line would go away. So what you're looking at is, you know,
[3:09:13] to kind of start from the upper left of this, the line currently goes across city property on
[3:09:18] the backside of Boot Hill. All of those towers would go away. They would, they would just,
[3:09:24] they wouldn't need them anymore. Then it makes that turn and comes up monitor. Same thing,
[3:09:29] all of those towers would go away. This is the interesting kind of community benefit as well.
[3:09:33] There is a transmission tower that actually sits right in the middle of the cemetery.
[3:09:38] If we were able to remove that tower from the cemetery, that would have free up approximately 70 burial plots.
[3:09:47] So it would be effectively adding 70 traditional burial plots to the cemetery because it removes all of those aerial easements.
[3:09:55] Again, this transmission tower goes across that.
[3:09:58] Then when you cross
[3:10:00] It burns, it bisex the city on land through this part. This is a 60-foot aerial easement. So you can view it as about a fifth of this entire site is impacted by this aerial easement of 60 feet.
[3:10:16] So what that aerial easement means is it significantly reduces what you can build underneath it. Because again, there's huge transmission lines running across your site. You can't build a roof all the way up to it.
[3:10:27] It would remove all these pieces.
[3:10:29] Again, the underground inside, it would leave this substation underground.
[3:10:35] We would run it up woodbine, take a left-on current, and then again, make it come overhead
[3:10:41] somewhere on the boot hillside on the city-owned land there.
[3:10:46] We would, the feasibility study would further define, it would take it from a concept
[3:10:52] to where we'll have it come out of the ground at this point.
[3:10:57] Getting back to, hey, how would this get paid for?
[3:11:00] Could Rocky Mountain Power pay for it or not?
[3:11:03] They're regulated utility.
[3:11:04] So they have to be fair to all of their rate pairs,
[3:11:07] and they also are fair to the kind of project side of it.
[3:11:10] So the city would have to pay for the orange to yellow piece,
[3:11:16] and then we would get credited for the purple piece.
[3:11:19] So long story short, the thought would be that the main driver would say,
[3:11:23] the city is asking for this, Rocky Mountain Power doesn't quote and quote meet this. So we would
[3:11:30] go out and pay for these improvements and then we would get credited back for the towers that
[3:11:34] would come down for the line that would come down. Any transformers in that side of it. So we'd be
[3:11:38] mostly credited for electricity line. So the credits aren't as big on this one. I'm the phase 21,
[3:11:45] it gets much more, it's a much more complex piece but there's more credits on that as well.
[3:11:50] So again, phase one, it would remove from the back side of boot hill, down monitor, cross the cemetery,
[3:11:57] a cross-currence, and then across the city on land here, it would remove all this. It would take out this
[3:12:02] pole that's in the corner of the kind of this site right here, and all that would go away, that those 60 foot
[3:12:11] aerial easements would also disappear as well. So this boat would look like when it was done.
[3:12:18] That orange line, like I said, would be all underground.
[3:12:21] This existing line goes away, disappears.
[3:12:25] That's what the phase one complete would look like.
[3:12:29] Really quickly, this would be a high construction impact.
[3:12:32] We can't just tunnel and bore this piece way out of there.
[3:12:35] It is a large line, large undertaking.
[3:12:38] The line actually gets wrapped in red concrete.
[3:12:41] All these other kind of, it's a big piece.
[3:12:44] So it's not just, hey, we can go out and kind of just tunnel this
[3:12:46] and magically make it to spirit, it would be excavators,
[3:12:50] incurns, you know, again, just let everyone know.
[3:12:54] I didn't mention the line and conduit piece
[3:12:56] and this is setting up for a phase two discussion.
[3:13:00] Again, we can furtherify this.
[3:13:02] So if you just wanted to bury the Snyderville line,
[3:13:06] you could say roughly a million dollars,
[3:13:08] because like I said, it's $2,600 per linear foot
[3:13:13] for the Snyderville line, 3,200.
[3:13:16] So you add on 600 bucks per linear foot. If you wanted to add in conduit, the reason I'm suggesting if we do the phase one to add that
[3:13:24] That incremental
[3:13:26] Those incremental dollars so the nine million dollars would be the line plus conduit is if we wanted to proceed to phase two
[3:13:33] We would have the conduit in the ground again. This is going to turn to a little bit of a juggling act. I fully understand if you say wait a minute
[3:13:40] Could you go back, but I want to kind of describe why the line and kind of what piece makes sense
[3:13:46] So, moving into the phase two piece, what you would have to do is you have to build the
[3:13:52] new substation before you can take the old substation offline, right?
[3:13:56] So we would have to prep a new site, so that means make a new level site, it's about 400 feet
[3:14:00] by 250 feet.
[3:14:02] You would have to underground the judge in Silver Creek Transmission Line.
[3:14:06] So these two lines we see out here, we would have to pick a spot where those would go from
[3:14:10] to underground. You know, again, just think of like the Benanza turn or something on those lines.
[3:14:17] We would have to regroup all of that underground distribution line.
[3:14:20] So all the stuff that serves as park meadows, Main Street,
[3:14:25] Prospector, pretty much everyone's house here.
[3:14:27] Those would have to get moved and kind of plug back in.
[3:14:31] We would have to record new easements for all of these things that would go underground to this.
[3:14:38] But we also do get the credits, so we would receive that 8.84 acres of the substation sites.
[3:14:46] The existing equipment in the substation, we would get a credit for that.
[3:14:50] Any transmission towers, all these other things.
[3:14:52] We would receive kind of a market value credit for those pieces as well.
[3:14:58] This estimated cost is high.
[3:15:00] And we want to do is the Cadillac version of this. You could do parts of this, some of this, and that cost could come down, but I also want to put out there too. This isn't a project that you do in a year. This is like a five to seven to ten year project. And also when you think about how the electricity grid is changing with everything from EVs to solar to coal plants going offline in that side of it, this a lot of this equipment for the new substation has a multi-year lead time to it, right? You order these things. They don't have it on the shelf.
[3:15:30] they don't have it in Utah. This is coming out of factories from around the world coming to you.
[3:15:36] The transmission, the, the substation new infrastructure is about 20 to 25 million dollars
[3:15:42] in today's dollars, right? That has roughly a 50% contingency on it too, right? Copper goes up
[3:15:48] and down. You're tied to the international raw metals market. The rerouting distribution cost,
[3:15:55] just just taking those from where they plug in underground to move them all in time in.
[3:16:01] That's like a five to six million dollar range, right there. We're at 30ish.
[3:16:05] You know, there's ways that we can stage this and do this differently. But I want to just kind
[3:16:10] of show you again from a map version what this would look like when it's all said and done.
[3:16:16] So again, you see that little red box that's the old substation site. You see the blue box,
[3:16:20] That's just a placeholder for that.
[3:16:24] Where I talked about again, the line plus conduit.
[3:16:27] And again, I know folks as eyes are glazing over,
[3:16:29] but this is kind of a key piece to understand.
[3:16:31] It's currently we have the judge and silver
[3:16:33] could line the two lines we see out here.
[3:16:35] Come in.
[3:16:35] So let's say we underground it right at the Dear Valley Drive
[3:16:38] Bananza intersection.
[3:16:40] And you brought it up.
[3:16:41] They currently turn, they go across the veil side,
[3:16:44] they go across Mary Windsor
[3:16:45] so that you can actually see it right here.
[3:16:46] We would bury that in the road the best we could.
[3:16:49] And then they would, they come to this point.
[3:16:51] The thought would be, hey, if the substation is up here, this Snyderville line doesn't need to be.
[3:16:59] It can be replaced by one of the two lines.
[3:17:02] So we have two lines coming into this site.
[3:17:04] And we have one transmission line leaving.
[3:17:06] We could say, hey, let's take this line.
[3:17:08] We have to bury it to here.
[3:17:10] And then we could actually take the silver Creek and Judge line.
[3:17:13] So these two lines out here.
[3:17:14] And we could drop them in where the Snyderville line is.
[3:17:17] So we could replace, we could use phase one to set up phase two.
[3:17:22] So the thought would be saying,
[3:17:23] hey, if we're going to take this Snyderville line in Barriot,
[3:17:27] we added conduit in, if future councils ever said,
[3:17:30] hey, we want to bury all these transmission lines,
[3:17:33] we would actually have to bury them to here,
[3:17:37] because the Snyderville line would get replaced
[3:17:41] with a new substation.
[3:17:43] It'd come out the backside of this substation.
[3:17:46] And these two lines could replace that and fill that in.
[3:17:49] And again, the amount of done the best job of running through that,
[3:17:53] happy to do it more.
[3:17:54] It's just talking about transmission lines.
[3:17:57] Doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.
[3:17:59] So really quick, conclusion what we're looking at is we could break this into two phases.
[3:18:03] It's not an all or nothing kind of all in peace.
[3:18:08] We can meet that, that could reduce the impact of the RMP infrastructure and equipment in the
[3:18:15] the phase one would set up the ground work for a substation relocation, but wouldn't tie us to that.
[3:18:24] The justalling at the phase one piece, those benefits, it does remove those public and private property
[3:18:31] impingements in the Benan's area. It reduces the visual impacts on the backside of Boot Hill.
[3:18:36] It does add a visual impact on the front side of Boot Hill, and it does add at 70 additional spaces
[3:18:43] the cemetery and it does set you up for saying, hey, if we wanted to take the next step towards
[3:18:48] a phase two, we could do that. So what we would do is if the concept of a phase one doesn't
[3:18:56] make sense, we would bring back to you in a public meeting, this feasibility study, the $150,000
[3:19:01] feasibility study would be Rocky Mountain Power, that would then give us the costing for that phase
[3:19:06] one piece. It would not give us the full costing on phase two, but it would say, hey, again,
[3:19:11] You want to bake a cake, the phase one.
[3:19:13] Here's the recipe on what we would need to do,
[3:19:15] and then you could take those to bid.
[3:19:19] And rock them out and power become
[3:19:20] of your general contractor.
[3:19:22] Everything would be designed to their standards,
[3:19:24] but then we could have all the different companies
[3:19:27] that do this work, come bid on it.
[3:19:30] So I just threw a lot of really boring stuff
[3:19:33] that no one talks about in public at you,
[3:19:36] with a lot of mats, and it's a very complex issue.
[3:19:39] But we're kind of, I'd love to hear Council's thoughts, feelings on this kind of phased approach.
[3:19:46] Again, we can further refine costs, we can further refine these pieces.
[3:19:50] But I also want to say, these aren't things that we can just go through tomorrow.
[3:19:53] There are many steps of plane that we need to get going on.
[3:19:55] So that's why we want to present to you in this high level concept of saying,
[3:19:59] Here we go.
[3:20:00] The right path, what more information would you want to hear or do you want to start really looking at varying that Snyderville line with the look to the future of moving the substation. So with that, I'm going to leave this up so we can scroll through maps, but I'll turn it over to it there.
[3:20:15] How long would it feasibility study take four to six months?
[3:20:19] Okay, that's not bad.
[3:20:21] Wait, but questions do you have, right?
[3:20:23] Just a quick one. So is there credit in phase one for just a snatter of the line for that additional acre in the arts and or the, sorry, whatever we'll call in to five acres now.
[3:20:35] If you grow that side by 25% don't we have an offsetting value there, too.
[3:20:41] That so the credits only come from like, oh, right now empowered only credits you on so there is a hard credits hard credits offset.
[3:20:48] Yeah, because we're putting, but we're putting on the balance sheet in another acre of land usable land basically correct you could view that plus you know the cemetery benefits plus you're talking about hard aren't people
[3:20:57] Yeah, I was talking about hard cash cash in cash out. So got what's that worth the maker in the center of town. I mean we paid what 20 million for five acres years ago. So it's a 25 right like a 25 30 million today. Yeah, that's that's a big loss. That's kind of where I didn't we have this conversation. Sorry, go ahead.
[3:21:17] So just I just want to I just have a couple of questions when you said this is a big undertaking with construction. I mean, are you talking one season three, two seasons of shutting down.
[3:21:27] Benanza curtains. That sort of area. Do you have it for phase one. Yeah, this would be a one season style.
[3:21:33] Okay, and the the other thing to really quick is it doesn't.
[3:21:37] You know, when you look at the tunnels and all these other issues too, you can't really every time you make a corner, you have to put in a junction box area.
[3:21:44] So we would want to make sure this is cited well, but it's it's a big enough project that it's hard to share the ditch with other folks is nice.
[3:21:52] Okay, and then can you just talk about how this would help with this is helping like a fire mitigation just Rocky Mountain power look at that in there.
[3:21:59] There.
[3:22:00] Yes, so making.
[3:22:02] So what folks saw happen this past summer and they'll see happen next summer as well is is wildfire hardening that Rocky Mountain power is doing.
[3:22:08] So we are viewed as a kind of a critical piece in the Rocky Mount Pire empire of just saying we don't want to cause a fire, but a lot of that is focused on the distribution wire so if you go out and look at the towers out there there are six wires up high and then there's a bunch of wires down low they're taking those down low wires and sticking them underground this would take those wires up high and stick them underground as well.
[3:22:30] So yes, it does help with some of the hardening piece, but we don't need we wouldn't get huge credits for that because Rocky Mountain power saying hey we're we're sticking these high wires up even a little higher on metal towers we could probably receive credits on the metal towers they don't have to use but those metal towers are hundreds of thousands of dollars not millions and millions of dollars and then just my third question is by removing the the line I'm going to probably use the wrong term now.
[3:22:56] I remember moving the poll that's in the five,
[3:23:00] the five acres with the city owns.
[3:23:02] What does that do for us in regards
[3:23:05] to being able to build more dense?
[3:23:08] Or, I mean, how does that impact us with what we decide
[3:23:11] to build there versus what we could build there
[3:23:14] at this moment?
[3:23:15] Yeah, so this is, oops, here we go.
[3:23:17] And you see this catch up.
[3:23:18] So everywhere we see this purple line,
[3:23:21] view there's a 60 foot swath that goes on both sides
[3:23:24] of the purple line.
[3:23:25] And again, we can, I can work with our GIS team to get a much more accurate map, but
[3:23:29] truthfully, it's kind of, it's really interesting to go out and actually walk the site
[3:23:33] and standardize the lines to be like, all right, 60 feet either way. So you have a 60 foot
[3:23:38] aerial impingement that runs along this and you're limited in building height, 12 to 18 feet,
[3:23:44] most of the time for this type. There's where there is that we might build up it up a little
[3:23:49] there, we need to come down a little bit. But if you remove this, then all of a sudden that aerial
[3:23:53] easement, then it's that the impingement is our planning code, not the actual utility.
[3:24:00] I think that is really important, and I really hope everyone is listening to that who's been
[3:24:05] part of this process is that right now we have an impingement, that's right word, in this area,
[3:24:12] and by removing that, we would be able to build more guidance than we would be able to build more
[3:24:16] of what people are asking for. I don't know that that's been a conversation in the past, so I just think that's
[3:24:20] important that we have out there. There's a few things to probably elaborate on as we look at this.
[3:24:28] So there's a tannis point. There's not really a do nothing option in my mind here. Like we've
[3:24:34] got to clear that off of that parcel. We're planning a district that is going to be something
[3:24:43] for the community to gather in. There's a lot of great ideas floating around.
[3:24:48] 60 feet on each side and talking about a fifth, which is about an acre being unusable with
[3:24:54] a current situation. I mean, forget the hard dollar cost, which it looks like the value.
[3:25:00] You probably get close to the numbers we're talking about anyway. It would just be a shame to lose the opportunity to plan this without that constraint, especially because it goes through the middle of it. It doesn't even go along the side of it.
[3:25:15] The the other one to really think about here jumping around a bit, not getting to utility wonky have a hard time with that too.
[3:25:24] This is our entry corridor, right?
[3:25:27] So people are coming into town and leaving town on this road.
[3:25:31] Honestly, it'll probably get more busy
[3:25:32] as the developments on the other side of the mountain
[3:25:35] continue to pick up steam.
[3:25:39] And what we're not really talking about,
[3:25:41] I think we do have a representative
[3:25:42] from Rocky Mountain Power here, don't we?
[3:25:44] If I'm wrong, they can correct me if they are here.
[3:25:48] The polls that they would put in
[3:25:50] part of these mitigation efforts are different than the polls that exist today in terms of scale,
[3:25:58] right, and really the breadth of them. They'd be adding on technology that lets them switch the
[3:26:05] power off in case they would need to as part of those wildfire mitigation efforts, as it was
[3:26:09] described to us in a previous meeting. And that technology does work well, but like any technology,
[3:26:15] there's always risk of it not working well, and beyond that, what it means if it works well
[3:26:24] is we don't have the transmission line energized, which means we don't have power, essentially.
[3:26:30] And we've seen some alerts already earlier this year where they were sent out and said,
[3:26:34] there's the risk that people might see their power go off because of wildfire mitigation efforts
[3:26:39] when they were strong winds. And it's not to say, it's hard to isolate how much this could help
[3:26:44] that cause, what we do know is it does help that cause. People can't live without power in the
[3:26:51] modern times, as much as folks try to, even if they're off the grid, they have micro grid type
[3:26:57] stuff and they're generating localized power to some degree. There's very few people who actually
[3:27:02] function well without it altogether. And I'd contend Park City isn't one of those places where
[3:27:09] that's a good idea strategically.
[3:27:13] So, so the benefits on the wildfire, I mean,
[3:27:15] we just not devastating fires all over the place,
[3:27:20] the one in Hawaii at big cause was down power wires.
[3:27:24] We have to be really careful here
[3:27:26] and really focus on, you know,
[3:27:28] not just the dollar cost benefits.
[3:27:31] The other thing we'd be doing is like it or not,
[3:27:35] we are going to have growth in two key areas of town
[3:27:38] and there are entitlements for that growth in the next five to 10 years, right?
[3:27:44] That growth, if it does turn out requires increased capacity coming into this station,
[3:27:50] that problem magnifies as they're overhead, be it more wires or bigger wires or whatnot.
[3:27:56] This gives us the opportunity to future prove ourselves a little bit and allow that capacity growth
[3:28:03] if it is required in a way that doesn't have further impacts on the community, essentially,
[3:28:09] which is another really important thing to keep in mind. And there are some other concerns
[3:28:15] and we could go on about this for a long time. Last comment I'll make on on the big picture here.
[3:28:21] I do think there's financial leverage in these projects as well. So be at phase one or phase two,
[3:28:27] where we're giving these top line numbers because we don't want to have a number that we
[3:28:31] Feel was dishonest when we come down to the rubber meat and the road on this.
[3:28:37] We're digging up these streets for other reasons.
[3:28:39] We're doing other utility projects.
[3:28:41] There's a lot of stuff on the future slate.
[3:28:44] The financial leverage there is significant.
[3:28:47] You also see there's some private parcels that could be affected by future plans here.
[3:28:51] And there's opportunities to collaborate on that front as well.
[3:28:56] So it's one of these, if we can do it in a building block approach that enables future decisions and future councils to progress things versus trying to bandate it to unlock that parcel today on the corner, which there are options to bandate it, but it would restrict us from future ability to meet our communities needs potentially and this only gets more expensive over time.
[3:29:24] We've had attempts at this in the past. It's more expensive now than it was then,
[3:29:28] it's going to continue to get more expensive. So, you know, my full support's behind doing
[3:29:33] the feasibility study here. I'm really putting pen to paper and seeing what makes sense in this
[3:29:38] phase approach. This is unique, even though the concept is not unique, the approach here is unique.
[3:29:44] The site potential site of a future substation is different than was talked about last time.
[3:29:48] It's a way from all residential housing.
[3:29:52] To me it's a no-brainer.
[3:29:54] I think it's a full steam ahead thing.
[3:29:56] I'll leave it there.
[3:30:00] Well, I mean, I love the idea of moving a substation. I would like to see our, you know, within the current framework of a council election. I'd like to hear what the community has to say about spending this kind of money on on this particular project.
[3:30:20] Um, I think you're going to get a whole lot of, yeah, we would love to move the
[3:30:23] substation.
[3:30:24] Oh, my god, it's $50 million.
[3:30:26] What does that?
[3:30:27] How does that impact?
[3:30:28] I understand what you're saying, Jeremy, in terms of, is it really a net net 50 million?
[3:30:33] It's not.
[3:30:34] There's give and take, and I get it.
[3:30:35] There's a lot going on there.
[3:30:36] There was another alignment we talked about going overhead.
[3:30:40] That's not contemplated here.
[3:30:42] And I don't, am I missing something?
[3:30:44] did we just, is that, that done deal that we're not going to do that because this all kind
[3:30:50] of came out, this all was born out of, do we go overhead or do we go underground? What happened
[3:30:56] to that other alignment? Great question. So, just take a half quick step back. So,
[3:31:01] Rocky Mountain Power did upgrade a bunch of their transmission towers long to 24 to those steel towers.
[3:31:06] They still might, and again, this is just more of a flight into the community of people saying
[3:31:09] you're idiots, you don't work together. They still might have to upgrade that, no matter what we
[3:31:14] here, they would still upgrade the towers on the backside of Boohill. So that probably will just happen.
[3:31:19] And if we do with the underground, then those towers would be removed. But there is such a concern
[3:31:24] for wildfire for them. You've seen PSE going to bankruptcy. There is 70 million dollar settlement
[3:31:31] against Rocky Mountain Power Sister Company Oregon. So again, I just wanted to put that out there,
[3:31:34] like wildfires, very, very real for Rocky Mountain Power, we're working closely with them. We're also
[3:31:39] in a public safety power shot up there. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there.
[3:31:42] The aerial question that you're asking about next would take this purple line, it would go from here to here, and then it would fly across the cemetery.
[3:31:52] There were some easement issues of, you know, we would have to compensate the landowner for the easements.
[3:31:59] I believe it's the corner there.
[3:32:00] Yeah, it's in this area, and it would still go back towards, and it would be overhead around the Benanza.
[3:32:11] again I can let's get to find the right one. So it would go up through here and then swing across
[3:32:16] tie in over here and then all of that would still be existing. The thought on that would be we
[3:32:22] would have to we could that is still on the table and we could work with Rocky Mountain power to
[3:32:27] look at changing this alignment to have it land here and then negotiate with the landowner on an
[3:32:34] real easement because again, it puts that, it's, it's, it's, the easement is just, you can view it as if we're taking
[3:32:41] where airspace food have to, justly compensate the, the landowner.
[3:32:46] I understand, okay.
[3:32:47] It seems to me that they, that Rocky Mountain Power has come a little ways on their fire mitigation,
[3:32:52] especially along the backside of the hill.
[3:32:54] The other fire mitigation conversations we're having here, you know, when we're talking about
[3:33:00] undergrounding lines on these roads and all this stuff, I would contend that those power
[3:33:04] shut off because of high wind or not because of high wind, along Dear Valley Drive and along
[3:33:11] to 24, I would say that they're shutting the power off because of power lines that we're not
[3:33:16] contemplating right now. So I'm not sure that that's like actually a impactful argument. I'm not
[3:33:22] saying it's it's not valid, but I just don't see the wildfire starting on 224 being their main concern.
[3:33:29] I think it's up in the mountains where all the trees are where most wildfire starts. So I want to
[3:33:34] just trying to make sure we're having conversations about what we're actually going to have
[3:33:39] impact on. I'm down with the feasibility study. It seems like phase one. Phase one makes
[3:33:46] a lot of sense to me. It allows us some freedom moving forward and it might make a phase two easier
[3:33:54] should that be a potential.
[3:33:58] That said, it seems like Rocky Mountain Power is getting closer and closer
[3:34:02] closer to this boot hill side being something they don't want to do, which would be great.
[3:34:07] And maybe they could participate a little bit more in that $9 million cost to move to underground
[3:34:13] but making sure that our residents understand that those roads are going to be dug up again
[3:34:19] another year. We've been driving around cones on 224 a lot over the last five years and I think
[3:34:27] people are starting to figure out like, hey, why can't we get everything done at once? Some efficiency
[3:34:34] there, and I hear you talking about that now. I think we're talking about that on Main Street.
[3:34:39] I think that that means to be contemplator for sure.
[3:34:44] Yeah, I agree with doing number one. I think it's
[3:34:46] really important to move that line out of the five acres just so that we can really make this project
[3:34:51] pencil and be impactful for the community. 60 feet is a lot. I just really think that's important to
[3:34:58] and I'll see you in the next one.
[3:35:00] And 10 second version here on the 50 million two. I mean, Luke mentioned that's the Cadillac version.
[3:35:07] There are a lot of other options. Well, at least two or three other options that could be as much as half to two thirds of that cost,
[3:35:16] which would be informed by the process moving forward, right? I want to be careful about anyone leaving the room from listening in today thinking,
[3:35:24] Well, if they do this thing it's a $60 million deal. It doesn't have to be. That's from the current sub station all the way
[3:35:32] Basically towards the bottom of the graphic there, which south, right?
[3:35:37] Yeah, that's that's what the 50 million contemplates. If we stop at the current sub station, that number is very very very different.
[3:35:44] Yeah, again, but that perspective, right? So if you had, if you just move this from here to here, you left this above ground and then you went underground here.
[3:35:51] They're, you know, because like I said, if you're going from every foot you go from here back is $3, 200 dollars, right? So you could cost share saving, you know, there are ways to go about it, but I also want to be realistic to of this is not we can't negotiate this down to 10 we're still going to be 30 to 40 and then again, you can have others cost share, but the fake the concept is we don't have to take this all at once to if we did that phase one, especially with that additional conduit piece, we could set ourselves up to have phase two discussions of you could just bury transmission line.
[3:36:21] and leave this where it is. You could move this over there. Again, we have many options to save it
[3:36:27] and do all these other things. But I also just want to help put it in perspective of folks of
[3:36:32] this isn't moving the substation and you're going to all this stuff. It's still expensive. We
[3:36:38] can figure out ways to cost share and do all these other things. Again, Rocky Mountain Power is a great
[3:36:42] has been a great partner. The CEO, who was also Park City resident, came to these meetings and
[3:36:47] And you know, very clear on what we pay for,
[3:36:51] how we could share concepts,
[3:36:52] but also his hands are tied as well, right?
[3:36:55] They're regulated until they have to look out
[3:36:57] for all the rate payers as well and be fair to both sides.
[3:37:00] So there are great partner in this,
[3:37:03] but it's also, there's a reason you don't move
[3:37:05] substations that often because you just think of,
[3:37:08] there are five distribution.
[3:37:09] There's five circuits that feed all of town
[3:37:11] that come in here that aren't even on this map
[3:37:13] and we move it up there.
[3:37:14] Now we have to figure out how to reroute those five
[3:37:17] under that whole mess as well. So it's a very, I keep saying it, but I don't want to
[3:37:22] under, it's a very complex project. But the greatest ROI in the short term is
[3:37:28] undergrowing those lines or at least moving those lines off of our five acre piece.
[3:37:33] That phase one piece seems to make sense and it doesn't seem like we fully contemplated the return
[3:37:38] not investment from the land perspective. And the relationship, you know, maintenance that's
[3:37:47] necessary if we do something like that so that we're not impacting the land owners over there,
[3:37:52] we're trying to keep things in the right away, etc. That seems to be a lot of alignment there,
[3:37:57] at least as a as a step on.
[3:38:05] Here. Thank you. It's right in my face here. Right in Becky,
[3:38:10] Back of where are you on this?
[3:38:13] Well, just a question.
[3:38:14] As the feasibility study cover the questions about the subsistion move,
[3:38:19] or does it just suggested?
[3:38:20] No.
[3:38:21] Just a phase two feasibility would be probably 3 to 400,000 to 500,000
[3:38:28] or range.
[3:38:28] Because that's, again, it gets you from, from we want to
[3:38:31] make a cake.
[3:38:32] Here's the full red.
[3:38:33] So it gives you easements where you cross the row,
[3:38:36] a junction box.
[3:38:36] It lays it out so that we can flip it around and go to like a
[3:38:39] document or have much better costs around it. So we would need to do a phase two feasibility study as well.
[3:38:47] Okay, yeah, because even that cost is just going to go like this based on your approach
[3:38:53] within the subsations of what you're very what you don't. But then you have a bunch of neighboring
[3:38:56] property under two impactants. So you haven't even addressed the question of actually who pays,
[3:39:00] who contributes.
[3:39:02] So that's a big open question. And the other thing too is that we're dealing with
[3:39:09] just like we sell it with a solar thing and like an international trade war and solar panels.
[3:39:13] This ties into the international markets of copper, transformers and all, so there's stuff too.
[3:39:18] So they're rock amount power does a 50% contingency which people always laugh at, but it's also,
[3:39:23] you know, what's the price of copper going to be seven years out? So again, there's some wiggle room
[3:39:28] that there's some uncertainty here that there are things that are within our control,
[3:39:34] the cost shares, benefits to other property owners, there's also things outside our control
[3:39:38] to price of copper utility infrastructure that's there.
[3:39:42] Well, the feasibility study makes it kind of sense to me.
[3:39:45] Okay.
[3:39:48] Yeah, I think there had always been some consideration that we would want to move those power lines
[3:39:52] out of the five acre site.
[3:39:56] Can I just ask, is there any, is there any,
[3:40:00] A lititude to do the orange line, not buried, just above ground, but follow that same route.
[3:40:06] We can do anything you want.
[3:40:08] I mean, it's hard because, man, I see the benefit and underground to get. I also see the benefit and not spending $9 million and $60 million
[3:40:16] if there are ways that we can get some of the same benefits. I understand that, you know, power pulls are ugly and they don't look great, but I think that it would be good to explore.
[3:40:30] You know, maybe all the options that along those lines there.
[3:40:35] And I'm comfortable with moving forward with phase one feasibility study.
[3:40:39] So really quick back up is I think the feasibility study that would be successful is we want to make sure it's clearly defined.
[3:40:46] So is the phase one just looking at that feasibility size it looking at the undergrounding or is it looking at an overhead version of this alignment as well.
[3:40:56] would count to one, that worked in as well in a cost,
[3:40:59] because there will be some aerial easement pieces
[3:41:02] that we'd have to work from,
[3:41:04] some pull, hearish from, you know, from here.
[3:41:08] Again, would we want to work in an overhead version
[3:41:11] of this as well to the feasibility study or not?
[3:41:13] I mean, I don't know how much the cost difference is.
[3:41:16] If you said, Becca, you can underground this for $9 million,
[3:41:20] but we can just overhead it and it'll cost $2 million.
[3:41:23] I don't know, I think our taxpayers might be interested in hearing that compromise, and because you still get this 70 extra
[3:41:32] Cemetery spaces, you're still moving it out of the space
[3:41:37] Maybe save some
[3:41:39] Construction along Bonanza understanding that you'll still have to do some aerial easements or something. I can't speak to that if there's significant savings it might be worth exploring, but I don't know
[3:41:52] I don't know what that means. I can't speak to that.
[3:41:56] What is the double the feasibility cost of you both?
[3:42:00] I can aren't people just give us that. I mean, my guess is probably wouldn't be double.
[3:42:05] But again, we have dollars budgeted for this that we could figure out.
[3:42:08] I think it's just for you how much you nail down the scope.
[3:42:11] And we can work with our empty and it's not going to double the price.
[3:42:14] So my guess would be maybe bump into the 200.
[3:42:17] And again, I'm just holding this number out of the air.
[3:42:19] Could you have an estimate though about what the cost difference would be between the orange underground or the orange overhead?
[3:42:26] 100%. We can get that.
[3:42:28] I thought we could sort of discuss that out already, which is why I hadn't.
[3:42:32] The alignment was different, and then there's again, there's the feasibility study, but then the costly different as well, because there are the aerial easement piece is you would have to work with the adjacent landowners on the ease because we couldn't run the transmission lines right up.
[3:42:46] Well, we could, let's give it a wood bind.
[3:42:49] John's role in the size.
[3:42:51] Yeah, we'd have to figure out the alignment
[3:42:52] of this transmission tower, especially through property
[3:42:54] that we do not own and figure out the fair market.
[3:42:58] Negotiate with the landowners here here
[3:43:02] and here, because those are all non-city owned parcels.
[3:43:07] So the feasibility study could say, this is the alignment.
[3:43:09] And then the city would say,
[3:43:11] either is the cost actually put the poles and wires up,
[3:43:13] but then there's also the cost of procuring
[3:43:16] the easements for Rocky Mountain palette. And you would lose the sidewalk, the path on the
[3:43:24] cemetery side because you have to put the pole somewhere. Yeah, again, we can figure out where the
[3:43:28] pole sit and all the other things but the poles will have to go somewhere. The original, we did
[3:43:32] Rocky Mountain Power did work with us for it would be the here-ish. Again, this is to hear-ish, to
[3:43:38] fly across the cemetery. Again, I can re-look at that as well and then it's just an negotiation around
[3:43:44] that aerial easement piece and the costs on this.
[3:43:48] But again, I think for one looking for for you
[3:43:50] is just the scope of the feasibility study,
[3:43:53] which again, we can chase budget on and that side of it,
[3:43:57] would be what I'm hearing,
[3:43:58] I just want to reiterate it back.
[3:44:00] Cost for undergrounding under this arrangement,
[3:44:03] cost of a potential overhead with the intent
[3:44:10] of getting it out of the city owned land, correct?
[3:44:14] And if we're doing it out of the city on land, out of the cemetery as well, is that comfortable?
[3:44:22] I can weave that into a, okay, perfect. So the next step what you'll see is a feasibility study with that scope on a future agenda. Again, well, on the other
[3:44:32] budget's and also the stuff we can do every night of the years on on that.
[3:44:36] Okay, awesome.
[3:44:36] Sounds great.
[3:44:37] Thank you, Luke.
[3:44:40] All right.
[3:44:40] It's been a lot, a long morning here.
[3:44:44] We've gotten a lot done, I think.
[3:44:46] So we're going to open for some public input.
[3:44:49] And if you have a comment and you're joining us virtually and want to make a comment,
[3:44:53] please go ahead and put your hand up now.
[3:44:55] And we're only going to take public input on the long range planning initiatives that we
[3:45:02] So, with that, we'll open it. Anybody have a comment they'd like to make.
[3:45:07] Come on
[3:45:10] up.
[3:45:13] Hello.
[3:45:24] And as a reminder, we do.
[3:45:27] When you make your public comment, we ask that you sign in and tell the council your name for the public record, as well as your zip code.
[3:45:34] And then we do have a three minute limit on our public comments.
[3:45:39] Thank you. Cynthia Washington.
[3:45:42] I live in Pineborough.
[3:45:44] Oh, Cynthia Washington.
[3:45:46] I live in Pineborough.
[3:45:47] My zip code 84098.
[3:45:50] I have been a local of almost 19 years on December,
[3:45:55] 24, well, 2023 will be 19 years.
[3:46:01] So I'm invested heavily in Park City.
[3:46:04] And as I've been listening, my one comment is intersectionality, you have a lot of big projects and I love the unity and commitment on this team and everything that you're doing.
[3:46:19] But I think when you think intersectionality, you can save money and work together with your business partners.
[3:46:27] the resorts to really come together and enhance this community in the aspects you are all
[3:46:36] of why you did. So thank you for what you're doing. Thank you for that. Any other comments?
[3:46:44] Come on up.
[3:46:51] What am I supposed to sing? Mark Fisher and I'm a landowner in the area currently on the yard
[3:47:00] And for those of you that don't know, I sold what is the five acre parcel to the city five years ago.
[3:47:07] This has been a subject that's been brewing in my mind for over 20 years.
[3:47:11] And I just want to applaud you all for getting to this point.
[3:47:14] I think it's the only way to unlock the full potential of this area of town by the end of the park.
[3:47:22] I'd like to thank that the feasibility study in the $9 million as the way to go with the
[3:47:30] option of taking the next step further and to answer Becca's question, we've already spent
[3:47:36] two to three years looking at the overhead option, which would encompass 60 feet of my property,
[3:47:42] which I have rejected, the idea of unencombring city owned property to then encomber a private
[3:47:52] owner's property won't work. That would be tied up in litigation for years and years
[3:48:00] and delay any progress. It just totally devalues my property while doubling the value of
[3:48:08] city on property, which if you think about it isn't fair. So we've been through this and
[3:48:15] I've had extensive conversations with Rocky Mountain Power. They've even threatened to condemn
[3:48:19] my property in multiple letters. And thankfully the city is at my back on that. If the city,
[3:48:27] the only way they can condemn my property, because I will never sign an easement, is if the city
[3:48:32] grants an easement over the recycle center to my south border and over the cemetery to my
[3:48:39] north border. So if the city does that, the city is signaling to Rocky Mountain power to condemn
[3:48:45] my property. I just can't tell you that's not going to go down without a fight. And I don't
[3:48:51] say that to be mean. I just don't think it's fair. Now, aside from all that, if we go with phase one
[3:48:58] And spending $9 million, the more important reason to do that, is the city can then build up to 50 feet, 45 feet high with a five foot parapet just like they're doing on the engine house.
[3:49:10] So they will dramatically increase the value of that land.
[3:49:14] My most recent estimate from the praiser was from the $20 million that they paid, it would go to a minimum of $40 million as is.
[3:49:23] would double and grow you because of the development potential, which is what Tana was asking
[3:49:28] about earlier. That is more than enough value to pay or phase one. Additionally of all the other
[3:49:36] benefits and savings, fire, reduction hazards, and so on. So the big picture has nothing to do
[3:49:42] really with overheading, overheading is really not an option because it doesn't unlock the potential
[3:49:49] of development and doesn't allow this neighborhood over the next several decades to become
[3:49:54] as incredible as it could be. Of course, I'm also in favor of phase two.
[3:50:00] Because that will allow that area to become something very special next to the engine house. It eliminates the EMT concerns that some people have. And it just, again, further unlocks the potential. And again, as I think forward, is the Olympics most likely coming here in 10 years. There's no telling what this piece of land could do to help us provide a better experience for everyone. So, I would like to encourage the council to continue. And to really, I don't know what to do.
[3:50:30] I think it's necessary to include the overhead option in the feasibility study because I don't think that's going to be possible to do.
[3:50:40] And I'm a friend of the city. I want to remain a friend of the city and I don't want to be put in an awkward situation.
[3:50:46] So I would certainly encourage the city to proceed with option one with undergrounding.
[3:50:51] And of course, the location above the Zion bank on city owned property is a fantastic location because
[3:50:58] EMPs and different things don't affect people laying under the ground in the cemetery.
[3:51:02] There's no possibility of residential development in that area, and I know there's several
[3:51:07] people here from the Park Meadows area that would love to see those polls also removed from their
[3:51:13] side. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Did you sign in? Do we have any hands upon the line?
[3:51:23] Okay.
[3:51:40] Good afternoon, Council Mayor. Bill Soraco.
[3:51:43] So 8406O, just want to echo a few of the comments from Mr. Fisher, and just talk a little bit about the math.
[3:51:51] It was pointed out in the presentation that if we underground the lines that frees up that quarter of 60 feet wide through that property, which allows us to
[3:52:01] built through a higher height, and it was talked that that was about 20% of the property.
[3:52:08] So if you do the easy math, if we just assume that the properties were 5 million in
[3:52:12] acre, you say, okay, we're freeing out 5 million dollars of incremental value by undergrowing
[3:52:18] the power lines.
[3:52:19] The value is actually higher than that because that actually gives us the freedom, the
[3:52:24] plan better on that site and not have the site and what we plan there, by-sected by this
[3:52:29] transmission easement. So I would argue that the values probably more than the $5 million dollars
[3:52:35] per acre or whatever the per acre price is if we underground the lines. And that's what I want
[3:52:41] to add. Thank you.
[3:52:45] Thank you. Good day,
[3:52:56] Angela. Let's get it 84060. I also would like to offer support
[3:53:01] For phase one and echo mark Fisher's comment that I don't think it's necessary to
[3:53:08] pursue the overground option. Something that wasn't really mentioned.
[3:53:14] There's the obvious increase in value to what the city owns, if that all goes away.
[3:53:20] But then there is the increase in value to all of the surrounding property.
[3:53:24] So when we talk about public private partnerships, perhaps something that could be looked to when we're
[3:53:32] Is the net differential right how those property values would increase and then perhaps approaching some of those property owners and asking them to contribute to maybe a portion of that.
[3:53:45] To me 50 million dollars if that's the Cadillac option.
[3:53:49] I would say cost out the Ferrari. I think in the grand scheme of things 50 million plus nine million actually sounds like nothing when we consider all of this so yeah strongly strongly in favor. Thank you.
[3:54:01] Thank you.
[3:54:03] And also, sorry, I just wanted to add that discussion today has been some of the most substantive and impressive discussion.
[3:54:10] I have ever witnessed of any council and just a huge shout out to Eric Danets and that presentation that you put together for Main Street, the technology, all of it, just my mind is blown.
[3:54:23] So thanks for that, too.
[3:54:25] Thank you.
[3:54:27] Any other comments?
[3:54:28] come on up.
[3:54:54] Hi, everyone. My name is Dick Rammis, of 84060. I live behind.
[3:55:00] Good Hill. And I just wanted to give the perspective of being a resident who lives behind that hill in the fire risk.
[3:55:08] We've had winds. And remember, we're on the back side. So the wind has to hit the hill and then come down in the valley where we are.
[3:55:16] We've had trees blown over because of the power of the winds that come down the valley.
[3:55:21] We can only imagine what they're like up in the top of the hill.
[3:55:24] So we support phase one. We commend you on working on that. It does seem like a no-brainer.
[3:55:33] The other thing I wanted to mention is quickly is in phase two.
[3:55:39] You might remember it seems like at least if you do move the substation,
[3:55:45] you gain 0.8 acres to do something more with probably in conjunction with the arts and culture district.
[3:55:52] So that's another value add. That's all I have. Thank you. Anyone else?
[3:56:00] Yeah. Okay. Hi, Ed.
[3:56:07] Hello Mayor, gentle. As Angela said, it's been a great discussion this morning.
[3:56:15] I love that we're going through this discussion here.
[3:56:17] I just want to throw Mike do sent him on the phase one or the removal of the
[3:56:24] power station.
[3:56:25] 100% agree with pretty much all the comments and the previous comment took my line
[3:56:30] no brainer.
[3:56:31] I think it is a no brainer if we want to do a balanced park village that will area properly
[3:56:38] as we want to do.
[3:56:40] So I don't think there's any question as that power station has to go to do this properly
[3:56:46] And of course, we want to do it properly.
[3:56:49] So the price, yes, looks like a lot, but if you think long term,
[3:56:56] 50 years down the road,
[3:56:57] amortized that, I think it's a well worth the annual cost
[3:57:03] of that project.
[3:57:05] So my two thumbs up for proceeding on this thing,
[3:57:09] so we can tie it in directly when we start building
[3:57:13] and over there at Penanza.
[3:57:15] And I think that all has to go together.
[3:57:20] So I appreciate all you doing.
[3:57:22] And I'm going to continue listening
[3:57:23] for the rest of the day.
[3:57:25] So thank you.
[3:57:26] Thanks for joining us, Ed.
[3:57:28] You back.
[3:57:29] Any other hands up online?
[3:57:34] Anyone else here want to speak?
[3:57:36] Come on up.
[3:58:05] Mike Swaney?
[3:58:07] I'm not a resident in Park City, but a property owner.
[3:58:12] My family has been around since 1930, and we have been doing a lot of support in this community
[3:58:20] over the decades, and I also have done a lot of work for Mark Fisher, and I know he knows
[3:58:28] what he's talking about, and I have a little bit of a background as a minor, a bit in the
[3:58:35] business and in addition to doing development work. We did the lower mainstream. We
[3:58:41] two brothers and I. So I'm supporting the idea of varying power lines. I think it's a good
[3:58:47] idea. I would like to do it everywhere if I could. Including in my own backyard. It would
[3:58:54] allow us to do that. So I believe that this is the way of the future. And if you look around and
[3:59:00] see all of the new developments that are going around in Utah. Those developments are all underground
[3:59:06] with their electrical grids. And I think that this is a good opportunity to move in the right
[3:59:15] direction into the future. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
[3:59:22] I'm up.
[3:59:37] Jane Riley.
[3:59:39] Eight, four, zero, six, zero.
[3:59:41] I truly believe that in 20 years if we
[3:59:45] bury the power lines in 20, 30 years,
[3:59:49] there's no way we will regret that.
[3:59:53] Thank you.
[3:59:57] Any other comments?
[4:00:00] If not, we'll close the public input session section of this, and we'll move into a working lunch. So council, if you want to, I lunch is around in the hallway. If you want to get those, we have some folks here from the leadership class that are going to do a little let's talk session with us while we eat.
[4:12:41] A while.
[4:12:45] We have some folks here from the Park City Leadership class. And their project this year has been a series called Let's Talk. And most of the councils have been through the sessions. So they're doing a little extra one for us today and talking about storytelling and I can't wait to get started. Scott and Virginia. Thank you for coming. Hi, everyone. My name's Virginia. I use they then pronouns.
[4:13:14] And we understand that we can't take credit for the state of the conversation that Angela and Ed pointed out was happening here this morning, but I can't not point out the correlation, oh I got to say maybe a little bit of correlation who knows
[4:13:33] so
[4:13:37] we're going to we're going to get our bearings here. I'm sorry, zoomers, we move around a lot so hopefully that's okay, and it's going to be a great experience for everybody here. So really quickly, this is our agenda for what we're going to go through.
[4:13:49] through over the next hour.
[4:13:51] And we have our hope is to get to here in about 10, 15 minutes.
[4:13:58] So we're going to zoom through the beginning.
[4:14:00] This is a presentation about storytelling,
[4:14:02] and how storytelling can help us communicate to connect.
[4:14:05] For those of you, a lot of the council members,
[4:14:07] you've been to one of our formal trainings.
[4:14:09] This is all new stuff.
[4:14:11] So hopefully it's exciting,
[4:14:13] and we can kind of get through a few things.
[4:14:16] But Virginia now, we're talking about this.
[4:14:18] and we said, you know, 80% of what we talk about
[4:14:20] and let's talk, that's actually about listening.
[4:14:22] So we should do a quick refresher on less than.
[4:14:26] I actually presented once to City Council,
[4:14:30] early summer, does anybody remember?
[4:14:32] You do.
[4:14:34] That's exactly right.
[4:14:35] I was presenting on child care.
[4:14:37] I remember, but do you remember what I said or how it went?
[4:14:41] No, but you're right.
[4:14:45] Mayor, you were actually out of town and missed it,
[4:14:47] which I'm so happy about because I bombed. It was awful. Well, thank you for saying that. That's
[4:14:52] very nice of you. But I attempted to tell a story at City Council and I lost my three lines.
[4:15:00] Miss the landing, I kind of stood there like, eh, but I will tell you this, every single one of you was an active listener. You were all tuned in, you were all giving me a tremendous amount of respect. There were two of you in particular who I'll call out that were above and beyond that. First,
[4:15:18] there was Matt sitting off to decide. So I want you to imagine I've gotten more here, better looking, better looking there. And as soon as I started talking,
[4:15:33] As soon as I started talking, Matt went like this,
[4:15:40] and he leaned forward and he started
[4:15:41] looking at me, ooh, Matt's tuned in.
[4:15:47] Got a little overclocked.
[4:15:48] Tana, do you play poker?
[4:15:52] Don't.
[4:15:55] You are one of the most expressive people that I have ever seen, and you were lean forward.
[4:15:59] Your hands were active.
[4:16:00] You were into it.
[4:16:01] I was so excited.
[4:16:03] Active listening.
[4:16:04] It made a huge impact on me, even though I bombed it was not their fault.
[4:16:07] made a huge impact on me and I would say that there's probably a reason at least in my mind that
[4:16:13] you two in particular were so tuned in. We had just gotten back from city tour. I had dinner with
[4:16:18] Tana, I had dinner with Matt. We had a lot of good conversations and I think you were just rooting for
[4:16:22] me. It wasn't as much that you were, I mean, I think you were interested in what I had to say,
[4:16:27] but you wanted me to do well. And I felt that. As a as a council, I would just leave that as a story
[4:16:33] of something to kind of think about.
[4:16:36] How we kind of tell ourselves, an active listening
[4:16:39] from body language standpoint,
[4:16:41] from the way that we engage with people,
[4:16:43] even though you might not even realize
[4:16:44] that you're doing it has a huge, huge impact
[4:16:47] on those who are trying to communicate with you.
[4:16:57] So yes, a segueing from one of the super important takeaways
[4:17:00] of Let's Talk, which is about listening,
[4:17:03] to what we're here to do today,
[4:17:06] what for the folks who were able to attend the training
[4:17:08] was your kind of takeaway about what the training really was trying to get us all to think about
[4:17:15] pop quiz no part yeah so a lot of it about effective communication but how your communications
[4:17:26] received and how you receive others communications as well I mean I'll time into I think the first thing we
[4:17:36] thing we did was tell stories with somebody who was sitting next to us and I think my
[4:17:42] comment at the end of our session was I can't believe I'm forgetting this gentleman's name
[4:17:47] who I was talking with but I remember some very personal details about him and how connected we
[4:17:55] got inside of two minutes we both told each other something about ourselves that rarely comes out
[4:18:04] even some of our deepest relationships.
[4:18:08] And so there was like this connection piece that we were all bought into.
[4:18:12] Yeah, awesome. Perfect. And just for those of you who weren't there,
[4:18:15] the question that they were talking about was your favorite childhood junk food.
[4:18:20] So, never, never underestimate the power of a big question.
[4:18:24] But yeah, exactly. That takeaway from let's talk is about communicating to connect, right?
[4:18:29] not communicating to convince, but understanding that sometimes is important to be speaking
[4:18:34] with facts and figures and details, but sometimes it's really just important to create an
[4:18:39] emotional connection with the person within your speaking, and so that's part of why we're
[4:18:42] choosing to focus on storytelling today. Also, because it kind of seemed like the most fun thing
[4:18:47] for you all to do during your lunch. We get to practice. We fun. But before we get into that,
[4:18:53] just real quick, we talk about this a little bit in the presentation, but I want to go into just a
[4:18:57] a little bit more detail. Storytelling is actually built into our DNA as people. It is the way that we have connected over centuries over millennia and it has an impact when somebody starts telling a story on our actual brain chemistry.
[4:19:11] So when I start telling a story, you actually release a little bit of dopamine in your brain.
[4:19:17] It's built on anticipation. You start to understand, ooh, somebody's telling me a story and that anticipation grows. What does dopamine do for us?
[4:19:24] build focus, build motivation, and build memory. These are really important characteristics
[4:19:31] if we're trying to communicate with somebody. When I tell a story that has some empathy,
[4:19:36] hopefully the story that I've told at the beginning of this had a little empathy, what happens
[4:19:40] on your side? You become more generous towards me, maybe a little bit more trusting. These are probably
[4:19:45] really good things as public officers to be able to build in our audience. And then finally,
[4:19:51] make you laugh. Release is some endorphins. When you release endorphins, you become more creative.
[4:19:57] You become more relaxed, you become more focused.
[4:20:00] These are really, really good things to understand as a communicator and what storytelling can unlock. So, it builds context for a storytelling can help us with that and also empathy.
[4:20:11] Before we get into some of the specifics, I want to talk about something that is near and dear to my heart. It's called officially the Curse of Knowledge, which is not a political indictment on our times.
[4:20:22] It is actually something that we think about in storytelling. So, Curse of Knowledge is simply this.
[4:20:26] The more detailed we get on a subject, the more we get to know and study and understand a specific subject, it is human nature to want to say all the things when we're communicating with somebody.
[4:20:38] See, exactly opposite of what you should do. So tell you a quick story. Anybody know what the ad council is?
[4:20:44] It's like the ad agency for the government, right? So they do public service announcements. They actually put together creative.
[4:20:49] So, in the 1980s, the ad council was tasked with having Americans to getting Americans to stop eating
[4:20:56] a movie theater popcorn, to terrible mission.
[4:21:01] As an ad guy, I don't want that mission, right?
[4:21:04] But what they knew is that back then, the oil that was being used to make popcorn is really
[4:21:10] really bad for us.
[4:21:10] In fact, a single-medium popcorn had 37 grams of saturated fat, which is twice the average
[4:21:16] daily allowance of saturated fat.
[4:21:18] And what the ad council knew is that that caused heart disease, caused all forms of medical
[4:21:24] issues, drove up medical bills, all kinds of bad things happened.
[4:21:28] But how do they communicate that?
[4:21:30] How do they actually do this in an effective way?
[4:21:32] Knowing all of those things and deciding not to fall prey to the person knowledge, they created
[4:21:38] an ad that said this simply.
[4:21:41] One medium movie theater popcorn.
[4:21:47] One movie theater popcorn is the equivalent of an all-American breakfast, a big Mac
[4:21:55] happy meal, or a steak dinner with all the trimmings combined.
[4:22:02] That was it.
[4:22:04] What did it do?
[4:22:06] Made people feel gross, right?
[4:22:09] movie theater popcorn sales plummeted in three months, movie theaters across the country
[4:22:14] were forced to change the way that they were making the popcorn, and it was simple.
[4:22:17] They just changed the oil.
[4:22:18] It didn't look quite so good, but it had a huge impact on the health and well-being of the
[4:22:22] people who were eager to get.
[4:22:23] This is an example of a really successful storytelling that didn't fall prey to the curse of
[4:22:29] knowledge.
[4:22:35] All right.
[4:22:38] Let's bring it in here.
[4:22:39] I'm bringing it into this room and let anyone who's still really like to be theater popcorn
[4:22:43] just stay with it. So we can, I guess, expand this because we have more than the city
[4:22:49] company with us today, but we all kind of know each other, right? Small-time life. Who is the best
[4:22:55] story now in this room? Mild. All right.
[4:23:03] What makes miles, fairly unanimously, it turns out.
[4:23:09] Evidently, such a good storyteller.
[4:23:12] His, his demeanor, he's very neutral in his storytelling,
[4:23:18] and even if it's a bad story or a good story,
[4:23:22] maybe I don't know. I mean, like, your emotions don't, obviously,
[4:23:26] as we have learned, I, she will a lot of emotion in my storytelling.
[4:23:30] His is just very neutral, and he regulates his nervous system well.
[4:23:35] Yeah, he's very funny, everybody makes himself usually the burn of the joke.
[4:23:40] Yeah, well, a little bit of self-deprecations with us.
[4:23:42] Yeah, the humor, but also vulnerability, right?
[4:23:45] Scott wasn't afraid to own up to the extent to which he might have bombs
[4:23:48] his early childhood education presentation.
[4:23:53] I'm also more inclined to believe him, that you did not bomb.
[4:23:56] Other things, other things that apply to miles, or if you're like Uncle Bob,
[4:24:00] who isn't in the room right now, is a fantastic storyteller.
[4:24:03] what are some other good characteristics of good storytellers? Authenticity. Authenticity.
[4:24:08] Authenticity. So as soon as you trigger that someone's maybe stretching the truth,
[4:24:13] you lose interest in their story, but when they're authentic, you can really feel it, engage more.
[4:24:18] Yeah, that line never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It doesn't maybe always apply
[4:24:23] when it comes to authenticity. Yeah, other things. Gravity. Gravity. Gravity. Yeah.
[4:24:30] where keeping people in gauge, getting to the point,
[4:24:35] and then moving on allowing them to fill in the blanks.
[4:24:38] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[4:24:40] Practice.
[4:24:47] Is that
[4:24:50] why the same story miles
[4:24:53] tells Oliver and over is never the same twice?
[4:25:00] All
[4:25:05] right, great. Well, it's awesome that we're surrounded by so many good storytellers and or people may be cheated and looked at some of the signs that we posted up around the room.
[4:25:15] Oh yeah, we did do that, didn't we?
[4:25:20] Some foreshadder,
[4:25:23] some quick tips, things to,
[4:25:27] to keep in mind, they're,
[4:25:30] is it keep doing that to you?
[4:25:31] Because you make these like super business
[4:25:33] transitioning, what?
[4:25:34] I didn't make it, I look like a graphics person.
[4:25:38] Didn't practice it enough, is the real answer.
[4:25:41] Practice, practice.
[4:25:44] Researchers have studied what makes effective storytelling.
[4:25:47] Obviously, um, that's important to me and in one of them wrote a book called Made to Stick. I don't know if anybody's red made to stick. It's really amazing book stands a test of time.
[4:25:57] And they they go into a lot of detail on this, but just to kind of take it from a surface level, there's five tips that they give gravity, simpleness, right, not falling prey to the curse of knowledge.
[4:26:10] One of the things they talk about is if you say three things, you didn't say anything at all.
[4:26:14] When you boil it down, what is the core of your message?
[4:26:17] What is the one thing that you want to convey?
[4:26:18] Build a story around that and make sure that that is the thing that goes across.
[4:26:23] What do we talk about with statistics?
[4:26:27] When we use statistics to tell stories, what effect does that have on people's brain?
[4:26:31] It makes them feel like they're what?
[4:26:33] Sleeping?
[4:26:34] We're being chased by a bear.
[4:26:35] Oh, yeah, there's statistics, so the key point that we bring up in the training is that if you
[4:26:41] comment people with facts and figures that are contrary to their strongly held opinions,
[4:26:47] particularly about things that are closely tied to their own personal identity, you
[4:26:51] retrench their position into what they thought against yours and you light up the flight flight
[4:26:56] freeze fawn part of the brain. People literally feel like they're being chased by a bear when
[4:27:01] to try and just prove their points with vaccine figures.
[4:27:05] If we're telling stories and communicating to connect,
[4:27:08] playing a bear is not the most important point for, right?
[4:27:11] I'm just kidding, sorry about that.
[4:27:13] So yeah, let's show.
[4:27:15] So unexpected.
[4:27:16] This one actually is unexpected to me.
[4:27:20] Common sense is the enemy of a good story.
[4:27:23] Think about that.
[4:27:24] If you're building your argument, building your story
[4:27:26] on this is common sense.
[4:27:28] I'm going to build commonality with you
[4:27:29] by connecting through things that we both agree
[4:27:31] agree with. That is ineffective at building a sticky story to think about that.
[4:27:39] Making concrete, vivid pictures analogies, human actions, make the abstract concrete with imagery,
[4:27:46] like the story of the movie theater popcorn, 2037 grams of saturated fat. That's going to fall on
[4:27:52] people poorly, right? But seeing the things in real life and being like, oh my gosh, eating one of these
[4:27:58] is the same as all of this, that has a huge impact on.
[4:28:02] Make it credible, connect with life experiences.
[4:28:05] Numbers are not credible.
[4:28:06] We just talked about that.
[4:28:08] So connect it with people's own experiences,
[4:28:10] your own experiences in a simple way.
[4:28:13] And then finally, make it emotional.
[4:28:16] By, hopefully, when I told the story at the beginning,
[4:28:19] I was able to touch on a few of these different things.
[4:28:22] But being emotional and being vulnerable
[4:28:24] is always an effective way at connecting with somebody
[4:28:27] and building some of that brain chemistry as you're telling a story.
[4:28:32] So that's it?
[4:28:33] Question so far.
[4:28:35] Yes, please.
[4:28:36] Where do the assumptions fall into this about what your assumptions are,
[4:28:40] of how that person is going to feel about your story or what they know?
[4:28:47] So thank you again for offering us an opportunity to connect back to content
[4:28:51] that is in the larger let's talk training.
[4:28:54] But we talk about assumptions of something you need to be self aware of
[4:28:58] because it impacts your ability to actively listen.
[4:29:03] So what an assumption oftentimes will let you do is to stop listening,
[4:29:07] assume what someone is saying, and then start composing your own answer based on where it is that you think that they're going.
[4:29:12] And so being aware and noticing that you've stopped listening can be an effective way in addition to trying to address your assumptions in the first place that's part of a longer project.
[4:29:21] But in the moment, just noticing that you've stopped paying attention that you've made an assumption on where they're going
[4:29:26] you've started composing an answer is a great way for you then to be able to check yourself back in
[4:29:30] to listen to what they're actually saying. Does that get to the, cool. Other questions?
[4:29:37] Other questions? That was a good, really good. So as I set up Virginia to run this exercise,
[4:29:45] I'll just say what was it Monday? Miles put together one of our final class leadership class projects
[4:29:55] or class presentations, and it was a part of it was a panel discussion.
[4:30:00] With a couple of you. And I was struck with how everyone on that panel, I think there were six of you,
[4:30:08] I'm not mistaken, opened up your discussion by telling a story and a personal story,
[4:30:13] and I thought that was really, really effective. So we're going to practice a little bit of that now
[4:30:17] and hopefully refine some of those skills. It's also right on time. We're so good.
[4:30:24] So it's like you've been doing this for a little bit.
[4:30:28] All right, cool.
[4:30:30] So we, as we mentioned earlier,
[4:30:33] came up with this idea of knowing that you all
[4:30:36] were going to be kind of sitting here all day
[4:30:37] and so hopefully giving you a chance to have
[4:30:39] a little bit of brevity and levity
[4:30:41] during your lunchtime.
[4:30:43] But also because we thought it might have a fair amount
[4:30:47] of applicability, right?
[4:30:48] We given that most of what let's talk practices is listening.
[4:30:51] This is an opportunity to think more about how you communicate to connect, how you use stories to get to that goal, so that again we can disagree but still remain in community.
[4:31:04] So I guess at this level, probably not too many of you all have like stump speeches, but certainly when you're knocking on doors or you're speaking with constituents and whatever kind of way a shape or form, you're needing to communicate ideas to people and you're needing to do it quickly, sometimes with people who disagree with you.
[4:31:20] Yeah, does that happen sometimes not always one's an hour so kind of what we're hoping this will do is give you an opportunity to think kind of more self-reflectively and self-consciously about some of these stories if again for the folks who are knocking on doors right now it's the story that you tell as you're knocking on doors or if you know that people are going to be calling you soon because everyone else is going to disagree about bearing power lines and you want to communicate with the city is thinking that having fun.
[4:31:50] around these stories can be helpful.
[4:31:52] Having thought of things in advance doesn't necessarily mean
[4:31:54] that they need to feel cans.
[4:31:57] Miles' stories may be to the illustration of that.
[4:32:02] So we'd love everyone who wants to, so folks in the back,
[4:32:05] please, if you want to join us, do so.
[4:32:08] And think about an issue that you might want to communicate
[4:32:11] around or think about a story that you might want to tell
[4:32:15] if the issue is about yourself and why you might
[4:32:17] the best representative for the person with whom you're speaking to vote for in a couple of
[4:32:24] weeks. And for those of you who have had this opportunity already, typically, how do you approach
[4:32:29] that situation? Right? How do you answer questions from constituents when they ask you about
[4:32:35] particular issues? Or how do you present yourself when you're trying to get someone to vote for you?
[4:32:39] What's your typical approach? That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.
[4:32:45] Yes, you're right, and since you're doing it, and then Bob will call you out since you're doing it, too.
[4:32:50] Oh, but this lots and lots of buttons.
[4:32:52] Okay.
[4:32:52] Uh-huh.
[4:32:52] Yeah.
[4:32:53] I don't talk that much.
[4:32:54] I have a stump speech and I don't want to hear it.
[4:32:56] So it says buttons.
[4:32:59] Maybe today you'll leave with a better one.
[4:33:03] I'm sorry.
[4:33:04] You've asked it, but I'm not listening.
[4:33:05] What was the question?
[4:33:07] I don't mean you're not diggered questions, seriously.
[4:33:09] It's all right.
[4:33:11] Just asking, yeah, right? Well, I guess you have a stomach speech. So how do you approach your
[4:33:15] stomach speech? What are you thinking about? How are you sort of building this thing? What are
[4:33:19] you trying to convey and how are you trying to convey it? A lot of times, for the meeting with
[4:33:25] the group of people, you know, you do this for a couple of years. You have a lot of things you want to say.
[4:33:30] A lot of things you know now that you want to keep it gets people and it's way too much. So I just really
[4:33:35] think about being very brief, using personal anecdotes, using a little bit of feel, and then
[4:33:44] letting the audience kind of dig in more to what they want to hear about, because it's actually
[4:33:48] pretty hard to predict what people really want to talk about, and they definitely don't want to
[4:33:51] be talked to. So, that's kind of what I have in mind. Also, cool, yeah, Bob, what are you doing?
[4:33:58] How do you think about it?
[4:34:00] I think we're very quick.
[4:34:01] All right.
[4:34:07] So again, coming back to these simple principles that
[4:34:11] Scott laid out and that we have laid out around the room,
[4:34:13] about authenticity, about being concise,
[4:34:17] around showing some humor and some vulnerability.
[4:34:21] These are things that keep coming back and we all
[4:34:23] maybe haven't thought about them at the time,
[4:34:25] but as we're thinking about them now,
[4:34:26] we're sort of feeling their efficacy and how they work.
[4:34:28] So what we would like to do now with the time that we have left
[4:34:31] is that kind of pick whatever might be productive
[4:34:36] for you to build a story around right now.
[4:34:39] Again, if it's yours or a door knocking,
[4:34:41] a spiel or if it's an issue that you're
[4:34:43] know you're going to be getting a lot of calls on
[4:34:45] the next couple of weeks, whatever the case might be.
[4:34:47] And we do have the principles,
[4:34:52] the fundamentals that's got laid out,
[4:34:54] taped up around the room.
[4:34:56] And so giving folks an opportunity to sort of
[4:35:00] Free to kind of pull some chairs over and gather around whichever fundamental sort of sticks out to you right now. Maybe something that you want an opportunity to deliberately like sit and think about. And we want you were kind of come back together in kind of tenish minutes and just write a story.
[4:35:17] You can workshop it with the people in your group if you'd like and then we'll kind of come back together and give each other a little bit of feedback.
[4:35:23] So words that are taped up around the room, emotional, credible, simple,
[4:35:33] unexpected, concrete.
[4:35:40] You're individually coming up with stories, and if you want to workshop a little bit with the people who are in your group who are sort of thinking around the same thing, that is allowed.
[4:35:56] And we'll be around to check in and I'll give you some help providing a assistance that we can after I finish my cookie.
[4:36:05] Yeah, grab your, grab your computer, grab your tablet, grab the piece of paper, right expensive.
[4:36:11] But it's fine, it's it.
[4:36:14] Well, you're you're by the emotional science, so.
[4:36:17] I can do the 9 million, it's the 16 million one.
[4:37:30] That's why the clock is coming in the process.
[4:37:36] No, I'm not.
[4:37:38] No, I'm not.
[4:37:40] I'm not.
[4:37:43] You're right.
[4:37:45] Why the clock is coming in the same way?
[4:37:47] Why the clock is coming in the same way?
[4:37:48] Why the clock is coming in the same way?
[4:37:48] Why the clock is coming in the same way?
[4:37:51] I don't know.
[4:37:51] And so if someone had a device,
[4:37:55] what's the clock?
[4:37:56] And so the integrated and the normal clock,
[4:39:33] There's a lot of people who are trying to talk about what they're trying to talk about.
[4:39:37] They're trying to talk about what they're trying to talk about.
[4:39:54] I'm a whole... I'm a little sad.
[4:39:55] I'm a little sad.
[4:39:58] I'm a little sad.
[4:42:03] All right, I'm Swiss Weasley and you got your students. This was the most personal in your photograph of the day, was this of the day.
[4:42:13] Yes, they were like, I made it to one group, have you made it to the other four groups?
[4:42:22] I made it to this year, but I'm going to go check in on five. Okay.
[4:42:56] Go Beth.
[4:53:39] So we all seem to be in agreement with the fact that remedy is an important part of storytelling.
[4:53:47] We've all come to the agreement that remedy is an important part of storytelling.
[4:53:51] Repetition might not be, but that's all right.
[4:53:57] So let's let's come to some kind of consensus when we save brevity. What do we mean let's put seconds minutes and seconds on to it. Nope
[4:54:10] Right, what is that like put put a time limit on that a minute one minute one minute two minutes. All right, so we're gonna go with a minute and a half
[4:54:20] Jeremy says 20 seconds.
[4:54:24] I don't know why. I opened up my calculator app thinking that I was opening up my clock app. Those things don't look anything alike.
[4:54:32] All right. So let's go. We'll go with a one minute.
[4:54:38] Would anyone like to share the story that you came up with? That we just worked.
[4:54:44] Any takers?
[4:54:46] All right, ready?
[4:54:49] Did you start that? Yep, you're on. All right, I'm just coming up with this story now because I didn't workshop it.
[4:54:57] Let's see, recently in the last...
[4:55:00] A few months. Somebody we all know got some really hard news from my health perspective. They're a
[4:55:07] park city resident and their brother rolled into town after living here 10 or 15 years ago and he pointed
[4:55:14] out to me that this community is super special because when this person needed something, things were
[4:55:23] showing up at the doorstep every 15 minutes and people were coming out of the woodwork.
[4:55:30] And so, you know, a buddy of mine who moved out of town and now lives in San Francisco,
[4:55:36] he rolled into town, he spent three months here this summer and he wanted to make sure
[4:55:41] that Park City understands how special Park City is because you don't just get that type
[4:55:49] of community development in a big city.
[4:55:52] Ooh, didn't get their shit of workshop anymore.
[4:55:54] Sorry, he's telling your story though.
[4:55:56] Just to give us an idea of.
[4:55:57] All right, so yeah, so short really is.
[4:56:00] Yeah, right.
[4:56:01] Three minutes is usually what we had at toast masters.
[4:56:05] So half of shit has said three minutes.
[4:56:08] Anyway, somebody in this room pointed out in a totally
[4:56:13] different way how special Park City is.
[4:56:15] We rolled out of council meeting, I think it was last week,
[4:56:19] the week after or week before that and we're walking out of the Marsak and Heinrich looks
[4:56:24] up and he goes, see? And there were about five of us standing there and everybody took a different
[4:56:31] definition of how awesome it was to walk out of that really cool old building. Look up into the
[4:56:37] hills and see all these people living in the trees and we all got to discuss whether we wanted to walk
[4:56:42] or ride our bikes to have a glass of wine or a cocktail afterward. And it just put into perspective
[4:56:48] sometimes we get buried in the minutiae and we're fighting about little things or arguing about
[4:56:53] little things but we walk outside into the middle of this place that by all accounts is straight
[4:56:59] up paradise and that's been an honor to serve. I'm really glad to be here.
[4:57:06] Thank you, Max.
[4:57:10] All right so other than not hitting your own mark of brevity. What feedback do we have
[4:57:17] for Matt about his story. Max,
[4:57:24] I, will you under the emotional? Because it felt very emotional.
[4:57:40] What, what would you say the like one key point that Max was trying to
[4:57:45] communicate? Yes. Sorry, now I'm going to trip over names. It was trying to communicate. Yeah,
[4:57:50] the pub series. So these other things that sort of came in and it really just reinforced this
[4:57:56] about what is special and unique place. Park City is, right? Kind of through two different
[4:58:01] exempts. Perfect through one. Right, almost emotionally.
[4:58:07] Personally connected. All right,
[4:58:09] then anyone else, like to share a story? All right, you know, you're up. Who I'm going to read?
[4:58:14] Because I'm simple.
[4:58:17] Okay, this morning we discussed help safety and welfare and the role of
[4:58:22] the role it has in government. However, is it really that simple? In the past,
[4:58:25] health didn't address mental health. And that is a vital role of our overall, our overall health.
[4:58:31] And this means government's role should also be in the mental health space. My small business
[4:58:37] has a sober kitchen, and we did this because the government, Summit County Drug Court,
[4:58:42] saved my brother's life, and we would like to give back to the community that did this.
[4:58:46] And that's why government has a special role in health safety and welfare.
[4:58:59] I love that story. As you know, I've known that story. One suggestion is if that was a story
[4:59:08] in two parts.
[4:59:13] And then let's get everybody else's thoughts.
[4:59:17] So yes, feedback. What did you all think? And maybe if we actually want to think about Max's story,
[4:59:21] versus Tana's story, right, about the structure of those stories. What did you notice?
[4:59:28] similarities, differences, well I thought personal was. Yeah, again that's
[4:59:32] the question actually. Like you said in Norway you were going at first and then
[4:59:36] all of a sudden you made it really personal about that kitchen and it was like locked, locked it in.
[4:59:44] I think we're going to have the story first and then it's the same thing. So I think also
[4:59:48] we had a few of these cars right above the speaker and so reading off of it is being
[4:59:54] You know how I speak, and I think that's what I'm trying to do, so I'll do that.
[5:00:00] Well, that's why we have to go simple. And simple is not tana.
[5:00:06] I actually, I'll tell my students the same thing. I'll have class notes and point out that more often than not.
[5:00:12] It's so that to keep me from rambling off on whatever tangent, rather than that I don't.
[5:00:18] I need the facts and figures in front of me or whatever.
[5:00:21] Anybody else?
[5:00:32] So when I was early in my years in Park City, I can't remember my exact age 15, 16, it was announced that the Olympics were coming to Park City.
[5:00:41] And there were so many people in the community that were so excited, there were so much energy built around that.
[5:00:46] And there were a lot of people that were really uncertain, there were some fears to what that would mean for our community.
[5:00:52] But it was coming and so there were new facilities being built and new people coming to town and in the meantime I was growing up and I went to college and then all of a sudden the Olympics were coming it was going to be, you know, this season and then September 11 happened and it felt so dark and so scary in the world.
[5:01:12] people were in certain as to whether or not we should keep have the Olympics in town
[5:01:18] and the ongoing preparations that were additional security measures. There was a lot of
[5:01:22] talk about how we keep things safe and how, how was the world going to come here and have this
[5:01:29] experience when it was so divisive and people were sending troops overseas. It just felt like a
[5:01:34] really scary time in the world and in our community. But then the Olympics actually came to town.
[5:01:41] there was Main Street was housed all the different houses for all the different countries
[5:01:46] and you would walk up and down the street and you would hear the Norway house go,
[5:01:50] woo, woo, and the Sweden house would go, woo, and there were people trading pins and people were
[5:01:56] coming together. The opening ceremony was beautiful. I was in the house on campus actually at that
[5:02:02] point in time during the opening ceremony and the ground was literally shaking and there was
[5:02:08] is falling from the sky from all of the fireworks. It was so amazing and so beautiful.
[5:02:13] And I think that even though it was really scary and there was a lot of concern and there's a
[5:02:18] lot to be said for what's happened in Park City since then, it was so important to have that moment
[5:02:23] and I'm so proud to have had that moment here in Park City where even though there were a lot of
[5:02:28] scary things going on in the world, people truly came together and it brought a lot of hope
[5:02:32] During a really scary time.
[5:02:36] Thank you.
[5:02:40] So yeah, thoughts, comments, be back like you. That was
[5:02:43] like very like story teller. I felt like I was a like a kid at the library with like miscadrina.
[5:02:50] And I was really excited and she was going to flip the page. I felt that was good. So yeah,
[5:02:54] compelling captivating.
[5:03:10] I think I'm I was engaged in the story throughout, but I'm having a
[5:03:16] a little bit of difficulty figuring out what the throughline is, what I get that there is a story there and it
[5:03:23] was engaging, but I was looking for what are we getting to? Is it that part said it is a safe place
[5:03:29] or that you felt safe or you feel safer now or that we have something else coming? I feel like there's a
[5:03:34] little bit of a question left. Well, that a little bit, segues with the question that I was going to
[5:03:40] to everyone of how what could you imagine that story kind of serving the purpose of stuff, right?
[5:03:46] Like what use could that story be put, which I think is kind of a different way of asking that same kind of a question.
[5:03:52] And I guess I thought I thought it out and worked shopped it more. I probably would have said,
[5:03:57] I know there's a lot of fear about what's to come, but there can be a lot of good that comes
[5:04:00] from having an Olympics here in person. Yeah. And that was the first thing that came to my mind.
[5:04:05] I
[5:04:10] think these are all really good. May or I think we may have time for one more, but I'm not sure how long you would like us to go.
[5:04:53] So we kind of talked through how you could use story telling with that.
[5:04:58] And Virginia has some great suggestion.
[5:05:00] In terms of maybe you need some pre-can stories, because the last thing in the world you want to do is make somebody feel like they're stupid or something else negative.
[5:05:11] And so I think that just given me a lot of food for thought.
[5:05:16] So thank you for that, Virginia.
[5:05:18] Well, and you're a nicer person than I am. The last thing that I would want would be to tell a bad story, because I'm coming up with it on the fly.
[5:05:26] Yeah,
[5:05:30] so yeah, well, and that was going to be another question I was going to ask for,
[5:05:33] if you wouldn't mind sharing what your kind of fundamental was, and if you got stuck, right?
[5:05:38] Like, what was maybe challenging about trying to bring simplicity into a story about trying to bring
[5:05:45] emotionality into the story, hopefully credibility other than Miles, because Miles said that was hard
[5:05:49] for him. Well, I will say, I mean, I already said this that I'm not simple, but
[5:05:54] I, I, I, as Malina said, I do so much better when I'm speaking from the heart when I'm speaking from somewhere.
[5:06:00] There's probably only been two or three times on council where I said, mayor, I'm going to read.
[5:06:03] And afterwards, I've been like, oh, I should not have read. Even though I've written it all down,
[5:06:07] I just feel like my stories are much better when I'm really like listening to my gut and listening
[5:06:12] to what's coming through and maybe have some notes. But I think that tells a better story than me reading.
[5:06:17] And yeah, I do far better than the way
[5:06:23] we're going to.
[5:06:23] Well, stories tend to come from the heart, right?
[5:06:27] They come from the God and the heart and they come from experience.
[5:06:31] And I think that stories in order to be genuine in order to be authentic,
[5:06:35] kind of need to be told in that same vein and so you have to honor yourself.
[5:06:39] And I think that that came through in your story in particular.
[5:06:42] And it comes through when you tell stories the other way.
[5:06:46] We all have had that experience.
[5:06:47] Do
[5:06:52] you think it matters the intention to or are you trying to connect to your audience versus are you telling the story to try to
[5:07:00] entertain or
[5:07:02] convince that even that that separates like I'm the teacher
[5:07:26] Well, and as you see that, I'm wondering how you all sort of navigate this, because there
[5:07:31] is literally a spatial hierarchy, oftentimes when you're speaking to constituents.
[5:07:37] But it was obvious that talking about storytelling and the connecting power of storytelling
[5:07:41] wasn't new to anybody in this room. So how do you navigate that? How do you navigate
[5:07:46] precisely that problem that a lecture in the form of a story still is a lecture?
[5:07:49] If that dynamic is present and not navigated thoughtfully, I don't know the answer back.
[5:08:14] And
[5:08:17] I know I was speaking when I thought there was a time that I haven't done that
[5:08:21] and I've been wanting to know if you have an option with how it is or if there's
[5:08:25] my story and that illustrates that versus really good things to you.
[5:08:32] And I hear that when you're afraid of change or you're concerned about this data
[5:08:37] or whatever you underlying to students and telling us where you're going to be that shared.
[5:08:44] Because we all have shared fear, we all have shared concern about how the community will
[5:08:51] or will not evolve into the future.
[5:08:54] And I think if you do sometimes see this type of rare yourself for that, first of all,
[5:08:59] yeah, we're here too.
[5:09:01] And this is my biggest help.
[5:09:05] Yeah, and we all acknowledge that Miles sort of rose to the top in terms of storytelling, I think he exemplifies a lot of the things you just mentioned.
[5:09:20] He's educating through stories often times maybe his perspective comes through a little bit but it's more his perspective in that moment in time and it's not actually
[5:09:34] really making you wear a future conclusion.
[5:09:39] It's just telling you a story to inform your potential,
[5:09:42] the potential output in your brain.
[5:09:45] And I think that's why it resonates.
[5:09:47] So well with everybody, and I think there are a lot of people,
[5:09:50] miles is generation of Park City people have a ton of stories.
[5:09:55] And one of the most entertaining parts for me personally,
[5:09:58] miles is I've heard a lot of your
[5:10:00] Stories from many of your contemporaries and none of you tell them the same.
[5:10:11] I think it also goes to a little bit about Malina, but the question asked you about assumptions.
[5:10:17] So, to Nian's person, you know, if someone's coming to us and they have said, this is their fear.
[5:10:21] This is what they want to talk to us about.
[5:10:24] It's stopping our assumptions that we know why they feel that way.
[5:10:28] Or stopping the assumption that we already, well, we heard this or we heard this in the
[5:10:32] neighborhood, this is how they feel. And I think that that is one thing that we all could
[5:10:36] do a little bit better. It's just our assumptions about how us on council are going to present,
[5:10:41] are going to approach an issue or how we're going to speak to it. I could do a much better job of that.
[5:10:46] And I think, I think everyone could, is that we all have preconceived notions. And once we drop
[5:10:51] those, our conversations and storytelling become better.
[5:10:56] Yeah. And I love how these last couple of
[5:10:59] respect of all of your schedule and stuff will wrap with, speak to the way that active listening
[5:11:04] and storytelling can work together, right? And so how these key pieces of how we're understanding
[5:11:09] this different way to communicate that, again, is not the way that many of us were taught in our
[5:11:14] communication classes can work, right? And so we can bring these pieces together, we can show that
[5:11:18] we've listened, we can show that we've internalized, they might be telling a story for whatever
[5:11:23] reason road expansion is in my head right now, so we'll go with it, right? But that what you can
[5:11:27] is fear of change, fear of community disintegration, something like that, and then connect to
[5:11:32] and speak from that. So thank you all for giving us this time. I also want to give a specific
[5:11:38] thank you to NAN and Sarah. It was conversations with you early in March that really helped shape
[5:11:43] this project into what it became that we're I think I'm pretty happy with and proud of. And so thanks
[5:11:50] for your motivation and impetus.
[5:11:53] Well, it's important.
[5:11:57] Thank you both for being here.
[5:11:59] And I've been so thrilled to watch the progress
[5:12:01] of Let's Talk, is over the months,
[5:12:03] last few months.
[5:12:04] And I'm really excited that this project is going to live on
[5:12:08] in that mediation.
[5:12:09] So thank you to Gretchen for taking this on.
[5:12:11] Because I think it's really an important part of our community.
[5:12:15] So with that, we will take a break and resume at
[5:12:20] 2015 to talk about major transportation initiatives.
[5:25:50] All right, moving into the last section for today on transportation initiatives. And I got to tell you, I've been so excited about this discussion coming up today.
[5:26:04] There's been so much work that's been done by our staff and by volunteers in the community that are giving their time to help us work on some of these transportation initiatives.
[5:26:12] But we're going to kick things off of the really quick update from Andrew Leitham on our peak traffic mitigation efforts that are coming up this winter.
[5:26:22] Thank you.
[5:26:23] Thank you, Mayor.
[5:26:25] Dr. Ninn, everybody.
[5:26:27] I'd like to be practicing my brevity about peak traffic today because I know when no one has any questions about it.
[5:26:35] So I just wanted to take some time to provide a quick update on the planning that has been taking place.
[5:26:42] place throughout the summer with regard to peak day operations for the coming season.
[5:26:49] We had, we saw a lot of success last year with combinations of things. The circulation plan
[5:26:58] up around Park City Mountain Village was great. That in conjunction with the paid reserve parking
[5:27:03] worked great. Our residential protection efforts, we saw a lot of success with those. And so I'll
[5:27:10] start off the update by saying basically a lot worked last year, particularly with our
[5:27:17] ingress. And so you're going to see a lot of the, a lot of the same things. I do want to start out
[5:27:22] point out some of the, some of the big differences this year though. So our peak day calendar last year
[5:27:32] had 93 peak days. And we had that broken down into max peak and peak days. So the calendar had
[5:27:40] a lot of red and yellow and looked a little bit alarming to people, I think, so we took a little bit
[5:27:49] different approach this year with the calendar and saying, you know, to the public, a peak day,
[5:27:55] you know, it will be a peak day, but we don't need to, a peak days of is a busy day and they're mainly
[5:28:02] centered around our holiday periods, our weekend periods, our special event periods. And that's
[5:28:09] One thing that this calendar did is highlight that when it's not all related to ski tourism,
[5:28:18] some of it is related to a special event.
[5:28:20] So you see the purple period on there is the Sundance Film Festival and then the World Cup.
[5:28:26] So that we're not, you know, winning the finger always at the ski resort for the traffic.
[5:28:31] So there's a lot of different factors that cause a peak day.
[5:28:34] This year, the calendar has 66 peak days, rather than 93, and the big thing that we did was we removed the Mondays and the Thursdays that we're not related to a holiday or a special event period.
[5:28:52] And there were a couple of reasons for that.
[5:28:55] We gathered a lot of statistics last year on those days.
[5:28:59] Your Mondays and Thursdays that were not attached, like I said, to holidays or event periods.
[5:29:04] Those aren't days that we saw at your valley going to overflow.
[5:29:07] We didn't see as much of the parking selling out of the mountain village on those days.
[5:29:13] In fact, we're actually more likely to get a random Tuesday, where we had a foot of snow, where we saw bigger impacts.
[5:29:19] And so we have taken the opportunity to remove those days, which in turn should give us some flexibility back to the department's police department parking streets to allow them more flexibility with their budget and more flexibility was staffing to really ramp up on the days that we need to that we know that we're the busiest.
[5:29:42] And so that'll give us a chance to do more pedestrian safety operations around Main Street and more robust residential protection when we needed.
[5:29:57] Our residential protection was a big success.
[5:30:00] Last year. We basically will do a lot of the same. Excuse me, those things, Canyon. In the
[5:30:08] things Canyon, neighborhood pretty glaring statistic with what we saw last year was that traffic
[5:30:15] counts on three kings drive between things in the skiers or reduced by nearly 50% last year. So a lot
[5:30:24] Well, that's success is because of the paid reserve parking at the Mount Village, but also I think our efforts with residential protection at Thames and Payday also also helps to improve those numbers. So we intend to do that again this year.
[5:30:41] We will not be staffing payday drive with a person.
[5:30:46] We will put up some additional signage, but our statistics show that we really didn't need to have a person there.
[5:30:54] We didn't have a lot of cut-through traffic.
[5:30:56] Most of the traffic entering on payday was service or neighbourhood, so we won't be doing that.
[5:31:03] Hillside and Prospect will continue to cover that with Egress with both police and parking.
[5:31:09] And again, last year the traffic counts on Hillside during the winter were the lowest that we've seen in the lowest that we've ever seen during the winter. So those efforts were great.
[5:31:21] One thing that we did have to add last year was the snowcrest driveway, which is the condominium complex located at 15th and one side.
[5:31:29] And when we rerout a traffic with the bear, the bear case of 14th and 15th, up on Empire, we kind of created a cut through there, so we ended up staffing that.
[5:31:42] And that gradually diminished over the year, but we do intend to continue to staff at this year until we can solve some problems through the HOA.
[5:31:54] Um, talk about the rerouting of traffic at 14 to 15. It was a big part of a successful part of our circulation plan last year.
[5:32:04] Sorry, and it also, it also really helped to reduce the traffic in the gut through in that neighborhood that just sits to the east of there.
[5:32:12] Um, last year we placed these barricades to reroute traffic at 14 to 15th on Empire, and we placed them on peak days, and we left it in place on consecutive peak days, but on non peak days we removed them, and it really was a creative bit of a problem of inconsistency.
[5:32:35] So, one day, if you drove up 14, if you could get through and one day, if you drove up, you couldn't get through.
[5:32:42] So our intention this year is to place the barricades and begin the traffic rear out on the beginning of the skis season,
[5:32:50] and then just be a bit in place to the remainder of the season.
[5:32:54] We will be doing some community outreach to the neighborhood, letting them know that that's our plan.
[5:33:00] And then we're asking for their inputs asking them to come and provide information to us that
[5:33:08] are winner projects, open house events that we'll be having in October.
[5:33:14] And the other thing I wanted to mention about this, we had some negative feedback last year
[5:33:19] regarding pedestrians did not have a great access from the 15th, 14th neighborhood say, if you
[5:33:28] wood side and you want to walk up to the ski resort. There was an issue because of the large amount
[5:33:35] of snowfall that we had last year and some people complained that they couldn't get through
[5:33:40] around the barricade due to the snow. Our streets team did a great job but they had to prioritize
[5:33:45] that because of all the snowfall that we had and so there were times when it was difficult for people to
[5:33:50] get through there. And then once they did get through there they found themselves on the Empire Avenue
[5:33:55] with a giant snow bank on either side, and we're kind of forced to walk in the roadway. So this
[5:34:01] year Park City Mountain Resort has committed to also keeping some equipment there and keeping
[5:34:11] the bomb of the parking lot open for pedestrian access. So the city will commit to making sure
[5:34:17] we leave pedestrian access around those barricades and then with our partner other resort we should
[5:34:26] So this is the exciting stuff, I think, so we have been meeting with our city engineering team, our traffic planners throughout the summer, and for all the success that we had with our
[5:34:44] Ingress, we understand that we still have a major issue with our egress.
[5:34:51] So we have been developing some plans to put in place in temporary traffic control measures.
[5:35:00] On our busiest days, around the Christmas holiday, Martin Luther King, World Cup, President's day, I'll go through, I'll go through the plans really briefly, but we intend to pilot this on December 8th and 9th, which is a ski weekend, but not really one of the busy ski weekends to see if it works.
[5:35:23] The big caveat here is that all of this is being placed on U. rights away, so it takes a
[5:35:30] there approval before we could actually implement or execute any of it.
[5:35:36] And then also we won't be able to do it on days where we have a lot of snow and we'll need
[5:35:43] snow removal, because U.D. plows would probably just plow up whatever we put out there.
[5:35:48] So what we're talking about, we've, throughout the years,
[5:35:55] everyone has identified a couple of, I'll call them choke points
[5:35:58] in the city during egress.
[5:36:01] One of them centers around the merge lane
[5:36:05] at Terns Boulevard and Sidewinder Drive.
[5:36:09] And a lot of people will stay in the right hand,
[5:36:13] turn only lane, and then right at the very last minute
[5:36:17] be trying to force themselves over into the into the correct travel lane on the left-hand side.
[5:36:23] And that's where we see that creates residual backing all the way back to the park
[5:36:29] of intersection on currents and then also bananas such a short stretch with this one lane that it
[5:36:36] fills up quickly. So, excuse me, so we intend to put out some delineators on the west side of the
[5:36:43] intersection to force the merge a little earlier. And then also delineate so that when you're turning a right
[5:36:51] from the NASA drive you'll be forced out into the travel and so we basically make the merge happen sooner
[5:36:58] and we eliminate the choke point at side wonder and keep traffic flowing and that's the that's the
[5:37:13] on a truly busy day at three between three and four PM. We have over 250 cars every 15 minutes
[5:37:23] making that right turn from Benanza on the current's boulevard. So we think that we could we can make
[5:37:31] that flow better with some of the temporary traffic mitigation devices. The other the other big one
[5:37:39] that we all know and love,
[5:37:42] who's been answered at Bananza, and Deer Valley Drive.
[5:37:47] And part of the problem that we've observed over the years
[5:37:51] is that people will be in the right hand lane
[5:37:55] and then they realize that they need to get to the left
[5:37:57] as they don't want to turn right on Bananza.
[5:38:00] And there's a lot of weaving or jogging
[5:38:02] in the intersection or really close to the intersection,
[5:38:05] which then creates this residual backup.
[5:38:08] So our intention is to create a right hand only trap lane with delineators, so they would
[5:38:16] be tightly spaced vertical panel delineators.
[5:38:19] You will be messaged further up near airy drive that if you're in the right lane, you
[5:38:24] need to turn right.
[5:38:27] We're working on trying to get you to paint some, like an IAD and a U.S. 40 logo in the
[5:38:35] the lane, so Sarah has been working hard on that. And then we'll message it also so that if you
[5:38:41] do get to the banana's intersection and you're in the right lane it's basically a trap lane and you'll
[5:38:48] have to have to turn to the right. One of the other big problems that we've seen is the left turn
[5:38:56] for people that are exiting mountain village and then coming into the intersection and rather than
[5:39:01] turning left on Park Ave, they're coming in turning left on
[5:39:05] the NANSA and what we're seeing out of that is a lot of
[5:39:08] intersection blocking people shooting the gap, some pretty
[5:39:13] dangerous things that the police officer who sits there, you
[5:39:18] know, several of them report how dangerous that left turn can be.
[5:39:21] So we intend to eliminate that left on when we put these in place and
[5:39:26] we'll message that on to VMS boards up at the resort to catch all
[5:39:31] traffic coming out of there. And is that no left turn? Is that just for egress or is that all winter?
[5:39:41] It would just be, you know, it would just be on those days, like on those really busy days when we put
[5:39:46] these, yeah, these measures in place. Like, the first thing that came to mind is people that live in
[5:40:00] I'm going to try to make a left across something that doesn't have a light.
[5:40:05] Yeah, they would have to go to iron horses.
[5:40:08] And then try to cross banana.
[5:40:11] Yeah.
[5:40:12] Yeah.
[5:40:13] There are issues with this.
[5:40:15] I mean, the thing that we want to do is try some things and see if we can, we're only going to do this on a really busy day.
[5:40:23] And like I said, we're going to pilot it early in the ski season so that if it doesn't work, we won't do it.
[5:40:29] but we just think it's time that we try something.
[5:40:33] And can you just make, so the peak time, what are your times that you would be doing now?
[5:40:37] The setup would be between 2 PM and 7 PM.
[5:40:40] Okay, and then we would probably want to make sure we did a lot of outreach to that community.
[5:40:45] Yeah, of course. Yeah, outreach is critical for all of it.
[5:40:49] And we, we should, we're working with the company road safe. It does traffic plans that are to
[5:40:54] safety standards and we are planning group should hear from them tomorrow and have those plans
[5:41:02] finalized by next week and then in the next step of course is to get to you dot with it
[5:41:07] before we start doing any outreach. I can't remember do any buses take that left?
[5:41:13] Yeah, that's the other thing that buses will still be able to make the left and that also helps to
[5:41:19] helps with the transit efficiency also because like I mentioned like right now we have
[5:41:24] 100 cars every 15 minutes making that left turn so the bus is sitting in that left turn
[5:41:29] queue with this there would be no left turn queue so the bus with the bus will be able to make the left
[5:41:36] and I'm over my I didn't do good on my brevity to well on my gravity because I'm over my time so
[5:41:43] Yeah, they're good question. Sure. Yeah, it's just laughing a little bit because we've talked about some pretty transformational things this morning. And now the headline is going to be you can't go left. I'm Benanza. Yes, but yeah, so a couple of slides back if we look at the side winder to 48 before this gets out to broadly. I don't know if the neighborhoods first committee has had a chance to circle up with you today.
[5:42:13] Yeah. I think they had some recommendations that may modify this a bit. Just want to be careful.
[5:42:19] Right. I did talk. I've heard that and I didn't that's why I didn't mention the no-left
[5:42:23] off of. They didn't recommend the no-left off of site-winder stuff. Okay. So if anyone sees this in
[5:42:29] the public packet before you print it in the newspaper and tell everyone this is happening,
[5:42:33] yeah. What I want to say about these is that these are just very conceptual plans in the planning stage
[5:42:42] And it requires you doubt approval.
[5:42:45] It requires a lot of work before any of this would be a rolled out.
[5:42:48] I just wanted to be able to show you what we're thinking about right now.
[5:42:53] But there in no way are these any kind of formalized plans.
[5:42:58] Yeah, and the goal, the goal stands of not having people blow through that right turn only lane,
[5:43:03] which causes a number of other issues, driver registration, accidents, whatnot.
[5:43:07] Yeah. So big picture though, just throw it out there.
[5:43:10] This is exactly what we should be doing, I think this is awesome work, I think we probably all think it's awesome work.
[5:43:19] You know we're trying things we're pushing the envelope we're being creative and we're adjusting when it works we're doing more of it and when it doesn't we're shifting a bit.
[5:43:29] And that takes more effort than folks see than putting out a few cones. So the big thank you for pushing that envelope and
[5:43:36] We know you and your team are the folks out there getting yelled at by drivers at times and standing
[5:43:42] around and doing what's good for the community here is much appreciated.
[5:43:47] Well, thank you.
[5:43:47] I appreciate that very much and yeah, a lot of hard work behind the scenes to try to figure
[5:43:52] the stuff out.
[5:43:53] I have one additional question.
[5:43:56] When you're looking at egress, I know one of the concerns last year that we saw and it might
[5:44:00] have just been during really, really busy times was that people were leaving Dear Valley and
[5:44:04] started going down Dear Valley Drive, they were cutting Main Street, going up eighth and cutting
[5:44:08] out through Old Town. And so is that something that you saw and is there any, you know,
[5:44:13] thought of, because in Park Avenue was at a standstill, Dear Valley Drive is standing still and
[5:44:17] they're like, oh, I can cut through wood side through eighth street and then that causes a huge
[5:44:22] backup of Main Street. So I just wondered if you guys looked at that as well. We did, we did see that
[5:44:27] and what we're, what we hope to gain out of what we are doing here is to make Dear Valley Drive
[5:44:34] flow much better so that you're reasoning for turning and cutting and going down Park Avenue
[5:44:41] is, you know, eliminated, that deer valley drive will just flow better.
[5:44:48] And I'm going to turn it over to Alex, you know.
[5:44:52] So thank you for it. Yeah. Thank you so much for all the work on this and I saw some of our
[5:44:58] resort partners here in the room and so.
[5:45:00] Thank you to both Dear Valley and to Park City Mountain for working so closely with our staff on this and trying to make a great visitor experience for all of everyone that's at the resorts.
[5:45:12] So now something I'm really excited about is our regional transportation convening that we put together last fall and we've been meeting monthly and I want to give a big thank you to Sarah Pearson, her team.
[5:45:25] For that convening, we pulled together regional decision-makers, regional, and influential
[5:45:33] folks that included both resort, heads, people from Wassat County Council, Summit County,
[5:45:41] Council, the Chamber, Maida,
[5:45:45] and the Mayflower leadership.
[5:45:48] And we've been meeting monthly talking about where are some regional solutions that we can
[5:45:53] working on together to improve the traffic for the entire
[5:45:59] Wassage back. And the discussion right now is how do we use our collective
[5:46:04] influence to make substantial changes in investment and we're coalescing around a
[5:46:09] shared vision, goals, staff is working together from various jurisdictions to
[5:46:15] make that happen. And we're considering the investments both
[5:46:19] resource are playing the making in their base areas as well as the
[5:46:22] the possibility of hosting another Olympics and the impacts that would have on us regionally.
[5:46:28] So we are looking at for an opportunity to partner with the state and the federal level
[5:46:33] on further investment that we can have in the region. So Alex, please give us an update.
[5:46:39] I think you just gave it. So gravity, amount, now.
[5:46:45] But you're just building up what the mayor mentioned. You know, in last fall,
[5:46:49] regional convening group got together with the acknowledgement that, you know, there's local
[5:46:53] ski, resorts being redeveloped, the potential of a Olympic bid. And so, really, it's become a
[5:46:58] dialogue between these different regional agencies and businesses that is pretty unique, I would say,
[5:47:03] to the watch edge back right now, both elected, elected, and staff have been serving from the county
[5:47:09] in the city side. And it's really to say, okay, what are we doing with these kind of regional
[5:47:15] conversations and what will be needed in the future so that we can support each other.
[5:47:19] on future projects.
[5:47:22] I'll be remiss if I didn't tie this directly into some of the Park City
[5:47:26] forward guiding principles that we established last year. Andrew just gave a great overview
[5:47:31] of identify manage and mitigate traffic during peak conditions. It speaks directly to one of
[5:47:37] the guiding principles. And this collaborate with our regional partners on long-range transportation
[5:47:41] solutions really goes to that as well. So I think, you know, when you think big picture,
[5:47:46] what do we get coming out of Park City forward? It's like okay we're really working hard
[5:47:50] on what the guiding principles were.
[5:47:55] As a mayor covered we have a number of regionally significant
[5:47:57] participants and we've met a number of times covering you know both what they're doing from a
[5:48:01] development standpoint, what developments are coming in, what transportation projects we're looking at,
[5:48:06] I mean they're also talking about the project and how we want to advance the regional convening
[5:48:11] discussion.
[5:48:14] Ultimately what we're hoping to do is develop a package of projects that you know everyone can
[5:48:18] like, yes, we agree to these. They're not going to be small projects. They're going to be the top level
[5:48:23] projects. So things that we could think about are the 224 BRT, probably the Hebrew bypass would
[5:48:28] be included in this list. But there are things that make a significant difference to what the travel
[5:48:33] shed of the wastage back would be look like. Just a quick example, you know, we're kind of really
[5:48:40] trying to identify how we what these different nodes are, what the uses of those nodes will be,
[5:48:45] and how we can best service those with the transportation solutions that make sense.
[5:48:51] Where we kind of are in the process, just in up in September, we had our most recent meeting
[5:48:56] and we've kind of gone over what the project list could look like and we've worked shop some
[5:49:01] vision and goals. We're not quite ready to share those publicly. We'll be coming back to that group
[5:49:05] early in October with kind of a concise list of projects and they've visioned for them to work on.
[5:49:11] This will also include identifying metrics that each project's hoping to achieve.
[5:49:16] We will present this to the city and the county councils, potentially in one of the joint
[5:49:20] upcoming meetings or individually as time allows, and then there we want to share this with other business
[5:49:26] and partners throughout the region to kind of coalesce this idea of what regional transportation
[5:49:32] in the watch edge back could look like, especially as tied to some large infrastructure potential.
[5:49:39] And I just want to say, you know, this was just a teaser and to give you an update on what we're working on,
[5:49:43] but we do plan to come back to both both councils in the near future. So quick and I don't know if there's any
[5:49:51] Yes.
[5:49:57] If we're on around the bus.
[5:50:00] Plains, because this is talking about forward looking, right, it's easy to always forget where we started on things.
[5:50:06] The 248 express bus lanes, well, maybe not full BRT style. Those are moving forward, right? I mean, that's done.
[5:50:16] I think what we're considering them is a transit shoulder similar to what exists on 224 right now. I don't think that that is what our vision for the end product of 248 is.
[5:50:25] So on this, this regional map, I'll say, I think there will be a transit project identified.
[5:50:32] I don't think we are going to say specifically what that is but with the recognition that there will need to be for their transit improvements.
[5:50:39] So as it sits for this winter though, we will have this light version or temporary version of lanes where the buses don't sit in traffic.
[5:50:48] But my understanding is we'll have in band and outbound more than we had last year where they could use the shoulder, but it's not considered a full lane because that triggers some terminology and you don't world, but it is a shoulder that the buses can use during peak times.
[5:51:02] The script traffic.
[5:51:03] The script traffic.
[5:51:05] Okay.
[5:51:07] I have a question from one of your exhibits.
[5:51:10] Sure.
[5:51:11] Which is the one way loop.
[5:51:13] I just had two questions on it.
[5:51:14] I'm happy to answer them.
[5:51:15] that is going to be talked about in the emerging disruptors section. Okay, okay.
[5:51:23] We need other questions. Thanks, Alex. Okay, thank you. Now speaking of emerging
[5:51:29] disruptors committee, I just like the name, and so I'm happy that I continued. And one of the
[5:51:35] things I love about living in Park City is the amount of expertise that our residents have. And so this
[5:51:41] committee consists of folks that have some expertise in transportation. They also have some really unique ideas about some other things that we can do besides run buses and Hannah is going to fill us in on on the work of that committee and I understand we have committee members here that are going to present as well.
[5:52:01] Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I want to be giving an update on the emerging
[5:52:05] disruptors future transportation study. So, the purpose of the study is to look at different
[5:52:11] technologies and infrastructure that can be used to help alter the way that people move
[5:52:16] to and around Park City. The recommendations from this group are going to be those that are
[5:52:22] disrupt the status quo, but do bring a lot of benefits. And like Alex mentioned earlier,
[5:52:28] this does follow Park City Forward principles, and so that one being proactively reviewing and
[5:52:36] analyzing the disruptive transportation ideas, and that's exactly what we're doing in this study.
[5:52:42] So just a little bit of backgrounds, they started in 2021 with a grant from U.D.,
[5:52:48] specifically to look at emerging technologies and disruptive ideas. We bought to council a list
[5:52:54] back in May of 2022, March 2022,
[5:52:57] of an initial disruptor's list.
[5:53:00] We asked you, what do you want us to do with this?
[5:53:03] And basically, you said, just look at everything.
[5:53:06] So we did that and then we brought that list back to you,
[5:53:09] this past February, with an update of where that list was.
[5:53:13] Some of them were looking at internally,
[5:53:14] some are already moving forward, like 248.
[5:53:18] And then some of them we realized we just needed
[5:53:20] to study some more.
[5:53:21] So with the Greenlight from Council,
[5:53:23] So we move for using the grant money for this project, and we contract with Kimley Horn, Salt Lake City Office, to lead this, and we kicked it off in May this year with a stakeholder committee meeting.
[5:53:38] So this is the full list of ideas that were presented to the stakeholder committee. It includes all of those that we presented to you back in February, but we also added some like electric vehicle charging.
[5:53:50] and I think, you know, I think the only loop might have been on there.
[5:53:55] So, but this is a full list. It covers a lot of different topics.
[5:53:59] And so we gave this first stakeholder committee, which is a, it's ten members of point of my man.
[5:54:05] And they are all, most of them are residents, but all of them are members of our community.
[5:54:11] So this group has looked list and they prioritized which ones they wanted to study more in depth.
[5:54:19] Um, so each topic that they selected got its own workshop, um, it's been an hour and a half
[5:54:24] each workshop and if you tell you it up, it's been over 15 hours that this group has already
[5:54:29] committed to this project. We've had a meeting just about every other week throughout the summer.
[5:54:34] So it's been a huge commitment and I just want to say thank you so much for your participation
[5:54:38] in this. Um, so each workshop, we give a little bit of background, have some case studies.
[5:54:45] we have national experts from across the country, subject matter experts, presenting on this
[5:54:50] information, as well as internal staff. And then we always have just such a good discussion.
[5:54:56] We really get into details, things that we didn't necessarily even anticipate.
[5:55:00] To pay this group would want to dive into. And then after that discussion in that background, they kind of form a thesis statement, if you will, at the end of each of these workshops of the ideas that they want to pursue further.
[5:55:13] And those will become recommendations to council. They're not finalized yet. We still have one topic left to cover.
[5:55:20] And then we will be joining together again to do a final recommendation summary for you all.
[5:55:26] And then that will be coming back to council early November.
[5:55:31] So again, here is that full list that we gave to the committee.
[5:55:36] And these are the eight that they selected that they wanted to do more study into.
[5:55:41] So you did receive some information about these in your packet.
[5:55:43] except for tunnels and the vehicle for reasons which we just talked about on Monday, so that one didn't have time to make it in.
[5:55:54] So the ones that weren't selected by the committee weren't necessarily not important to us to study,
[5:56:00] so we do have a university of Utah graduate student who is looking at these projects as part of his professional project
[5:56:05] and we're happy to bring those recommendations back to council as well.
[5:56:10] These two smart corridors and connected Thomas and vehicles are being looked at by the PC CAPS group at Park City High School.
[5:56:18] And we actually fortunate enough to have one of their teachers on our committee and he will be giving a brief presentation momentarily
[5:56:26] and including some information more information about that group.
[5:56:31] Finally, Park City staff itself is looking at the remaining topics.
[5:56:35] So planning is leading a LMC update right now
[5:56:39] and we are working with them on that
[5:56:41] and plan to continue that collaboration in the future.
[5:56:44] Sustainability is looking at DC fast charging for EVs
[5:56:48] and, frankly, Williams in transit is looking at mobility
[5:56:51] on demand and ITS.
[5:56:56] So then that's, if for me,
[5:56:59] we do have time for discussion at the end,
[5:57:01] but now I'm gonna welcome our stakeholder committee members
[5:57:05] who have volunteered their time to come speak with you all.
[5:57:09] So Irvine Casey, if you want to head on that.
[5:57:22] Thank you, Hannah.
[5:57:23] I'm Ana Mayo, and city council members.
[5:57:27] Thank you for having us.
[5:57:28] My name is Elvel Abono, and I am a resident of Diavale.
[5:57:34] Casey is here with me, but first I'd like to extend big thanks
[5:57:38] to you for entrusting us into this committee
[5:57:43] and for actually enabling us to collaboratively think about all those innovative ideas.
[5:57:51] I think we've had a lot of very spirited discussion in a very respectful environment.
[5:57:58] And that made this extremely productive from our standpoint.
[5:58:04] Casey, do you want to say World Workweek?
[5:58:06] I'll wrap it up over there.
[5:58:07] All right.
[5:58:08] All right, for the record, Casey and I both are going to discuss today the connection to the airport.
[5:58:15] I am on my day job with United Airlines.
[5:58:19] So I have a heavy airline background on the management side of the house and Casey also has a heavy airline background.
[5:58:28] So we're guilty to stop with.
[5:58:37] So let's speak a little bit about the traffic in Park City and how the traffic is shaped.
[5:58:44] If you look at this slide, you've seen this slide before, at least the left-hand side of
[5:58:49] this slide.
[5:58:50] And in the nutshell, if you look at the three key destination areas in Park City, over 90% of
[5:58:59] traffic it is we have in proxy is composed of visitors. But when you dissect this a little bit
[5:59:08] more, when you actually look at the traffic data and that you pull where those people are coming
[5:59:13] from, when we say visitors, really about a third of it comes from Utah, whether this be the front
[5:59:24] or the back of the West such front and 67% comes from out of state. If you then take that 67%
[5:59:35] that comes from out of state, 80% of it travels over 500 miles. So that gives you an idea
[5:59:45] that over the past five years, extending from January of 1997 through December of 2022.
[5:59:54] You have actually had 30 million people in Park City, as a destination.
[6:00:00] That troubled over 500 miles in that five-year timeframe. Now, those destinations are Main Street, the
[6:00:11] Valley Resort, Park City, Montana Resort, and thanks to Eric and Sarah for providing us with all those data,
[6:00:20] and then enabling us to do all those slicing and dicing up those data to get something meaningful.
[6:00:26] Now, one thing that this informs us is that realistically, this means, it's a factor that
[6:00:36] 17,000 people per day realistically could come from the airport to Pox City. If you think about
[6:00:46] the fact that you're likely to fly for distances greater than 500 miles. Now, we're not saying
[6:00:53] this is the entire of their pool right, but this is realistically something that you could look
[6:01:00] to tap into.
[6:01:04] So let's speak about a bus. Let's speak about bus connection and how this would
[6:01:08] actually benefit. Let's be very clear first that a bus is not going to remove people.
[6:01:19] It's going to displace people from a less dense mode of transportation to a denser mode of transportation.
[6:01:30] And so what it really does is you pull cars away from the roadways and you replace them with something that's actually more environmentally friendly.
[6:01:41] None of the call. And with something that's probably also more reliable, but that comes with some constraints.
[6:01:51] The advantage it carries for Poxity, of course, is that if you think about vision 2020, if you think about Poxity Forward,
[6:02:00] You're talking about reduction animations on a passenger mile basis of anywhere in between 17% between a car, or if you would get the double whammy if they come via the airplane, right?
[6:02:21] So you'd actually get 17% from the count to the bus, 27% from the car to the airplane.
[6:02:29] So overall, it's good, good, good goes around from environmental standpoint.
[6:02:35] What that does also mean is that in terms of infrastructure you need in the city, not
[6:02:39] going to park as many cars because now you have substituted transportation.
[6:02:46] When you do that, that does mean that you're still going to have a growth of infrastructure
[6:02:49] that you need to pop calls. It's not going to go as fast, then you otherwise would as you
[6:02:55] displace traffic. The displacement key here is very important.
[6:03:04] So that's overall reducing
[6:03:07] counter- traffic. The second aspect is that you sail-pock-city. You sail-pock-city does a
[6:03:12] destination. This is actually a proven motor. So we are already, I mean, we keep saying we are
[6:03:17] Evan on Earth, yeah, and that's the case.
[6:03:19] But this is Evan on Earth, but that's traffic.
[6:03:24] But we could actually sell Poxid as a destination,
[6:03:28] the airlines commonly do that.
[6:03:31] If you go back, if you roll the tape back to the 1990s,
[6:03:36] constantly, the airlines started both surveys
[6:03:38] between Alenton, Pennsylvania, and New York, New Jersey.
[6:03:42] And the goal was an environmental sustainability
[6:03:44] to be clear at the time. The goal was to expensive to operate jet service or to a
[6:03:51] proper service between those two cities and candidly a traffic congestion made it faster to
[6:03:58] put a bus on this route versus an airplane. We're not here to actually put an airplane
[6:04:04] between Park City and the airport that would not be extremely efficient, though you could
[6:04:10] become an EV tall, but what you can do, because we've started developing this all airlines
[6:04:19] actually now, do this, I'm making does this in actually Alenton to Philadelphia, United
[6:04:28] does this between Breckenridge and Denver and Colorado Springs and Denver, we do
[6:04:34] service with a premium bus service. You have Wi-Fi seamless passenger
[6:04:39] transition from the input, the passenger does not touch its bags going into the bus.
[6:04:47] So you remove those touch points and you create a seamless connection. So if you go back
[6:04:55] to what I mentioned a little bit earlier, 17,000 people per day.
[6:05:00] Now, you think of a bus that's a 52-seater, you think of 18 rotation per day, to feel your bus, you just need 6% market share.
[6:05:12] I just want that to sink in for a quick second. It's not a whole lot.
[6:05:16] And so you're able to sell poxidas a destination, but here's what matters.
[6:05:21] When nine books are next trip from where you from originally, from Seattle, she's not going to book you to Salt Lake City.
[6:05:34] She's going to book Seattle to Park City.
[6:05:37] That's what could be sold to you on the booking engine.
[6:05:43] And we commonly do that with all the destinations.
[6:05:46] And once you've booked your trip, it just becomes seamless, your baggage technical for you and so on and so forth.
[6:05:54] Now, this is all fine and dandy, but this does come with last mile challenges.
[6:06:02] And those last mile challenges is that once you arrive at this beautiful transit center, oh, else well, you still have a need for that last mile infrastructure.
[6:06:16] Now, there are several models that exist in the business.
[6:06:21] If this is completely handled by the airline, typically they are lined, like to have one destination, not several.
[6:06:27] But if you think about what the Colorado Mountain Express was, which is not the peak mountain express,
[6:06:35] the CME was just dropping off at every single destination, the passenger we're looking.
[6:06:40] So it's a different model. You sort of sort of solve the last mile problem.
[6:06:45] The other aspect is if you use a company in a landline,
[6:06:49] an American, United, Sun Country, we all use a landline to be candid.
[6:06:56] And Delta for the record has already investigated landline service to Poxity.
[6:07:03] It comes lower to them in the project release in terms of to be candid money
[6:07:08] And potential profit versus new routes, they have higher profitable opportunities ahead of a line of service to box city.
[6:07:18] But they have looked at this.
[6:07:20] If you look at this, this has the potential to solve some problems.
[6:07:28] It does also come if you go to a single destination with potential traffic challenges to be candid, where you're right.
[6:07:36] because now you have got to get picked up where you're right.
[6:07:40] Right, so again, the two different models need to be walked together.
[6:07:45] What that does mean, though, is at the end of the day, we have got to partner with the hotels,
[6:07:52] with the results to make sure that we ensure for those passengers that last mile,
[6:08:00] piece should we not go to the last mile? The advantage to this is once you
[6:08:06] set this up, you also have potential service for the residents to actually do the
[6:08:12] reverse. Now, we know the residents are not the bulk of the traffic, but this is
[6:08:16] an advantage if you will. The key though, and Casey will dive more into some of
[6:08:23] the details, but the key into all of this at the end of the day, is that we have a
[6:08:29] That name is Poxy. That name is extremely powerful. In fact, my friends are Delta, what I
[6:08:36] hear is if you not just sell a bit more Poxy resonates really well with the executive team.
[6:08:46] We have the potential for public private partnership to execute on this. Between PCMC and between
[6:08:57] airlines and between the results to help solve the problem. So we're not victim. We have
[6:09:02] opportunities out there that we can leverage and tap into with other parties and some
[6:09:09] parties are willing to dance. It's not even tango. He has more like a line dance to be able to
[6:09:16] solve the connection to the airport and that has a potential to really take out traffic.
[6:09:26] from the roadways and densified via that one medium of a bus.
[6:09:32] Now, we'll dive into the details.
[6:09:36] All right.
[6:09:37] Everybody, thank you very much.
[6:09:39] Again, thanks, everybody, for your time today.
[6:09:44] Everybody did a great job covering the potential ridership, the statistics, the data that's kind of behind decisions like this.
[6:09:51] The key part in making it work is being able to offer, you know, dependable, high quality service.
[6:09:59] Part of the background.
[6:10:00] That some of us brought to the table, we had both been with the airlines. I've done a lot of
[6:10:04] Amazon for many years in logistics. I also happen to live up in New England where I took the bus service
[6:10:10] every week from New Hampshire to the airport at Logan. So in terms of being in those areas where traffic is
[6:10:18] not what you'd like it and not what you'd like to kind of deal with on a regular basis, they have high quality
[6:10:24] the hourly service between Portsmouth, between Portland, Oregon, down to Logan Airport that
[6:10:29] is full of residents who travel that route and use this and set a driving their own vehicles.
[6:10:35] They don't have to pay to park and so on and so forth.
[6:10:37] So I think there's not only the bulk of the passengers are absolutely, would be the visitors
[6:10:42] who are traveling here and adds a tremendous value there, but it also has the opportunity
[6:10:47] to provide a tremendous amount of value for our local residents as well.
[6:10:51] Keyes to making it work, again, the dependable high quality service, you've got to be able
[6:10:57] to offer a service that is high frequency and as extensive hours of operation.
[6:11:02] You can't run a bus service where if somebody misses the bus by 10 minutes, they have to wait
[6:11:07] two and a half hours before the next bus comes or it doesn't operate on Saturdays or if
[6:11:13] my, you know, I won't pick on any of our, the airlines we work for, but if you're spirit
[6:11:17] flight, you know, is six hours late that now you don't have a way to get to Park City.
[6:11:23] So you've got to offer a service that, you know, because it doesn't take a lot of bad PR on
[6:11:28] TikTok to have people over nighting in the airport where it would, it would make it difficult.
[6:11:34] And again, having it operate year-round is also positive for the, you know, for the local residents.
[6:11:40] In terms of, you know, the quality of service, I think some of the basics at this point,
[6:11:43] power ports and Wi-Fi and the buses are pretty much standard for the industry these days.
[6:11:48] And then you're going to want to provide a service that's got a cost advantage over
[6:11:51] renting a car or any of the other services that are going to add vehicles that aren't
[6:11:57] taking it, you know, they're going to take vehicles away from the platform.
[6:12:00] So, you know, bus services generally a very economical solution.
[6:12:03] You've got 52 people on the bus being able to offer something that anybody would be able
[6:12:08] to realize this has a cost advantage over some of the other options.
[6:12:11] is we've all seen the prices on some of the black cars
[6:12:15] and the Uber's to get up here, especially,
[6:12:17] you know, even at non-peak periods,
[6:12:19] is usually at least $70 or $80.
[6:12:21] And then the experience on both ends is key.
[6:12:24] So at the airport, you've got to make an easy location
[6:12:28] for people to find at the airport.
[6:12:29] We have a beautiful new airport.
[6:12:31] That's not going to be hard to set up.
[6:12:33] Again, it's the same sort of structure.
[6:12:35] We've seen it at other airports.
[6:12:37] And then the baggage handling aspect of it.
[6:12:39] People obviously are traveling up to Park City
[6:12:41] in the winter time with lots of luggage and making the process easy for them to get to baggage
[6:12:46] claim and onto the bus is very important.
[6:12:49] And then on the park city side, everybody touched on it, you know, having those centrally
[6:12:54] located boarding points, part of what that also drives is part of the last mile challenge
[6:13:00] is having people understand when and where they're going to need to pick somebody up.
[6:13:05] So if you, if some of the hotels, some of the lodging companies were working to attract
[6:13:10] that they're going to know exactly what time that bus was going to arrive if they have passengers
[6:13:14] on that bus and where they're coming, which makes that process much simpler.
[6:13:20] And then offering boarding points that are weather-protected, you know, you can't have somebody
[6:13:24] they're going to be getting on the bus at 4 o'clock in the morning and they can't be standing
[6:13:28] outside when it's, you know, 15 degrees, you know, with their kids and so forth in a place
[6:13:33] that's not weather-protected and the luggage service on both ends as well.
[6:13:37] So, again, this is not something that we will have invented, so a lot of these services, a lot of these options that are offered in other locations are things that we can learn what has worked.
[6:13:52] And we think it could be something that really sets Park City a frankly apart from a lot of the other areas.
[6:13:58] And it just goes to reinforce how easy it is to get here versus just about any other ski resort in the country.
[6:14:04] And so finally, I just want to say my thanks to the Mayor, thanks to the City Council for putting the first supporting this and putting this together and for Hannah and Sarah and Alex and all the staff that we're a pleasure working with that they were extremely organized, brought their expertise and it was just a up pleasure to work with them and be a small part of this.
[6:14:24] So thank you very much.
[6:14:25] Thank you.
[6:14:36] I think I have the order right. Yes.
[6:14:43] Mayor.
[6:14:44] Council, it's an honor to be here. My name is Josh Finkin and I'm a resident of Park City and one of the topics that we looked at within the emerging disruptors committee is the one way loop and very briefly the one we loop.
[6:15:00] Full use of currents across to park avenue, park avenue south to do valley drive, full use of the lanes, up to do valley drive, up to
[6:15:12] Bananas of back to currents. So one giant roundabout, a disruptive idea to be sure. And so, you know, the full details and nuts and bolts will come out in the final report, but this group was generally not supportive.
[6:15:29] of the idea on, you know, 24, 7, 365 days a year basis. We were interested in the idea
[6:15:39] thought about it, found it very interesting and thought that maybe we could understand more
[6:15:45] with a pilot program specifically targeting some of the peak times that we've discussed and we
[6:15:51] all know about earlier. The last second bullet point that I want to touch on very briefly that I'm
[6:15:57] excited about is our connection from this committee to PC caps and PC caps is the Park City Center
[6:16:05] for advanced professional studies. It is a project based learning program for 11th and 12th
[6:16:13] graders at our high school and so caps is a national program. PC caps is a I think of like
[6:16:19] our local chapter and full disclosure I am on the board of PC caps and as Hannah mentioned I'm a
[6:16:27] You know, software solutions, computer science robotics strand, and so I'm really excited to say that of the nine topics that we didn't get to.
[6:16:41] The PC caps projects and the students that were picking up one of them around connected autonomous vehicles and supporting technologies.
[6:16:49] smart corridors, connected infrastructure, you know, today, so to speak, autonomous vehicles
[6:16:57] and vehicles have to learn to predict stop signs, traffic signals, those are for humans.
[6:17:03] Tomorrow, those vehicles will communicate directly with those pieces of infrastructure.
[6:17:09] And so the PCCAP students and project will be looking at that topic and really using the same
[6:17:15] framework that we're using within the emerging disrupters committee answering the same questions
[6:17:21] Woohoo will primarily benefit from something like a connected autonomous vehicle ride share
[6:17:27] Does it help park city reach its goals and so I'm really excited about our connection with camps
[6:17:33] Thank you
[6:17:36] Any one more time
[6:17:41] Victoria
[6:17:43] Hi
[6:17:53] everyone. I'm Victoria Schluffer. I'm part of the emerging disruptors group and transportation
[6:17:57] planning manager at Dear Valley Resort. I'm talking about aerial gondolas, which you might think
[6:18:04] connect well to ski resorts. So I grew up talked about aerial gondolas as part of the transportation
[6:18:12] network and overall we kind of talked about it in a few different senses like maybe running along
[6:18:18] the 224248 corridors and then a couple other like non-traditional connections. We would not
[6:18:25] really recommend looking at Gondola's on 224248 corridors just because of increased travel
[6:18:31] time, it like vehicles versus a Gondola would be longer. But we did think that there might be a
[6:18:39] good opportunity to identify different connections from parking lots, parking red lots just directly
[6:18:46] to the resorts, depending on where those parking lot park and ride lots land, and really with
[6:18:52] a focus on kind of making those park and ride lots in a rival experience. So when you're arriving
[6:18:58] at that park and ride lot, you don't just feel like you are maybe at Richardson flat in the middle of
[6:19:04] nowhere, but you're arriving at your value resort and or Park City Mountain, and then you're getting on
[6:19:09] Gondola and ready to start your ski day from there and so yeah, our recommendation on this one is really to kind of find creative paths that could connect in to resorts in different ways from places that we can capture vehicles.
[6:19:27] Thank you.
[6:19:39] Well, I'll try to be as brief and concise and again, one of parathy, the appreciation for being included, Mayor and Council members, it's been an honor to be of work with this crowd. Everyone brings a lot to the table.
[6:19:56] So, I was tasked with looking at vehicle streets.
[6:20:00] On vehicle free streets, maybe a little bit of a misnomer, go to the next slide here, so you know, the, the, so the idea, you know, the disruptive idea and short was prioritizing people over cars for, you know, principal streets or clauses and I think one of the features that this committee really landed on was the challenges of doing kind of temporary and special event.
[6:20:31] oriented street closures because, you know, businesses and can't really take advantage of those
[6:20:40] fully because it's hard for them to plan and staff and supply those kinds of events. But if
[6:20:46] if there were an opportunity to kind of re-look at our civil plan and look at permanent solutions
[6:20:53] that might change that balance a little bit, not necessarily have no cars, but have limited
[6:20:59] cars or or or limited timing or a variety of things that there might be an opportunity that could
[6:21:06] expand and be very helpful for local businesses as well as potentially expand other business
[6:21:12] opportunities. So the keys to success here we've veiled was you know pairing it with convenient
[6:21:20] transit options and and proximate parking because clearly you want to capture people that whole
[6:21:25] of parking once and create, you know, business plans, you know, businesses can actually plan
[6:21:31] around this over a long period of time. We'd improve some of the accessibility, you know,
[6:21:37] not have some of the curves and some of the issues of general accessibility that we have
[6:21:42] in town. And I think another point that was raised was that we didn't really view this as a, as a
[6:21:49] taxpayer funded initiative, so much as a, you know, trying to identify revenue streams
[6:21:55] with potentially a resort option sales tax or or tip or something to create a revenue stream
[6:22:01] against which we could bond for the improvements. And, you know, the areas, you know, it's not,
[6:22:07] you know, Main Street's an obvious choice, although obviously it's been tried or discussed and
[6:22:13] met with mixed mixed emotions. But as we plan for BoPA or other areas of town, there's probably
[6:22:20] an opportunity to do so kind of really have this concept of people over cars from the very
[6:22:27] beginning of the planning. So, you know, this is actually a project that I was involved in
[6:22:32] back east, and I think some of the, some of the, some of the small area planning committees
[6:22:37] have had a chance to view this where, you know, there's a street that has cars on it certain times
[6:22:42] of the day, but has, you know, cafes, zones, transit zones, walking zones, bike zones, there's no
[6:22:47] terms, it's kind of done with with ballards and texture. So there's a lot of neat opportunities out there, kind of nationally and internationally and thought it was something that was worth looking at here in Park City. Thank you.
[6:23:10] So this is our last one and I'm also going to use this is opportunity to segue into a discussion. I think a lot of the point Stephen is going to bring will do that nicely so.
[6:23:20] Um, I'll let him take a look.
[6:23:23] Like the disruptive summary.
[6:23:26] Oops, sorry.
[6:23:27] I like the way.
[6:23:29] Um, first of all, I think, and the whole committee putting this together, this was actually
[6:23:33] a lot of fun.
[6:23:34] It took a lot of time, but there's a lot of good dialogue that went into this.
[6:23:38] And what I think really came out of this, the most is that there's a lot of community members
[6:23:43] that we can really top into because we've got a lot of resources that are available to us.
[6:23:48] They're rich with experience from global travels, to business insight, and it's something
[6:23:54] I'd definitely want to encourage the community to keep doing. We've seen this in the committee
[6:24:00] in the sense that there's so much more that we can tap into. We should harness more as we look
[6:24:04] into the future of Park City. And so much of the ideas that you heard today and probably are going
[6:24:10] to hear at later times really require more of a deeper collaboration. We had a really good group
[6:24:18] people that we work with, my sense is that as we look at how we're going to shape the future
[6:24:24] of the city, there's probably other constituencies that we should be looking into. Obviously,
[6:24:28] the resorts are the biggest draw, right? So we think about what's generating all this traffic
[6:24:33] all as if traffic is a bad word, but how do we look to them for disruptive ideas? Right now
[6:24:43] with the exception of the Mayflower coming on board, we continue to try and funnel
[6:24:48] everybody into this little tiny corridor, right? So there's one entrance into PCMR. There's one
[6:24:53] entrance into the canyons. There was one entrance into the dear valley for the most part.
[6:25:00] We look to the resort to potentially look at other ways where people can actually get into the mountain.
[6:25:06] That would solve lots of different options. We're also present a lot more opportunities.
[6:25:11] The other thing is we think about these constituencies, like hotels, the business operators.
[6:25:16] And a really important constituency is the youth of this town. A lot of the things that we talk about is focused on future 5, 10 years out.
[6:25:25] And so incorporating more of a youthful perspective,
[6:25:29] I think would be really helpful.
[6:25:30] Because ideally, they're gonna be the ones
[6:25:33] who are going to evangelize it
[6:25:35] and help bring a lot of these things to site.
[6:25:39] The world's moving a light speed, right?
[6:25:41] We all know this.
[6:25:42] The barriers to entry for most aspects of business
[6:25:44] and community in life are getting lower and lower.
[6:25:47] And technologies obviously, a catalyst for this.
[6:25:50] Anybody here who's got a teenager or below
[6:25:52] knows that everything is now, now, now, and the idea that it is not now creates all kinds of
[6:25:59] tension, conflict, and confusion. So, as we think about the ideas that we're talking about,
[6:26:05] if we look at them in the vision of some of the younger people who are going to be utilizing this,
[6:26:10] a sense of seamlessness, less friction and speed, I think, are going to be really important.
[6:26:16] So that forces us to change from mindset of being reactive to one that's
[6:26:23] to one that's being more proactive. We're in a really
[6:26:27] enviable position. We live in a town the thousands and thousands of people seek out
[6:26:34] every year to come to. A lifestyle is unmatched as young generations
[6:26:38] favor experiences and this balance between live work and play Park City
[6:26:44] really represents an ideal location. So with that opportunity,
[6:26:48] things that we should think about how we're going to embrace this, how do we use data and the global experiences of all the people of coming here to think about how we shape this future.
[6:26:59] And if we remain mired and red tape and endless dialogue, we're not going to get anywhere.
[6:27:04] One of the things that was really interesting, Sarah and I kind of sidebarred on this was the fact that a lot of these ideas have been thought about.
[6:27:11] Like many of you who've been here for a long and I have,
[6:27:14] none of this is like new,
[6:27:16] but the question becomes at our core,
[6:27:19] how do we really make some of these things actionable?
[6:27:23] And then who are we solving for?
[6:27:25] Who are we planning for?
[6:27:26] Not just for today, but for tomorrow and as we continue
[6:27:29] to think about this canvas of Park City,
[6:27:32] it's gonna change colors, it's gonna have new data,
[6:27:34] it's gonna have new perspective,
[6:27:36] but the preservation of the town
[6:27:39] is the most important and at its core, that preservation is the people, right? So, as we think
[6:27:46] about how we approach all of these, I just, one of the things I kept pushing back on is who we
[6:27:53] trying to solve for. And so, as we think about these, they're all going to be impacted in different ways.
[6:27:59] How we determine our next steps and as we plan was going to be impactful to all of these. So,
[6:28:04] with that in mind, I just want to say thank you again and appreciate all the
[6:28:07] conversation and continue dollar.
[6:28:21] As a recap, when you have one more topic workshop, it's going to be over tunnels, and then we will get together to get the group's final recommendations, return to council with those recommendations and next steps, and then we will wrap up the project with a comprehensive report.
[6:28:39] I'm happy to answer any questions or discussion.
[6:28:45] Well, thank you, Hannah, for your leadership on this, and thank you again to our disrupters
[6:28:50] that took their own time to study all these things and make some recommendations to us.
[6:28:56] Council, what questions do you have?
[6:29:00] Do we get to come up with our own airport call sign if we go with that shuttle thing?
[6:29:07] So, yeah, who was responsible for the airport connection was something that came up, but don't know about the airport sign.
[6:29:15] for a lot. Perfect.
[6:29:26] Cool.
[6:29:29] Thank you.
[6:29:31] 90s movie.
[6:29:32] It is a 90s movie.
[6:29:33] I just want to say this is phenomenal.
[6:29:36] Niana and Sarah and everyone who worked on it.
[6:29:37] I think it's so incredibly creative and smart to use members of our community who have very different points of view.
[6:29:44] who we don't always hear from and I'm just in awe of this process. So really good job. And I
[6:29:50] may appreciate all of the, all that's come out of it. I have some just like independent questions
[6:29:56] on some of these. And so I don't know if...
[6:30:02] Okay, so one of my questions when we were looking at what Peter discussed with the vehicle free streets was, did this group look at streets that are at an incline?
[6:30:13] Yeah, so that was one thing that did come up, and one of the reasons why I think Peter mentioned, like it's a vehicle trees a bit of not accurate to what the group ended up recommending.
[6:30:23] One thing that we did wanted to make sure we included was some, you know, it's going to have to be like vehicle delivery vehicles and things like that.
[6:30:33] But also potentially using some sort, like does the trolley stay some sort of, and I understand that in the past this has kind of been talked about.
[6:30:42] And there are definitely like some safety concerns with if there's no curb if pedestrians are in the street and then they're still like a moving vehicle.
[6:30:50] But speaking of autonomous vehicles, there are autonomous shuttles that exist that could help with that.
[6:30:59] So, great. I will say the Salt Lake Connector is so smart. I mean, I lived in Colorado for a long time ago, and this was something I did every time I went to the airport.
[6:31:11] Now, I just goes back to me like, I took me every time I never drove and so it's kind of crazy that we don't necessarily do that and then I just two questions on the one way.
[6:31:22] So did we, is there a reason why or did we even think of looking at creating old town as one ways where going to the resort would be empire south,
[6:31:33] or if there's something like that and then going back and forth that way so that these streets are super small and they became one way this winter, so I think we've had some practice on that.
[6:31:43] We didn't talk about that as a group, but Alex is inching towards me, so I don't know if you.
[6:31:50] Yeah, we didn't look at it as we didn't look at that as part of this group.
[6:31:54] It was really just that, so specific.
[6:31:57] Um, which you kind of thought we might get into that, but we really say right there on that loop.
[6:32:03] So, and then last one, in inside of that square, would the streets like homestay and,
[6:32:10] oh my gosh, and forgetting the name of the other street in the middle, um,
[6:32:13] would they remain two way?
[6:32:15] Yeah, so the consideration of connectivity, um, did come up with that.
[6:32:20] Um, so Munchkin and Homestay work.
[6:32:22] We didn't really test necessarily say if they'd be one way or one or not.
[6:32:26] But we did the group did anticipate that there would be increased cut through through those areas so that was just something that they noted that if this were to become a permanent feature would definitely need to be considered.
[6:32:41] I'm also having lived in Denver getting used to one way streets with something I thought I couldn't do and then immediately within like a month
[6:32:48] I was like whoa, this is so yeah. Yeah. So I moved here from Portland, which has a lot of one way streets downtown and I got so used to it in fact that I forgot that downtown could not be one way
[6:33:00] So I moved to Salt Lake and was driving on the wrong side of the road here and it really helped us with bike safety to get really really does
[6:33:09] And the questions, right?
[6:33:11] Why assume we're not, I mean, I guess it's a question about going forward.
[6:33:14] Each of these topics could be their own deep dive, right?
[6:33:17] So how do we, what's the plan for taking this and digging into the individual concepts?
[6:33:23] Or what do we do not have this kind of land with a flood on a desk and like take some things
[6:33:27] and push them forward?
[6:33:29] So each of these topics were looked at by the group and they really did a good job of setting
[6:33:33] the parameters.
[6:33:34] like, I have a trade mention with the Gondola, originally, you know, staff had kind of conceptualized it, you know, either being like a internal system or, you know, just like taking you from Richardson flat into Bananas of Park and then you would get to destination from there.
[6:33:52] So, the plan, our next steps for this, we plan to get those recommendations finalized
[6:33:58] improvisation lists from the group, and also because some hybrid approaches, like, do we
[6:34:03] would it make more sense to do a reversible lane so that we could get a bus lane or how can we
[6:34:09] combine some of these strategies? So, this group really is just setting the parameters which ones
[6:34:15] have merit which one should we should the city further pursue and then, yeah, it would be
[6:34:22] an individual or combined depending on, okay? I think our intent would be to take the recommendation
[6:34:29] list, present them to you and then give you the option of how you would want us to advance them
[6:34:35] through further study or something to that effect. I think what the group's doing is a really good
[6:34:41] of setting the conditions where they think this makes sense and we think that those will be
[6:34:46] really helpful coming to you. They've given us these conditions. Do you agree with these conditions
[6:34:50] and how would you like us to move forward with them? Does that public-private partnership? Is that
[6:34:54] coordinating with you dot? I think there's a number of next steps that would come out of this.
[6:35:00] My questions kind of go back to the five fundamental questions of who, what, when, where, and why. And that came out of final part of this presentation, who are we solving for each of these emerging disruptors solve a slightly different problem for a slightly different group of people.
[6:35:21] And I guess the question that I feel like maybe I've asked them the wrong way a number of times is.
[6:35:29] Do we actually have a problem?
[6:35:32] I'm not sure what the problem is if it can be really well defined.
[6:35:37] I know for some folks there's a big problem, right?
[6:35:40] For a handful of people who are, well, the 13,000 cars a day that are traveling in and out of park city.
[6:35:46] You know, out of particular time the day, there's a problem for them.
[6:35:49] But I just don't know how to define what a problem is.
[6:35:52] is 65 days of traffic, actually the definition of a problem that we need to fix with an emergent
[6:35:59] disruptor, or some of these other incremental solutions that we're talking about getting
[6:36:04] people out of cars outside of town, does that actually mitigate the problem for long enough that
[6:36:09] an emergent disruptor is over and above what we could potentially ever need? I'm curious if the
[6:36:17] group had that conversation and then sort of what comes out of that, but I do want to start
[6:36:24] and finish each of these conversations with, do we have a problem? What's the definition
[6:36:29] of a problem? And then does that exist here? Because I don't want to be going down this road of
[6:36:36] tunnels, traw, traw, these gondolas, you know, one way is if it's for something that most of us
[6:36:44] consider a problem. I'm not saying that's the case, but I'm also not totally convinced that we
[6:36:49] have a problem big enough to justify this type of disruption idea yet. Yeah, I'd like to agree with
[6:36:57] them. When this does come back for further discussion, it would be really helpful to understand
[6:37:02] really precisely. What is the problem we're trying to solve with this disruptive idea?
[6:37:07] So we can have that discussion knowing what the outcome is we're trying to achieve, right?
[6:37:14] It's not just like we're going to throw some crazy ideas on the wall for fun, we need to see what's coming out of them.
[6:37:23] Yeah, that definitely appreciate those questions.
[6:37:26] Those definitely came up.
[6:37:27] We started every discussion with what problem does this seek to solve.
[6:37:31] And what we found was the script really was interested in a lot of regional solutions.
[6:37:35] So looking at that airport connection and a passenger rail from Salt Lake City, to kind of
[6:37:41] answer the corridor that tended to be what the group gravitated towards as far as the problem
[6:37:49] that they're solving for. Some of them were more localized and like the vehicle free streets,
[6:37:53] one of the problems with that and that being like that came up was talking about how Park City residents
[6:37:59] don't necessarily go to mean shoot as much anymore and making that a place that they feel more connected
[6:38:04] to. But yes, yes, that did come up a lot. Like, who are we solving for? And it's a difficult thing
[6:38:12] to parse out because a lot of these things, we may intend it for one person, and there's always
[6:38:18] externalities of how that impacts others. But yeah, I agree. We want to be multimodal, but is there
[6:38:23] such thing as too many modes and too much disruption? So to build on that a little bit, what could
[6:38:30] be helpful, or I'll just throw it out there, speaking of disruption,
[6:38:37] not convinced that our community
[6:38:40] perceives there to truly be a broad traffic problem, right, to bring that in the next level,
[6:38:46] that it's not necessarily the worst thing that it's hard to get in and out of the city at certain
[6:38:51] times. I mean, that's the reality. So if we can have some kind of sampling done that supports,
[6:38:59] maybe our assumption that there is a problem we're trying to solve on that front, and maybe
[6:39:05] helps us narrow in on, know the real problem is morning and afternoon traffic on 248, right?
[6:39:11] It's not this broad, we have a traffic problem discussion that that would really help us get to
[6:39:16] better decisions. Okay, thank you. One more question.
[6:39:23] How have we had conversations with the schools?
[6:39:26] So I think there, it always seems to come up and we kind of skirt around it a little bit or like talk around it.
[6:39:34] But like, is it really hard for our high schoolers to get into school every morning?
[6:39:39] Are they having an issue? Is it hard for parents to drop off and then pull in?
[6:39:44] Like I just wondered, is there been any conversations about schools?
[6:39:47] Because I do feel like sometimes that is part of our traffic conversation is the school.
[6:39:52] Yeah, with this we're we are working at the university high school students but not we have not as part of this process have not talked to administrators about this
[6:40:00] Generally, I do get the sense that there's a bit of a problem right in there. It seems like there's always traffic in the morning's, when school is in session.
[6:40:09] So I think that by working with a PC caps group, that is something that I hope to understand more, they're going to be holding focus groups with their peers.
[6:40:18] So we can kind of understand what the students perspective is in that.
[6:40:23] But that is something that we can explore in the future somewhere.
[6:40:28] One, one other request add to that, besides that.
[6:40:31] I think Stephen had on it that we do want to expand this group moving forward.
[6:40:34] And I think the high school is great.
[6:40:36] I feel like we were in normal chambers.
[6:40:38] I'd be sitting up here.
[6:40:39] That's not for good.
[6:40:41] The other lens when it comes back.
[6:40:44] We really helpful is getting to the same level of specificity on how these ideas address parking issues.
[6:40:52] Right, where are the parking issues and how they address them.
[6:40:54] But segmenting it and getting to that level of detail where we can act, where we define outcomes,
[6:41:00] just like we do with micro transit and fixed route buses and everything else. It's it's just a
[6:41:05] little broader. Thanks.
[6:41:09] Yeah, I do see this as like the first the very first step of this process.
[6:41:17] So definitely something. Thank you so much. And thanks again to the group for all the hard work
[6:41:23] you put into this. It's fascinating. We're heading towards the finish line here and
[6:41:31] does anybody need a break before we talk about Gordo? Look at the go. Okay. Well, in different
[6:41:38] transportation solutions, discussions that we've had as a Council of Gordo a lot has come up
[6:41:43] numerous times as a possible intercept lot and at the Spring Council retreat that we had,
[6:41:49] we asked staff to spend some time looking at the feasibility of the city on Gordor Park so as a park
[6:41:56] and ride. So looking forward to
[6:42:02] that.
[6:42:12] All right, final topic, very exciting.
[6:42:16] Sarah Pierce, deputy city manager. We are here to talk to you about the Gordor property,
[6:42:21] feasibility work that we've done. We continue to talk about the need for an
[6:42:25] our sub-lot at our 248 entry corridor to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles coming
[6:42:31] in the town. In March, at the March retreat, you all directed us to explore the city owned
[6:42:39] Gordo property as a potential parking ride. This property has a lot of history, including soils
[6:42:46] depository, which we will review in this section, along with an overview of the quick analysis we
[6:42:51] as a first step. We recognize that this is the first conversation and there needs to be a robust
[6:42:58] community engagement process before we make any decisions about this property. But let's get started.
[6:43:05] Heinrich, take it away.
[6:43:08] Next slide. I think. So this is just a who-what-win-where-why of
[6:43:13] So Gordo is a collectively referred to, this is about 17 acres that we refer to as Gordo.
[6:43:20] There's a map associated with it. There's five or six acquisitions that actually make up Gordo.
[6:43:26] We've provided that in your packet, so you can see the staff reports associated with seeing some of the meeting minutes.
[6:43:32] I think more importantly to note on this, the law on Sanchez, which are the green and yellow parcels.
[6:43:37] Those are purchased with open space, bond funds, okay, so those are restricted as open space.
[6:43:42] The rest of them are sort of a lamb-baking, if you will, aspect, and that's why these properties, in my opinion, have sort of stayed out there and seen numerous iterations or ideas sort of float across in the past few years.
[6:43:56] Additionally in your packet, you have some information on the general plan. There's principles from the 2004, I think it was.
[6:44:03] joint twins joint planning principles. And then this a lot of the area was annexed in well some of the area was annexed in 2015 and there's some applications associated with
[6:44:15] possible planning aspects associated with with the Gordo properties. So
[6:44:21] lastly, what I want to say, you know, if you have any questions I'm here to answer, but there's two uses that are there that are really important. And if
[6:44:29] whatever we choose I think we need to address those. One is soils. I think Ryan will hit on those. I know he's
[6:44:34] virtual at the moment. But Troy and his team dude use this as a public works material recycling and in the back
[6:44:42] decanting process. Troy's there behind you. He can explain what that means. I don't know if I could tell you
[6:44:47] But the point of that is it did go through a permitting process. This isn't just like a pick up a
[6:44:51] move it over to someplace else. It is something that we'd have to address moving for it. So if you have any
[6:44:56] questions for me or anything and the stuff report. If not.
[6:45:00] Go and fast. I'll pass it to the next person.
[6:45:03] Oh, I'm next to. Oh.
[6:45:08] As a collection of those parcels, one of the parcels we acquired from Utah to their surplus property process.
[6:45:14] I think we did that in 2016, 2017. We actually entered into that process again.
[6:45:20] A few years back, it was delayed pretty heavily because of COVID.
[6:45:23] But they have identified the parcel there that's highlighted about five, I mean, about half an acre, as being surplus, we are subject to the U. process associated with that, but we're pretty far along in that process and should council it would come back to council.
[6:45:40] So you could agree to move forward with that acquisition or you could just disregard it. So it's important to know.
[6:45:50] How do I hand that over time?
[6:45:52] Can everyone hear me?
[6:45:55] Yes.
[6:45:56] Great.
[6:45:57] Sorry, I'm recovering from a cold, so I am at home.
[6:46:00] But just to give a quick recap of where we're at on the solar remediation.
[6:46:05] And to really back up this story began in the fall of 2021 after the city,
[6:46:09] withdrew their application to have a solar repository on site.
[6:46:13] Utah Department of Environmental Quality sent a letter to the city asking what the plan is for the site.
[6:46:20] Shortly after that I was hired and began the process of bringing to you a list of options to council in September of 2022.
[6:46:29] At that meeting it was decided that I would proceed with a voluntary cleanup through the environmental cleanup program with DEQ.
[6:46:37] I entered into that program in September.
[6:46:40] I went through an RFP process to choose a consultant
[6:46:42] to help guide us through the process
[6:46:45] and started that work with sampling this summer
[6:46:49] and we'll kind of dive in through those other milestones as we go.
[6:46:52] Next slide.
[6:46:56] So the soil sampling was unsurprising
[6:46:58] from the results we did the sampling over a week.
[6:47:02] In July, we broke the site up kind of according to the characteristics on site, you know, focusing on the pile that was, you know, placed years ago, the current uses with public works and then the yellow we used as background information so the sampling showed the yellow was consistent with background levels of what an arsenic and other metals that we tested for and then purple and blue we found some contamination.
[6:47:32] in those areas. Next slide.
[6:47:37] Part of the sampling efforts is we use that data to conduct a risk
[6:47:40] assessment. This is a statutory process through environmental quality regulations. The inputs
[6:47:48] were from the sampling efforts in July and we did a dual assessment looking at both commercial
[6:47:55] uses and also residential. And the standards for those are different and why we did both of them.
[6:48:01] I wanted to keep the options open for whatever we might do later on down the road.
[6:48:07] From that dual risk assessment, the recommendation is that we haul off all the contaminated
[6:48:13] soil on the property. This is due to the fact that from a risk perspective,
[6:48:21] all in that soil is the easiest and most effective way to receive a kind of closure certificate
[6:48:28] from DEQ. Next slide. So just looking at the next steps. Currently our risk assessment is
[6:48:37] under review by DEQ. Once we get comments back from them to proceed, we'll finalize that
[6:48:44] assessment. We'll use the data from the sampling and the risk assessment to develop a corrective
[6:48:49] action plan that'll essentially tell us how much soil doing it and move, where will it be
[6:48:55] those stuff, how will we do that effectively and safely? My plan is to develop that
[6:49:02] corrective action plan over the fall and winter and then engage with an excavator
[6:49:07] contract in the spring and summer and remove all the soil that is on site. Using
[6:49:13] home state numbers, I estimate from where we are right now again, I don't have exact
[6:49:18] numbers on how much soil would need to be removed, but I would guess it would cost somewhere
[6:49:25] between three and four million dollars to remove all of that soil. And that is all I have.
[6:49:34] Does anybody have any soil questions for Ryan before we go forward?
[6:49:42] Three to three to four. Three, three, two, four million. Right, Ryan.
[6:49:46] That's correct. Using numbers from the whole state remediation that we did to get that lower number.
[6:49:52] And then the four million is what I estimated last fall in September.
[6:50:00] One point in time we had talked about the idea of bearing it in place and capping it or doing or but is this is this less expensive is that how you got to this point or.
[6:50:15] So the I think.
[6:50:18] The risk assessment is really what would inform the use on that property, and we evaluated it for if you wanted to put some sort of commercial structure on there, you know, like a public work building or a restaurant or, you know, anywhere that you might have people that would work indoors, and then we also evaluated it from a residential perspective, so if you wanted to put houses on that property, what would that look like.
[6:50:45] And, and both of those results came back that really the risk level is better to remove all the soil than to try to cap it in place.
[6:50:54] So while it might be less expensive to cap in place, if you wanted to develop the property, you would need to remove it per this environmental cleanup program with the state.
[6:51:04] Did that answer your question?
[6:51:06] Yes.
[6:51:09] Any other questions?
[6:51:11] All right, so over the years we've heard a lot of ideas for this property, currently we are using it for public works and that has an essential need on the site, which we need to be factoring into our future plans, whether we accommodate that public works need or we find a suitable alternative location.
[6:51:31] The main discussion today is about a parking ride because that's the direction that we received in March.
[6:51:37] But we're going to touch on a few other ideas as well, such as mixed use of portable housing trails and open space, etc.
[6:51:44] So I'm going to turn it over now to Alex.
[6:51:52] So recently we worked with the county to establish a RFP to select a regional parking ride,
[6:51:59] consultant to help us look at what regionally throughout
[6:52:03] Summit County and even into Washington County and maybe touching
[6:52:05] on Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, where in what park and
[6:52:09] ride locations do we need to achieve? And what is the strategy
[6:52:14] for getting there? So the first step of that will be to look at
[6:52:17] the travel into the city, both into the city and into
[6:52:21] you know, Kimball Junction area. It's like, okay, what percentage
[6:52:24] of those trips during a time that we established, do we want to
[6:52:27] in these parking right lots. And then working back from that baseline establishment of we're trying to
[6:52:32] solve this problem that we have during these times we think we need to accommodate
[6:52:36] X amount of cars at intercept lots then going and saying okay where do we believe the best
[6:52:42] places for those intercept lots are and how do we want to activate them. So kind of a two phase process
[6:52:48] of that that project is just selecting the consultant now and we anticipate the project to take
[6:52:53] about a year to establish that but I think what's we have that will have a really better
[6:52:57] understanding and collaboration with the county on what we're hoping to achieve with
[6:53:02] park and ride activation and then what the transit impacts would be to those locations.
[6:53:08] So, you know, we were funded by Udats, we'll always want to thank them and we should be rolling out
[6:53:14] kind of the initial process of this plan in the next month or two. But again, the idea is to really
[6:53:19] Like, I think it's something that we've kind of done a little bit piecemilly or really take a proactive approach to deciding what we need in the future for park and ride lots.
[6:53:33] So, before you can move forward, you think a little bit where you came from and park and ride history.
[6:53:39] So, just quick snapshot while we're thinking regionally about park and rides.
[6:53:43] In 2016, there was a regional parking, blue ribbon parking committee convened by Summit County.
[6:53:49] And it was determined that some accounting would lead looking at park and ride access along to 24.
[6:53:57] And Park City would look at park and rides in the vicinity of 248.
[6:54:00] And that's how Echer Hill park and ride was born.
[6:54:05] And the regional sales tax revenue for transportation that was voted in 2016.
[6:54:10] That money went to that particular project.
[6:54:12] So Park City we've been looking in this area.
[6:54:14] And, you know, we had a successful season last year piloting Richardson flat, and then we also are responding to you on the March direction.
[6:54:24] I think one of the main things is out touched on that we're looking to get the number of parking cells for the parking demand.
[6:54:31] But also think about, are we going with the string of pearls looking first park and ride strategy like our existing Richardson flat, maybe another one, such as Gordo or something else,
[6:54:41] Or are we looking at one major strategy for one particular park and ride so that will be another by product and we have to of course think about where we come from so with that I'll hand it over to John.
[6:54:54] I mean, Julia, mine is just a real breach, so after we had limited the use of the group.
[6:55:00] Roll site for the soils repository. We wanted to look to see what how that would that site score for a parking lot. We had just recently completed a day in analysis, becoming a performance criteria to define a parking ride in various properties of city had owned out in this area. At the time, the first study was done. We did not own the Gordo site. I'm sorry. The Gordo site was already identified as sole soil as a projectory story. It was not included in there.
[6:55:24] we added it in using that same performance criteria to say how well it would score. It did score well.
[6:55:30] I do want to acknowledge the fact that the original publication of this showed a much higher score for
[6:55:38] the the Gordo site, but we did we did get notified by some residents and council members and we
[6:55:43] corrected that. And so the what's reflected there now meets that using that same criteria.
[6:55:48] So it still scores well as a park and ride, but maybe not as superior as a reason that appeared so.
[6:55:57] Back to Alex.
[6:55:59] So building off the Spring Pantle Retreat,
[6:56:03] we did a high level look at to see if this location would even be feasible for park and ride and stop.
[6:56:09] Knowing that there's a lot of other analysis and community input that would go into this prior to any movement on this process.
[6:56:17] So we hired a procurement consultant to and they kind of gave us the baseline what they think of effective surface level park and ride lot would be at this location. I say surface level. So, you know, this would not include, you know, activating the space in other ways, including housing or mixed use development that would require structured parking. We just looked to see if this was feasible, and all so on a high level look, you know, we figured we could fit in about 825 parking stalls with some potential area.
[6:56:47] to expand if that demand was needed to the north section.
[6:56:52] Three bus phays, a shelter, a bus lay-over area with public restroom and information center,
[6:56:58] an operator space, you know, this would probably be the end-of-the-line facility,
[6:57:01] so giving them another space to, you know, take their breaks and whatnot,
[6:57:05] a green space element, and then a city maintenance shed, or everything.
[6:57:09] So, as you can see, it uses up a lot of the Gordo parcel,
[6:57:12] but that we do think that it would be feasible from just a very baseline,
[6:57:16] and could we fit a park and ride lot in here next slide?
[6:57:21] And so once we established, okay, what kind of
[6:57:23] are the initial parameters of the park and ride study we wanted
[6:57:26] to see, like, okay, what would it meet from almost
[6:57:28] a back of the napkin level environmental analysis?
[6:57:32] So we looked at right away soil, environmental,
[6:57:36] such as protected species, both animal and plant,
[6:57:40] traffic impacts, utilities, topography, and the overall size.
[6:57:44] And we found, you know, from this initial look that none of these rows to the criteria,
[6:57:50] there would be a significant enough fatal flaw that this was impossible.
[6:57:53] So could we do it?
[6:57:54] Yes, should we do it?
[6:57:56] That's still something we need to evaluate.
[6:57:59] The rough estimate came back at about 30,
[6:58:01] 32 million dollars in 2006 money.
[6:58:04] A lot of this was a contingency for increased construction costs.
[6:58:08] Some of the biggest cost to this was the soil remediation.
[6:58:12] And then the other big big cost of this was just basically flattening the surface enough to make it suitable for a parking right lot.
[6:58:19] Well, it's not, you know, a huge mountain. There's enough topography right now that it is pretty difficult to build just a flat.
[6:58:25] So those were probably the two biggest price price points to this project. And then, you know, the other stuff was pretty expensive as well, including the bus shelter and the charging stations.
[6:58:35] Um, things that we wanted to be very clear that this study did not include, included,
[6:58:40] put in death pedestrian connectivity and safety, aesthetics and wayfinding.
[6:58:44] We're not part of this as well as planning and what current restrictions would be on this land.
[6:58:49] We, you know, we kind of took the approach to like if it was really determined that this was the
[6:58:53] way we wanted to move forward, we could, we could overcome those obstacles.
[6:58:57] Um, so there are major, you know, power lines running through there as we talked about before
[6:59:01] and sewers kind of runs along 248.
[6:59:04] And so those some of those things are maybe not
[6:59:05] as significantly large hurdles
[6:59:08] as some of the soil and topography would be.
[6:59:11] And then I touched on this, but we definitely
[6:59:14] did not go to aesthetics, public perception,
[6:59:17] and zoning for this.
[6:59:18] We recognize that those are very critical elements
[6:59:20] to making this an attractive solution.
[6:59:24] But we did not dive into them just seeing like I mentioned
[6:59:27] before is this possible at all.
[6:59:29] So I'm
[6:59:35] expanding on the potential of future use of the site, of course,
[6:59:38] a surface parking would provide a significant number of parking stalls.
[6:59:45] There are other expressions that you could potentially incentivize on the site,
[6:59:48] which would involve things like structured parking,
[6:59:51] mixed use, housing and commercial.
[6:59:54] And we believe that this is a potentially maximizes the value of the land area,
[6:59:59] sort of the same.
[7:00:00] Funds I was speaking about this morning, but based on an initial sort of financial performa, feasibility analysis from myself, you could fit a thousand structured parking stalls, the number close to that.
[7:00:14] 190 to 200 housing units, and with most of those housing units within our affordable definition,
[7:00:21] plus 50 to 70,000 square feet of commercial. And when I say that, I'm kind of including the
[7:00:26] transit facility in that number, but you would also have potential warehouse or maintenance space
[7:00:32] and or commercial business space and amenities for residents. So this option is significantly more
[7:00:38] intensive from a work from both a cap, you know, from a capital and work front, it would require
[7:00:45] more excavation, but by reducing the overall geographic footprint of the parking area, you could
[7:00:52] provide space for housing to come in. The housing assets, the housing and commercial assets
[7:00:57] themselves are what incentivizes developers to produce the parking as well. So, we're talking about
[7:01:04] not a $31 million project at this stage, but $120 million project. But based on its financial
[7:01:12] performance, I think you would be, you could readily find investors that would like to
[7:01:18] entertain an option like this. So the Proforma under the conditions that I've specified,
[7:01:24] projects of 5% cap rate and 7% return on equity, I know that's a little bit
[7:01:34] today's interest rates. So that's a significant piece of making it feasible. And then continuing
[7:01:41] on, I think I had one more slide. Just to review some statistics with you, I'm not going to read
[7:01:48] all of it, but we've consistently applied tests to see if affordable housing projects are feasible in
[7:01:55] our community. And the general trend, of course, is the more land you have available, the more
[7:02:00] of all the project is and this certainly surpasses the minimum tests that we've applied for
[7:02:07] our affordable housing projects in looking to public private partnerships. So when you're talking
[7:02:13] about a 5% percent cap rate and 7% return on equity, if you're willing to incentivize it,
[7:02:20] I think the money will come find you to produce the asset instead of you having to spend the money directly.
[7:02:30] So, two slides here, so again, Heinrich Dieters, trails and open space and nature.
[7:02:36] The one on the right, as I discussed earlier, you do have some properties that are restricted
[7:02:41] to do the funding. Well, these properties have been held by the city for a long time. I think
[7:02:49] it's worth noting that another access to the Ram Valley open space is not in the back of the
[7:02:53] residential area, it's probably a good idea that we should consider associated with that.
[7:02:56] And then I'd like to ask Troy to come up and talk a little bit about the public work stuff.
[7:03:02] So Troy daily, public works departments currently, we are using one acre of ground for our materials recycling.
[7:03:10] Asphalt gets recycled, concrete gets recycled clean fill and of course, just wet wet stuff from water breaks stuff like that.
[7:03:18] So we're in and out here on a daily basis multiple times a day. In fact, our sweeper is in and out all day long. And if we've got a project going we're
[7:03:26] we're in and out there and I just I want to emphasize the importance of this if we
[7:03:31] was to take something like this and move out you know farther away it's definitely
[7:03:35] we'll have some impact so I'm hopeful that we can find an alternative use if we're going
[7:03:41] to relocate this that's close by that we're able to continue to use with efficiency.
[7:03:56] There's been a lot of information at you I'm going to throw just a little bit more.
[7:04:00] So obviously we've got some work to do here we've been deciding exactly what's going to happen
[7:04:04] I just want to spend some time on what the process would be after we make a determination.
[7:04:09] So we know in 24 we're going to be removing soils and getting that erosion stabilization
[7:04:14] put in place concurrently we could start doing outreach for the community community engagement
[7:04:19] process really start deciding and determining what do we want on this site do we want
[7:04:24] multi use family do we want park and ride only whatever we end up deciding and then there will
[7:04:29] be a process after that so I kind of that could happen concurrently in 24 and then we have
[7:04:34] That's some things to do.
[7:04:35] Heinrich just touched base if we have to do some rezoning of some of the land uses that are currently.
[7:04:40] That's a process in time as well.
[7:04:43] So that would be, that could be done concurrently, I think, with a few of the things that we
[7:04:47] have listed up here, but usually if we have to do a CUP or a rezoning process, we're looking
[7:04:52] at eight to 12 month process on that potentially depending on the concerns.
[7:05:00] We might have. And then after that, let me get a, you know, determine what is made, what we're going to do, we then get the consultant onboard to do the preliminary engineering site development utilities and all the cost lessons we would need to do, making sure we have the funding to address that and then get the construction documents.
[7:05:15] So I think very aggressively schedule would be starting this, we could get this done in 26, I think that start the work, excuse me, complete the work in 26, I think that's very aggressive to do that.
[7:05:28] I think realistically we would be looking at be all the complete this by 27. I think would be more realistic opportunity for us, but
[7:05:37] With that I believe I turn over to Matt
[7:05:40] to finalize forces that correct
[7:05:45] He's ready
[7:05:56] Matt that is sitting manager
[7:05:58] I guess are there any other questions? I mean my task was to sort of try to wrap things up
[7:06:05] And I think more of the story to oversimplify is you asked us to do a fatal flaw, feasibility
[7:06:12] analysis.
[7:06:14] We've conducted that throughout the variety of professionals in our organization.
[7:06:19] Also as we've learned over time, this is a really sensitive piece of land.
[7:06:23] It's on our entry corridor.
[7:06:25] We had a previous process, people were incredibly passionate about what we were doing out there.
[7:06:30] And so we want to be extra deliberative, very, very methodical in our approach, not step
[7:06:35] outside the lines that Council authorizes can currently, you know, we have a demand letter and we
[7:06:41] want to remediate the soils out there. And so whether we like it or not, we're going to have
[7:06:44] some heavy equipment, heavy duty equipment going through a soil remediation process. And it's a little
[7:06:51] bit similar to my previous comments today sort of, wow, we're out there and while we're doing this
[7:06:55] work, other types of community benefits that you may want to resolve or overlay on this land.
[7:07:00] If so, if that is under consideration, what's the type of community outreach process or otherwise that you would want us to engage and if you wanted to take advantage of when that land is disturbed?
[7:07:12] So I have a question that came up from our.
[7:07:15] the soil portion of the conversation over the last four years we've heard numbers from
[7:07:25] $20 million to remediate that soil to three today. All kinds of different reasons for those
[7:07:34] differences, whether it's the type of dump trucks we use, how they're covered, how it's wet,
[7:07:41] how it's capped in the interim, whether it's capped every height or we've heard so many different
[7:07:49] things where it's going all the way to Tuella if it's going to rock port. I'd like to understand
[7:07:55] a little better. How much solar are we remediating? Is our demand letter for just what we put there?
[7:08:02] Or is it for everything that's on that site? Is there extra there? Is that 3 million? Is that 3 million?
[7:08:07] real because if that 3 million is real, let's get to work, right? I mean, we were, we were
[7:08:13] under the impression for a number of years it was 15 minimum and maybe that's conflating a
[7:08:19] couple of different zones, which fine. That said, it seems more affordable now than it ever has
[7:08:25] before. And so, and I know we had a recent update about that, but I would like to dig into that,
[7:08:32] based on home stake, it sounds like that's informed us quite a bit. This is going to be a part of our
[7:08:37] the man's a park, we have the immediate soil there as well.
[7:08:42] So all of these conversations around how do we improve the value of the land that we hold and make it ready for its highest and best use going forward?
[7:08:52] What's the total cost of all of that? How do we get our arms wrapped around that?
[7:08:58] Because I think that we've all indicated that we want to get the highest and best use out of any piece of property that we own
[7:09:06] because it's so hard to come by, but I feel like we have so many little nuances and we break
[7:09:12] these things down into small boxes. I'd like to get a good idea of what's it going to
[7:09:16] cost to get all of our all of these pieces organized so that we can have a prioritization list
[7:09:24] for our next council to make clean decisions on because we have circled this drain so many times,
[7:09:30] and I would hate for our next council to have to go through this again without a list that we can
[7:09:35] So start checking boxes off of.
[7:09:41] Here's a question.
[7:09:43] So in this might go a little more to Pineric and try.
[7:09:48] So in the Recreation and Public Works use,
[7:09:51] is it possible to do those two uses and still do the mixed use or to do the other.
[7:10:00] The flat option. It's not flat. What's the word? Surface, thank you. Could those options be combined?
[7:10:08] I don't think we're probably ahead of the game on that one, answering that. I think, you know, overall, we probably need to understand where council is.
[7:10:15] If they do want to put them together, you know, I think the direction that staff is seeking if I can speak is where to move forward with our best efforts. If you want to include.
[7:10:25] make sure that the public works facilities are included in that, as well as the trailhead, as well as, you know, a parking ride, then we'll come back with all that so I wasn't sure determined I think is the best answer because it I wasn't sure when I was reading this that it was like one of these three options that's not what you're leaning to.
[7:10:45] I think the exercise was one part council asked to come back with the parking ride.
[7:10:49] The second part is recognizing that there are some of the parcels that are restricted from a funding source,
[7:10:55] and so you could provide a community benefit on those parcels as the consistent with that funding.
[7:11:00] And then lastly, there is an existing use that's very important to our public works we need to recognize.
[7:11:07] Do you see the clarification?
[7:11:17] So I think we have, we've had some money set aside for soils repository for a long
[7:11:21] time.
[7:11:22] Is that like 3.8 something million or what is it 3 millionish?
[7:11:26] It's just over 4 million.
[7:11:28] Okay, just over 4 million.
[7:11:29] So that's been there for, but not a soil repository, but for soil remediation.
[7:11:37] Okay, and like over the years we've talked about different things from opening the soils
[7:11:42] repository that would take soil from the homes from the five acre site. And I think when we talked
[7:11:50] about that, we were talking about it saving like $20 million, because if we have to clear all
[7:11:54] the soil from that area and ship it off the place, that would have been like $20 million. And it would have
[7:11:58] been cheaper to have soils repository in the Gordo parcel, and that would have saved us a lot of
[7:12:05] money. And then after that kind of fell through, it was, well, we can still take the soil
[7:12:11] on-site and create a soil repository and that would still save us money, it would save us from having to
[7:12:18] haul away the soil there and we could cap it and do that development on top of it.
[7:12:26] But now we're saying it's better to take that soil and haul it away. So if we utilize all that money
[7:12:33] for soils remediation, that's essentially all the money we have set aside for soils remediation
[7:12:39] right there right? Not exactly, so we have we have 4 million set aside for Gordo specifically
[7:12:49] in a capital fund. And, and Ryan, if you could, Mayor, if I can, do you want to just talk
[7:12:56] a one more time and cover, you know, your estimation of the soil that's on that facility that
[7:13:03] needs to be removed and the soil that is able to stay in place.
[7:13:08] Yeah, so if you want to develop the site, that's the whole point of this environmental
[7:13:12] cleanup program with DEQ is to allow for development to do that risk assessment, to figure
[7:13:18] out exactly what you could, it could keep on site or what you would have to haul off in part
[7:13:23] of doing that process and through our sampling efforts.
[7:13:27] The risk assessment showed that if you want to do commercial or residential on this property,
[7:13:31] That soil needs to be removed, it's not compatible with a commercial or residential development.
[7:13:38] If the site were to be kept completely free of development, there's a possibility that we could cap it on site.
[7:13:46] I would have to work out those details with DQ.
[7:13:49] As far as the total soil on site goes, traditionally historically we always considered it to be about 35,000 cubic yards.
[7:13:59] through our sampling efforts. Our consultant came back with 30,000 cubic yards. It's some number
[7:14:06] in between there. I would say for the big soil pile on site. All of that soil would have to be
[7:14:13] removed and using the home state numbers max your spot on that gave us kind of an up-to-date
[7:14:18] number for cost. That's where I came up with a number of 3.2 million if we took our excavation
[7:14:26] contractor that we used in our disposal contract, that we use on homesake and we dumped it on
[7:14:31] Gordo, then that cost would be $3.2 million for remove all 35,000 cubic yards.
[7:14:38] Now the variation up to 4 million would be determined by the excavation contracts that we got back
[7:14:44] and ultimately where to disposal would end up. But if you want to develop, which is the main mechanism
[7:14:50] for this environmental cleanup program. That soil has to go. It's not possible to
[7:14:56] cap it on site for an agent. Just to put a fine point on that, though.
[7:15:00] If we, if we develop it, but we're just developing it as a parking ride with, I mean, that doesn't
[7:15:06] place and there's public offices, there's, there's the bus storage, I mean, does that still require
[7:15:12] us to remediate the soil, or is that effectively just capping it in place with us?
[7:15:15] Right, because it's what you do. I mean, in prospector, they say, if you move it off site, you
[7:15:21] got to take it all the way to Twillow, but if you want to bury it under your driveway, you can
[7:15:25] do that. So how does that impact?
[7:15:30] how we deal with the soil on side out there because that might influence some of the decisions
[7:15:35] in terms of how we use the site. I can't predict the future. I mean, highest and best
[7:15:40] use is going to have some dollar amount associated with it. So I'm curious, Ryan's question is
[7:15:46] exactly right? So when you looked at the risk assessment, we evaluated kind of three categories
[7:15:52] of individuals. There were outdoor workers. So think about construction people building that
[7:15:58] work and write indoor workers, so some sort of commercial use in families and that residential
[7:16:04] use. And all three came back with a negative risk assessment to say it's better to move this
[7:16:10] soil, both for the outdoor worker, the indoor worker and family use. That's how we got to the number
[7:16:18] or to the decision to remove all that soil. What if we don't put family, I guess I think our question
[7:16:23] What if we just do it as a parking lot and there's no residential there?
[7:16:28] Yeah, so in their work. So the commercial standards are, you know, it's one standard
[7:16:33] through a variety of uses and in such statutory, it's a statutory number that
[7:16:39] that we played with. So if you wanted to put a parking lot on there, the recommendation from the consultant
[7:16:45] and what DQ would want us to see is us to remove that soil. That's from our property.
[7:16:50] everything. It doesn't matter. Correct it. Now this this program is voluntary. This environment
[7:16:55] is a cleanup program. So at any time we can you know remove ourselves from the process and decide
[7:17:00] what we want to do on that site. But if we want to get that clean bill of health from DEQ you know
[7:17:05] going back to Matt's point about the letter asking us what we're doing. You know this was the best
[7:17:10] way that we saw last fall to try to get through you know appeasing DEQ and also remedying the site
[7:17:16] for some sort of future use. To be fair, this is far more pervite precision. I would argue
[7:17:21] them, then we've had before. We've been talking about this and this is a lot of the work that
[7:17:26] I mean, Ryan's making it look easy, but this has been months of work, soil testing,
[7:17:30] working with consultants, doing depth probes and whatnot. So this is far more precision than we've
[7:17:34] had before in this conversation.
[7:17:39] So I guess we go back to a couple different things we've already
[7:17:43] talked about today. And we'll start with our all-star here with Soros remediation. Yeah, and give
[7:17:50] that guy a raise. I mean, this is brilliant work. If we do anything there, we need to remediate it.
[7:17:56] We're at a land. We should do something and an open parcel like that. So yeah, I had supported.
[7:18:05] Back to an earlier point, what problem are we trying to solve with this? And that drives the answer
[7:18:11] on the mixed use development right. I feel like we're back in that zone of blue sky,
[7:18:18] hey council, what do you want to do there? The world's your oyster and I don't think that's the right
[7:18:23] place for us to be operating. I'd much prefer to see that again if it's from staff or consultants
[7:18:31] or however this comes to council. Here are some different concepts mixing those uses right when we
[7:18:38] public works. I'm not sure if that means we're going to recover the property here in town
[7:18:45] and everything's going to move out there or if we're saying it's an accessory use that's in addition
[7:18:50] to that or I mean it's just there's nothing there's not enough here to react to I feel like
[7:18:56] but I do think it's going down the right path. I just don't feel comfortable answering the first
[7:19:02] question without more context and understanding more constraints and knowing what the options
[7:19:07] truly are. The initial financial analysis looks good so it's enough to me to say yeah let's go
[7:19:13] down that path but I can't get more specific than that. What about the rest of you? I will just say
[7:19:22] I want to see parking there. Whatever, whatever option that comes in it I do want to see a parking
[7:19:28] right in some sort of capacity.
[7:19:34] I think it's tricky because I think to the point of creating affordable housing but then
[7:19:39] creating commercial space it really depends on what sort of commercial spaces we're creating
[7:19:44] and what that whole area looks like kind of to Jeremy's point.
[7:19:47] One of our issues that we've talked about in the past is that every time you create additional
[7:19:50] commercial spaces you create additional jobs.
[7:19:52] And then hence all the affordable housing that you're creating is
[7:19:56] It's you're you're creating
[7:20:00] Additional issues, is you tried to resolve the issues. So I think having a little bit, having it fleshed out a little bit more would help, it's exactly what sort of commercial you're looking at is that commercial spaces that support services that we already have are we creating new services, above and beyond just a bus shelter and public works.
[7:20:26] are we actually creating cafes or something along those lines that are going to need employees
[7:20:31] that then need more affordable housing,
[7:20:36] but yeah, it's funny because in my head it's always been
[7:20:40] kind of minimal just a parking lot and now we're opening new doors and it's like, oh,
[7:20:44] to Jeremy's point, your mind starts to wonder what that really means. What does it all mean?
[7:20:50] Yeah, I didn't answer the last question either around partnerships. So across that off,
[7:20:55] Yes, and that goes back to what problem are we trying to solve?
[7:21:00] You know that the whole concept is what's the park and ride for?
[7:21:04] Are we trying to reduce traffic or we trying to reduce parking in town or we're just trying to be friendly and have people
[7:21:10] To give them easier ways to access town from those who aren't taxpayers. I'm not necessarily anyway
[7:21:18] so
[7:21:19] It's hard to say anything, but yes to that question right now without understanding the benefits of what the mixed you
[7:21:25] options could be. If those benefits of the mixed use options drive benefits for our community
[7:21:31] and our taxpayers though, then absolutely I'd be open to having that conversation around
[7:21:36] city contribution. And when we had talked about the Quinn's Park and Ride, I think you had something
[7:21:43] like $7 million in grants lined up that would essentially cover the cost of creating it. And so
[7:21:50] just a cost of parking lot for $31 million. It's a lot more grants to go after.
[7:21:58] Would there be that same ability if we just went with the basic parking lot to get that same sort of
[7:22:04] grant and then we would absolutely need some partners as well to join us in that, but
[7:22:08] it's a much more expensive project.
[7:22:14] So to speak to both Jeremy and Becca's comments,
[7:22:17] You know, if you are looking for staff to come in with a stronger recommendation, we've been, you know, all of our work, all of our work with our committees, all of our work in the PC forward process has indicated that we need some sort of intercept a lot on 248 so that's our strong recommendation right now without much further study that doesn't mean it can't be mixed use and includes some kind of parking right but the benefit would be as we talked about earlier.
[7:22:46] a very high percentage of the cars in town are coming from outside of town. So if we can
[7:22:53] figure out a way to capture them and provide a really excellent service coming into town,
[7:22:58] perhaps we can significantly reduce the amount of cars that are coming into town and give
[7:23:05] the residents their roads back. I mean that would be the ultimate goal, right?
[7:23:12] And yeah, we've talked about the graphs back how we, you know, Julia's master.
[7:23:19] I get in graphs for projects like this.
[7:23:21] So I have faith.
[7:23:24] I'm not sure.
[7:23:25] What would be possible for you to come back with some ideas of what a mixed use would look like on there.
[7:23:32] Yeah.
[7:23:32] Yeah, just my perspective is I mean, I absolutely think this is the place for some type of
[7:23:42] you know, piece of infrastructure right today that's a park and ride. It's a place that
[7:23:46] within the future be flexible for other things. But today we need a park and ride.
[7:23:52] And the partnership model, clearly we clearly have benefited that, is to the resorts. And
[7:23:58] and so we would need partners in that. Using that partnership with resorts, we can bring another
[7:24:04] in our governmental partners. And we could do something really significant here. So I would
[7:24:09] Try to advance the conversation forward to if you're going to if you're going to do I think it seems like there's
[7:24:16] It seems like a lot of us are on board at that idea. So I try to get to a place where if we're going to do
[7:24:22] parking here
[7:24:24] What else do we pair with it and really focusing analysis on that so the housing piece I think what we've learned over the last two years is is the housing
[7:24:32] We can sort of come for free, right?
[7:24:34] We're going to end up delivering a clean site, and that means the housing is a four
[7:24:39] hours of the profits center for the city.
[7:24:41] So we know we can have it.
[7:24:42] What does that do to the cost of the park?
[7:24:44] Does that mean we have that structured parking, it's not a part of the parking moves
[7:24:46] well expensive.
[7:24:47] So to me that's the analysis, commercial, it seems like purely a conversation about support
[7:24:52] commercial.
[7:24:53] I don't think that's the place where mixed you up, so I don't think we need more commercial
[7:24:56] out there.
[7:24:57] And so how much support commercial do we really need to do?
[7:25:00] Need. You know, when I look at the resorts in the morning, I don't see a lot of commercial happening. We keep talking about coffee on the buses and I'm seeing people standing with skis and poles and they don't coffee in their hand. You know, so how much do we really need.
[7:25:14] So that that's where that's where my mind is. Anyway, we can't this won't be a silver bullet for traffic, but what it does is it does allow us to reduce parking at the resorts.
[7:25:23] It allows us to build that partnership with them.
[7:25:25] It allows us to beef up transit for locals.
[7:25:28] It's sort of, as this is one leg of that three leg of the school.
[7:25:31] So, I mean, I would push forward on the soil to what that is always advancing.
[7:25:35] We know we have to do it. Let's go do it.
[7:25:38] Yep, that's what I see.
[7:25:40] And I agree with Ryan's sentiments.
[7:25:42] I think the one thing I want to make sure the community hears loud and clear is that a benefit
[7:25:46] to the resorts does not mean it's not a benefit to locals, right?
[7:25:50] If we're reducing the required parking for new development, we're reducing parking in town,
[7:25:56] this, this is a disruptive, emerging disruptive idea. This is it. This is the thing we've been
[7:26:03] talked about. It's tried and true. We know if you reduce parking spaces, you reduce traffic. So if we
[7:26:09] can get people parking outside of town and then I agree a wholeheartedly, a little support commercial.
[7:26:14] I think what we hear from all of these different partners is there are rival experience matters,
[7:26:19] I think that matters to Park City residents as well, matters to our guests, whoever comes to visit any of our little businesses around town.
[7:26:27] Got a rival experience, making that comfortable, not just an empty parking lot like Richardson Flats,
[7:26:32] which actually worked to my disbelief, worked with the worst possible arrival experience, right?
[7:26:40] So it's not going to take a whole lot. It's not like we need to build Chipotle out there or anything like that.
[7:26:45] But if somebody can potentially fill their car up with gas,
[7:26:48] and grab a cup of coffee for their way out of town,
[7:26:52] that's the right kind of support
[7:26:53] that allows people to come and go with ease
[7:26:56] and then they have to make less exits, less thing
[7:26:59] to just get on the highway and get out of here,
[7:27:01] which my, I can forget what he says.
[7:27:03] We want people to feel like their home
[7:27:04] while we wish they were.
[7:27:07] That's what we're going for here.
[7:27:09] And I think it's a huge opportunity.
[7:27:12] So yeah, Ryan's gone, I think everybody's been
[7:27:14] about the same picture.
[7:27:16] You just sit on something really important there.
[7:27:18] They experience.
[7:27:18] And we don't talk about that enough, right?
[7:27:20] I mean, the experience matters.
[7:27:22] It matters to drive revenues for the city.
[7:27:24] It matters for people wanting to come back to the city.
[7:27:26] It matters for residents who live in city, second home owners, everyone.
[7:27:31] It would be great if when we do get some concepts.
[7:27:34] We talk about the different experiences that those concepts deliver.
[7:27:40] It would get us a long way.
[7:27:41] I mean, I'm just thinking about what the folks said earlier about this airport shuttle.
[7:27:44] And people use it because the experience is good.
[7:27:47] They don't have to get their luggage and then wait for a bus
[7:27:49] and put their luggage on the bus and get on the bus
[7:27:52] and it's just done for them.
[7:27:53] It's easy and that'll drive adoption
[7:27:56] and then this stuff makes a heck of a lot more sense.
[7:27:59] And I just wanted to thank Max for saying gas station.
[7:28:03] I think there's a few things
[7:28:05] and this is totally double as advocate
[7:28:06] and maybe some other areas out there
[7:28:08] will be putting this in.
[7:28:09] But one of the biggest issues out there
[7:28:11] because there's not a grocery store in that vicinity area.
[7:28:15] And so there's a lot of people who come in and out
[7:28:17] of Park City to go to the grocery store.
[7:28:20] And so I just, you know, maybe hide out will put one in,
[7:28:22] maybe they'll put one at Mayflower,
[7:28:24] but I just want us to kind of remember
[7:28:26] that why do people come in and out of town a lot of times
[7:28:28] is to go to the store?
[7:28:30] So, not saying we should put one there,
[7:28:32] but I am saying something we should think about.
[7:28:34] And there's also, if I today need to go get gas
[7:28:37] and I don't wanna go to top stop,
[7:28:38] my next one is gonna be Silver Creek.
[7:28:40] So if I'm going out that way. So I just think we've lost something with not having a gas station in town and I just I miss guests. Can I be ramping this up.
[7:28:53] So I don't really know what I'm going to share was is 1,000 parking spots based on the number of parking spots that will fit in the lot.
[7:29:02] if you just use it all for parking or is it based on some sort of analysis of how many parking spots
[7:29:07] we think we could use to reduce parking at the base areas or based on development coming in around town.
[7:29:17] So this is the second it's based on development and okay.
[7:29:27] Yeah, so to be fair, our analysis made some rational projections about potential parking reductions
[7:29:34] are occurring throughout the community in the next five to 15 years and it's based upon some of those
[7:29:39] projections. Very, very high level. Okay, that's good. I didn't just want to make sure that if we needed more parking spaces than a thousand, there was also a night thought for how you get there, but if doesn't is what we need then shoot for a thousand.
[7:29:54] I think I've heard consensus I'm going ahead and remediating the cycle they're moving forward with Ryan's.
[7:30:00] Plan.
[7:30:03] And then yeah, and that really sure what else. And then I think we heard hopefully we heard some consensus for the ability for us to come back with some ideas and concepts.
[7:30:15] We heard good discussion about benefits to our residents, benefits to our visitors.
[7:30:20] The experience, what type of support amenities would be in there. It's clear we've got this demand letter.
[7:30:25] we are going to be disturbing this Earth. We want to make a meaningful decision, but we have to know
[7:30:29] what problem we're trying to solve or what problems we will help improve some of the challenges
[7:30:34] occurring in town. So hopefully you gave us a little bit of direction that we can lean in a little.
[7:30:38] And when we do that, you know, you're not going to be surprised. It's not staff over each that we're
[7:30:42] preparing this development. What we're just trying to demonstrate some concepts
[7:30:45] while we are dealing with some soils out there at this location. We do know we need a regional
[7:30:50] park and ride out our back door. It is a viable location. It doesn't mean it has to be
[7:30:54] the location, but I've heard that you're willing to continue to consider it and the
[7:30:57] feasibility was a worthwhile endeavor. You got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank all of you for all
[7:31:05] the work you did on this. Thank you. All right. We're good to go. You're a big comfortable. Okay.
[7:31:14] Let's move on. Then if you're joining us online and would like to make a public
[7:31:20] comment. Please go ahead and put your hand up now. If you're here in the chambers and would like to comment on this, please come on up. There's a sign in somewhere here.
[7:31:31] So please come on up and sign in or I can just say sure if you tell us your name and your zip code and we as a song it is thank you and we do limit our public input to three minutes. Okay for this real class. Okay. Thank you. So my name is Catherine Fagan. I'll be more than happy to write that down afterwards. I live in Park Meadows lived here for 17 years.
[7:31:59] This was so interesting. I do have a question as a resident full time. Is there some sort of a parallel or included component of all of this wonderful information for inter city transportation to address the within city transportation needs?
[7:32:22] I heard several comments from the esteemed council members about residents and how we're doing here.
[7:32:30] I don't go to Main Street anymore.
[7:32:33] We need to beef up our internal transportation, lost in town, gas stations.
[7:32:40] It's getting harder and harder to be a resident here.
[7:32:43] And I don't think that the trickle down effect of trying to make it easier for people to come into town
[7:32:49] is going to benefit the people who actually live here. We work here. We use the facilities here.
[7:32:58] We go to the resorts ourselves. We would like to have, I think, a focused improvement
[7:33:05] opportunities to be involved in discussions that will help address that component of the
[7:33:12] grand plan that you're doing for what our in-town local residents can contribute to this,
[7:33:18] what's being envisioned, what's being planned for, and I would love for us to get away from the
[7:33:24] state line of penalizing residents for needing to use their cars like higher costs for parking
[7:33:32] or reducing parking spots when there is no local bus option. When the buses are running at 30
[7:33:40] minute intervals, you can't count on them to get home at 10 o'clock at night after working a shift.
[7:33:45] So I'd love to know for residents could be a part of that process for discussion and I would like to volunteer.
[7:33:52] Thank you.
[7:33:56] Thank you.
[7:33:58] Do you have any hands upon line?
[7:34:03] Anyone else here wishing to comment?
[7:34:05] Come on up.
[7:34:19] All right.
[7:34:19] Well,
[7:34:25] Cynthia Washington, Park City, resident, 84098, so Plainberg resident, I correct myself.
[7:34:34] And I've loved this whole meeting.
[7:34:37] Thank you, Mayor, for such a collaborative effort all the insight today was amazing.
[7:34:47] And as I think about transportation and listening to what I heard,
[7:34:53] I heard of Aspen. I don't know if any of you have been there, but I've been there twice this year once in the
[7:35:00] Enter and once in the spring, as well as Martha's Vineyard. And I bring up these two locations because they're very similar in a fluency and attraction as Park City on Martha's Vineyard. You take a ferry over and there's like a ferry drop off point and all the ubers come pick you up, take you to your hotels and, you know, Colorado, you have the
[7:35:29] transportation system, getting to Aspen in the winter, it's kind of challenging because kind of windy.
[7:35:38] So, I now need to move to my point, which is having the transportation, aligning with airplane accessibility is a genius idea and making that a destination.
[7:35:57] And combining the two, I will highlight us and give us that same Martha's Vineyard drop-off experience with like a safe location where people can come and pick up the ferry guests.
[7:36:11] But instead it's picking up the airport travel guests who are coming into town and we're already establishing those locations with like the transit systems we have in place.
[7:36:22] you know, we just boost them up because now they're hotel pickup spots. And we can make that
[7:36:30] a very attractive experience and an extension of service on both ends of the hotel as well as
[7:36:37] the airline service to mitigate the traffic and the parking issues that we have and encourage more
[7:36:45] fluidity for our residents, our locals and our children. So thank you. Thank you.
[7:36:53] any other comments?
[7:37:10] Thanks, John Grooffield, April 0060 and I wasn't here all the time, but I was listening a whole time.
[7:37:17] It's been a really productive conversation as Angela mentioned. It's just filled with substance.
[7:37:22] So thanks, everybody, for doing it. I realized I've been speaking to Council the wrong way.
[7:37:29] After listening to the lunch session for all these years, I've been bringing bells with me apparently and we've been chasing everyone for all these years.
[7:37:35] And so, and my brevity is, is not very good, and so I'm going to try and work on this, and I'm going to try and work on this thing, so.
[7:37:43] Anyways, so part of it is about telling stories.
[7:37:47] I have a couple of stories here. I'll go through real quick.
[7:37:50] One is the story of my experience on 248 coming home today from dropping off my kid in Pine Brook.
[7:37:56] And it's still a miserable experience.
[7:37:59] And I would offer this quickly, and it's all due respect.
[7:38:02] If you build a parking lot of Gordo, it doesn't solve the backup issue on the 40 Off-Ramp,
[7:38:07] and it doesn't solve anything about the 248 backup issue. It doesn't solve any of those problems.
[7:38:14] That's the reason why it's not the right place. I would like to offer a story, an old one,
[7:38:20] about what Park City used to be. As I mentioned earlier, Park City was the white barn to PC Hill,
[7:38:26] but I remember correctly. The new story is that is Park City is the white barn to Highway 40.
[7:38:31] It includes a bunch of new neighborhoods, Park City Heights where I live, it's going to include
[7:38:35] the film studio, it's going to include the Clark Ranch, and it's going to include
[7:38:40] go to itself, which is a beautiful property, it sounds like people are interested in some
[7:38:43] housing there.
[7:38:44] I'm with you on that.
[7:38:45] It's next to the farm, it's next to the rail trail, it's next to the round valley.
[7:38:51] And I just, in terms of thinking about a story and about a 10-year plan, everyone, you
[7:38:59] don't have to.
[7:38:59] But if you close your eyes and you open them in 10 years, what do you see?
[7:39:05] Would you rather have a thousand, a thousand-car, structured parking, it means it rises up
[7:39:10] into the air.
[7:39:11] I'm not mistaken.
[7:39:12] Or, in the middle of these neighborhoods that are being developed, because they're going to
[7:39:16] look a lot different in 10 years.
[7:39:18] That parking garage would be in the middle of all those neighborhoods, or would you rather
[7:39:21] wake up in 10 years and see a housing development with perhaps 500 affordable housing units
[7:39:26] that you could have for workforce, you could have for municipal needs.
[7:39:32] I would like to offer that, although Gordo scored well,
[7:39:35] the scores are not placed within the context of your own council priorities.
[7:39:40] The highest scoring strategic objective, which we reviewed this morning,
[7:39:45] was building a photo housing through public private relationships.
[7:39:49] Building public parking, scored relatively low.
[7:39:52] is one of the lowest scores in all of the surveys
[7:39:55] that cancel, that cancel gave.
[7:39:58] I agree there is a higher useful goal.
[7:40:00] Row, then just a public parking garage. And I would be interested in seeing what a full housing
[7:40:07] plan would look like on that site because no one's had the opportunity to look at what that
[7:40:11] could look like. And lastly, I would just encourage to consult with the new transportation director
[7:40:19] that has been hired that do super cool. And I met him the other day and I think it would be entirely
[7:40:25] will have that gentleman give his two cents on some of these ideas. So thank you very much.
[7:40:31] She's been a lot really interesting. I've learned a lot today.
[7:40:34] Thanks, John. Do we have any hands up online?
[7:40:40] Hello, Ed.
[7:40:45] There we go. I think I'm unmuted there. I think I'm kind of a little mayor as usually great
[7:40:50] just as I don't want to get into any details about what to go on, go to or not. I think that's
[7:40:56] discussion that we're going to have at some point in the future, but I applaud the fact
[7:41:01] that you kind of all day long, you're taking the bull by the horns, you're looking at these
[7:41:05] things, you're talking together,
[7:41:10] the staff is presenting great stuff, whether it's the
[7:41:13] power station or the Main Street infrastructure or Bordeaux, I mean, we're doing stuff and
[7:41:21] I'm very proud that you guys are just finally going, all right, let's get stuff done and
[7:41:28] this stuff that has to be done anyway. So I'm glad we're doing it. We'll talk about the
[7:41:33] Gordo and I hope Main Street can discuss what they want to be in the future and we can build
[7:41:39] infrastructure on that. But in general it's been as usual very enjoyable to listen to and
[7:41:46] I'll just be in there for one of those days, but I'm listening all day, so keep up the good work and let's do this.
[7:41:55] Thanks, Ed.
[7:41:59] And then we'll welcome back.
[7:42:01] Do you need my sign in again when I'm done?
[7:42:07] Thanks.
[7:42:08] Hi, Angela, Muscada, again, 8406.
[7:42:12] A couple of things with respect to Gordo.
[7:42:15] So, I appreciate, again, that staff did a ton of work that's evident and thanks for the
[7:42:23] clear stand on the fact that the soils need to be removed, not merely kept, given a number of uses, including office, or even outdoor work.
[7:42:33] But I have to disagree with you, Max.
[7:42:35] I think while it's maybe disruptive, and that's in line with John Greenfield's comments, putting something like a parking structure, or a parking lot,
[7:42:44] amidst other functional development and potentially more neighborhoods, I don't think it's emerging.
[7:42:50] I think it's actually super dated, and I can't remember if it was a U-tana or U-beca earlier this morning,
[7:42:56] but one of you said that everybody was really kind of an agreement that we don't need anymore
[7:43:01] parking in town. That's in town to me. And that's what I feel is dated.
[7:43:07] Everything is moving in the direction of cars off the roads and I think that our parking problems need
[7:43:12] be solved outside of 8406, so we have Richardson flat, and I think that what really would
[7:43:19] be productive is all of the players that keep getting mentioned, including now Mita, you
[7:43:24] know, XL, getting all of them to the table and talking about a real solution, like a flyover
[7:43:30] from 40, so that we have cars coming directly off the highway, into Richardson flat, into a
[7:43:35] parking ride. There's no way that Gordo is going to solve that backup issue. It's getting so bad,
[7:43:42] that it's now going from 40 to 80.
[7:43:45] It's crazy.
[7:43:46] And it's seven days a week.
[7:43:48] It's from seven to lunch time.
[7:43:50] And you can observe it from the hospital windows.
[7:43:54] So that's what I would like to see happen.
[7:43:56] And then in terms of community engagement,
[7:43:58] if we're looking at something like this,
[7:44:00] and I think we need to look at everything around it
[7:44:02] and make sure the community is aware of any potentials
[7:44:04] that do exist out on Clark Ranch.
[7:44:06] And that's where I think that we could potentially provide
[7:44:09] some community solutions.
[7:44:10] when you talk about grocery stores and just support services, whether it's a dry cleaner,
[7:44:15] it is Park City Heights that both needs and deserves those services. So I would like for
[7:44:20] everybody to be aware of all of the possibilities before we just devote a ton more
[7:44:25] staff time and resources to working out parking on Gordo. Thank you. Thank you.
[7:44:32] Okay, many other comments.
[7:44:37] Any other hands up online?
[7:44:40] Alright, with that we'll close the public input, thanks to everyone that hung in here with us today.
[7:44:46] It's been a long day, but I think it's been a productive day.
[7:44:48] So we do have one consent agenda item, request to approve Park City's four argument,
[7:44:55] for the 30 million general obligation bond on November 21, 2023.
[7:45:00] General municipal election ballot.
[7:45:04] I'd actually like to pull it off if anyone would second it, because I think the language is a little confusing and one of the sentences.
[7:45:11] Sure, I can second.
[7:45:12] We have a motion as second to pull it off the consent agenda.
[7:45:16] All in favor.
[7:45:18] All right.
[7:45:18] Motion carries.
[7:45:20] So the only sentence I wanted to review here, it starts currently the city is committed to replacing the aging
[7:45:25] tools and building a new rec building, so on using funds that were approved during the FY
[7:45:31] 24 budget process.
[7:45:34] My reaction reading that is, it's a bit jargony for the general public who may not understand
[7:45:40] that that means it's specifically not part of the bond and funded regardless.
[7:45:45] So, my suggestion would be that we either clarify, you're not voting on these two things
[7:45:50] with this bond, clarify that these two things are funded with other money using a couple more
[7:45:57] words in here. However, it's clarified that this isn't part of the bond, so people don't assume
[7:46:03] that the budget process means that something or doesn't mean that something separate, I guess,
[7:46:08] would be the way to put it. I don't know. How are those feelings? I think there's a lot of confusion about
[7:46:14] that generally. So I think that's a good point if that could be, if that could be clarified,
[7:46:19] I'm not sure if that's how they how to do that but we're just take it out. Yeah.
[7:46:24] What do you guys do today?
[7:46:30] All up to the language here.
[7:46:33] So it sounds like on the on the floor is some type of an amendment or perhaps just deleted all together.
[7:46:40] You know, to be fair, I think it's clear the reason we're trying to throw it in there.
[7:46:45] You know, you made a very generous allocation.
[7:46:47] and you made the commitments community that you're going to do those irrespective of the
[7:46:51] outcome of the bond. And that's the reason we're trying to put it in there. But not at the
[7:46:54] expense of creating confusion. And so we wouldn't want that to occur.
[7:47:01] Well, I don't know if it's equally
[7:47:02] confusing to leave it out because then the folks who know or me or we're basically placing in
[7:47:07] aquatics go what about aquatics.
[7:47:11] They could maybe I don't have a suggestion yet, but
[7:47:15] maybe we might still want to address it. I don't think that's the problem. And then maybe see some areas
[7:47:20] we could put in a couple alreadys and the city has already or, you know, but I'm just on the fly right now,
[7:47:27] Anyhow. Approved.
[7:47:29] Um, already approved.
[7:47:30] Oh, previously approved. Yeah, I don't know about this in general.
[7:47:36] Well, I don't know that everyone that understands the other general funding and we,
[7:47:40] or outside of the bottom door to ask Jeff.
[7:47:42] Yeah, I, I almost go there right, like saying something that,
[7:47:46] maybe it's another sentence after that, saying these two projects will proceed,
[7:47:49] regardless of your vote on this bond.
[7:47:52] Yeah.
[7:47:53] Yeah.
[7:47:53] Yeah.
[7:47:56] Oh.
[7:47:59] Here comes the note.
[7:48:03] You could just tell us, Michelle.
[7:48:07] Like I said, I guess I just don't see the confusion.
[7:48:11] I'll be honest with you.
[7:48:16] Deal with this matter.
[7:48:17] Yeah.
[7:48:17] I really don't honestly.
[7:48:20] I don't think it's confusing to read.
[7:48:23] I really don't. I mean, if you're not going to take it out, then I think as is it says in here twice, that it was, let's see where's this.
[7:48:38] All right. So the city has committed to replacing the aging. I mean, what's confusing about the city has already committed to replacing these things.
[7:48:48] I mean, that's pretty darn clear.
[7:48:52] We've already committed to those things.
[7:48:56] So with the city recorder was kind enough to share is that
[7:48:59] we will have another opportunity on the 28th
[7:49:02] where we can have an additional agenda item.
[7:49:05] So there she is.
[7:49:06] We'll have an additional agenda item.
[7:49:08] So if you wanted to give us direction to see if we can improve
[7:49:11] this language here and provide some additional clarity.
[7:49:13] We could bring that back on the 28th for your consideration, but that would be your drop dead date and so I think you can myself and the team and others are happy to work with a few of you to clear up any confusion here that we can and then we'll have it before the public one more time.
[7:49:27] The option one to maybe not three, but maybe three, but like everybody knows that we've got to make a decision on one of those options, not this like collaborative approach to whether we.
[7:49:42] Yeah, we can't wordsmith this thing at the last minute.
[7:49:44] I really don't think it's unclear as it is as it's written.
[7:49:49] But I'm okay with having it come before us with a couple options.
[7:49:52] Okay, we have a couple of technicalities, so we advertise for people to submit.
[7:50:00] Post statements for the bond or cost statements for the bond and we had one individual submit a request to write a
[7:50:08] post statement. As a city, we are required to also write a post statement. Then the council has to choose
[7:50:14] which post statement they want used, either the city's post statement or the residence post statement. So
[7:50:21] do two dates and timing the city statement that the resident has until tomorrow at 5 p.m. to write the
[7:50:30] post statement. And then after that it has to be given to the con side so that they could
[7:50:39] form a rebuttal. Since we don't have the post statement to decide on that today we've got a
[7:50:49] meantime to fulfill the their requirements by law, we have to give the
[7:50:55] con side both the city statement and the resident statement, since we haven't
[7:51:00] decided which one we're going to be using. So we have to do that, basically Monday
[7:51:05] morning. Sorry to throw a wrench in all of it. Was that as clear as
[7:51:10] mud? Mark, I don't think anything. Well, no, what was she
[7:51:17] is correct. I was just going to remind you all that you could give direction around the
[7:51:24] concerns and then say in a form to be approved by the city manager or something like that
[7:51:29] because this does need to be approved today and then it'll come back to you with what Michelle just
[7:51:34] described. Or you can words myth it. I'd be fine with that personally and I think you hear the
[7:51:41] concern if you think it's real, make a couple changes if you don't don't. Yeah, same. Yeah, I'm good with
[7:51:47] Yeah.
[7:51:48] You good with that.
[7:51:49] Thank you.
[7:51:49] Becca, are you good with that?
[7:51:51] It's all on you, Matt.
[7:51:52] Good job.
[7:51:52] You're on there.
[7:51:54] No big deal.
[7:51:55] We're loaded as it is.
[7:51:58] We know.
[7:51:59] Don't worry.
[7:52:00] Yeah.
[7:52:02] All right.
[7:52:02] That would go ahead with your motion.
[7:52:03] I request.
[7:52:05] I moved to approve the Park Cities for argument for the 30 million general obligation bond
[7:52:10] on November 21, 2023 in a form amended by the city manager as needed for the general
[7:52:16] municipal election bond, silent.
[7:52:21] Motion in a second. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you.
[7:52:27] We are moving into a closed session.
[7:52:33] We don't need a closed session. We are, you're, we're free. Perfect. Thank you. Everybody for
[7:52:39] all your hard work today. We are adjourned.