Deputy building official. I also have Jed Briggs, Nate Rockwood, and Rhoda Staffer here to help
present the discussion regarding fee waivers. Specifically today, we're going to be talking
about construction and development fees and drilling down on those so that we can focus
on the discussion and relationship between the fee waiver and the delivery of municipal
services, specifically regarding the building planning and engineering department. If council
So would like we can return on another day
with a larger discussion, including the police services
and special event fee waivers.
Staff is going to be coming here today
for a couple of reasons.
One is just for a general background discussion
and to provide information regarding fee waivers
and the implications of fee waivers
and considerations to think about
when approving fee waivers
that are going to be coming to city council.
At the end of the day, currently and recommended in the future, City Council is recommended
to be the ultimate decision-making authority when it comes to fee waivers.
And so we would just like to make sure that we provide Council with the tools and information
so that you can consider all the impacts when making those determinations and recommendations
for fee waivers.
Construction and development fees are the fees that are collected when there's
a new development in town.
The largest fee and the largest revenue related to that are building permit fees including
plan review fees.
That's the largest revenue for the building department.
The fees are calculated in a way to reflect the cost of providing the services that the
building department provides related to the permit applications that are being submitted.
So basically what we're looking at is a fee that's calculated with the intent of balancing
out two things. Revenues and expenditures.
And the hope is that, as we said, the revenues
coming into the department are parallel with the expenditures so that at the end of the
day there's a balance in the department and it's self-sufficient. And that's the intended
goal. The fees are never intended to be or to generate revenue for the city. That's
that's not permitted, that's not the intent.
The fees are really just to be able to accommodate
and provide the services related to the applications.
And as you can see here with the balance,
really we try to maintain that.
We have,
can you help me with the slides?
Can you connect on that one?
Connect to a separate PowerPoint here.
We have the PowerPoint slides here,
which reflect not only that balance,
but next, go to the next slide please.
The fees that we have in place right now
are reflective of a June 2nd amendment
that we had recommended to City Council
to change the way that building permit fees are calculated
and they would actually be calculated now
as a result of the actual market cost,
the cost of the value of construction
that's actually reflective of the work
being done in Park City versus the old methodology which was to look at the valuation as calculated
by the national averages per square foot, if you remember that, and the goal there was,
the goal with that was to, again, make sure that any of the fees that we're collecting
are actually reflective of the actual cost of construction that we're seeing in town
versus the national averages because we were finding that we weren't consistent with
that.
And if we're going to provide services, they need to be consistent with the actual construction
that we're seeing.
We want to maintain that parallel and be reflective of that.
Building permit fees are very volatile over the long run from year to year.
With the recession that we saw recently, we very much saw a dip in fluctuation in
the revenues versus overall expenditures.
The goal is, again, while we might not make that balance every single year, long-term
goal and approach is that we will have a parallel in between those two funds the
revenue and the expenditures. So if you see in this 12-year window the green
line being the expenditures which stay fairly steady with the revenues
fluctuating and then again in the five-year window and
so those are those
are the construction and development fees related to the building permit
applications that City Building Department uses for operating costs in their operating budget,
which pays for the functions and the services related with staff, material supplies, those
type of expenditures relating to operations. Very separate, but collected at the same time
are the impact fees. Impact fees are collected for several reasons, including water,
roadways, public safety, parks and open space. Those fees are also calculated in
a way to reflect the cost of providing services that the city provides in the
form of not operating but in capital improvement projects. So when we look at
something along the lines of a water impact fee, it's very reflective of the
cost of providing the water service to any kind of new development.
So as a
definitely have an impact on the funding
for potential capital improvement costs.
Say for example, we would see any kind of impact
in a reduction of fees collected
in a couple of different scenarios
in a couple of different ways.
If we were to talk about waiver of water impact fees
or just a decrease in revenue in water impact fees
due to fluctuations, we would be looking at the scenario
of still providing that water service
to a new development say that had the fees waived the city would still incur
costs related to that if we're still providing the service and the
infrastructure the treatment storage supply of that water but what happened
though is money would have to come from somewhere else and so potential you
know water fees and those impacts would have to be subsidized elsewhere by
existing water uses users or another avenue the other potential for a
reduction in any kind of impact fees would be something similar for parks,
public safety and roadways.
If we were to see any kind of reduction in fees and revenue related to those
impact fees, the impact might look a little bit different.
We, that would be in the form of capital improvement projects and
there may be something seen in the change of a level of service if we
didn't have the fees and the revenue for those.
it might be in the form of less parks and or less park amenities like park
benches.
So the broader discussion what we want to make sure to explain to you
so that you have all the tools and the information in your tool belt for
consideration when we talk about constructing development fees the
relationship with those and the paying for the cost of operating and
providing services balancing those and then also the impact fees and the
capital improvement projects that we would like to do.
So then we get to the topic of,
so why would we waive fees?
Why would we want to if they're gonna be paying
for the cost of services and costs that we're incurring,
right?
We have seen scenarios where there's a definite benefit
and where it may definitely be
in the best interest of the city.
And we have fee waivers right now
and an opportunity to do fee waivers
that I've come to you recently for different reasons.
Some of it is for public benefit,
maybe for a local non-profit for other reasons,
and or we have critical priorities
that in order to support those,
such as affordable housing,
may warrant fee waivers in order to accommodate those
and help the momentum of those and to be more successful.
So when we talk about fee waivers
and we talk about something such as
and a critical priority such as affordable housing.
We have to take into consideration things
like the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation
in spring of 2016 that actually came back
and they said a recommendation for fee waivers
not only to the current capacity,
but in excess of the $5,000
that's currently allowed per policy.
Having a critical priority such as affordable housing
and a potential addition of 800 units,
goal for the next 10 years.
We forecasted the numbers and we forecasted
what the potential collected revenue would be
related to building permit fees,
construction and development fees, and impact fees.
We're talking about a potential of $4.4 million.
And so when we take all that into consideration,
how do we balance those?
And so our opportunity is this.
We still have the ability,
and staff is recommending that we maintain the ability for city council to consider
waiver of impact fees and construction development fees with consideration for not only council
goals and priorities but also with consideration for operations and capital improvement projects.
The problem is how we balance those and how we weigh the different interests.
These current fee waiver practices right now for construction and development fees include
the ability for us to consider non-profits, which provide a public benefit for any kind
of youth groups and, like I said, non-profits to a certain amount.
The city manager has the ability to waive fees up to $5,000, and the council holds
the ultimate decision-making authority for anything
in excess of $5,000.
We asked Rick and the reason why we have that criteria
for the non-profits and the youth groups,
specifically called out and marked there,
is because we would like to discuss that
a little bit further as far as the criteria
and future recommendations and what you may want
to consider in the future in order to make
a determination on these type of impact fees.
Any other asterisks with the City Manager and the waiver of up to $5,000 is there because
we have some leniency there should Council want staff to pursue that.
There would have to be a code change.
However, if the Council would like us to do that, we can change the threshold for
the City Manager to waive fees more or less than $5,000 if you would like to have
of that decision making authority there
rather than with the council.
That's not necessarily recommended by staff at this point
because of the transparency in these types of decisions
we're supportive of coming back to council
and discussing those in a public meeting
when we're talking about fees in excess of $5,000.
However, if that's something that the city council
would like us to look at
and consider changing the threshold on we can.
The other item is impact fees.
So when we talk about impact fees, we already have several mechanisms and ways in which to
manage impact fees.
They're all identified in the city code.
And so if we were to change any of these items, it would have to be a city code change.
In addition to that, because impact fees are very much regulated by state law and how
we collect and how we spend them, we only have limited abilities on what we can do
with impact fees.
and so offsets, appeals, and independent fee calculations are all allowed within the city
code right now.
Astrics right there within the waivers are the affordable housing waivers up to $5,000.
Right now that's in the city code.
We can only allow waivers of impact fees for a couple of reasons for affordable housing
and public facilities. And it's maxed out at $5,000. We do have some ability with a
code change to change that threshold again for impact fees for specific reasons such
as affordable housing, if that's something that you would like staff to look into further.
So with all these in mind, this is what staff is discussed and come to as far as the recommendation.
Right now, the fee waiver process is fairly simple. There's no application, and other than
the non-profit and public benefit criteria that we've discussed already, there really
isn't much of a drill down explanation as to the justification for fee waivers.
And so staff is recommending a couple of things. One is to make sure that the applicants
respond to and have some criteria to meet and to justify the waiver.
Some of those includes not only what's currently in the current policy,
but also specific council priorities.
We drill down on affordable housing because we anticipate that to be something
that is going to be a consistent trigger of development and construction fees.
if we're looking at adding additional units.
However, we've included council priorities,
generally speaking, any kind of services and development
that contribute to city essential functions,
city projects, other government entities
that may be receiving benefits
from these type of developments.
And we've expanded that criteria to include many things
versus the drill down on the public benefit
in the previous policy.
And so the goal is this, and staff's commitment is to provide City Council with all of the impacts
and all the contributing factors when it comes to consideration for fee waivers,
including what we've talked about when it comes to revenue, operating budgets, capital improvement,
affordable housing and other city benefits.
We want to make sure that we provide you with all of that background information
in that discussion so that when it comes to making those final determinations that you
have all that knowledge and comfort in making determinations that are appropriate for the
city.
I'll ask a question, since you paused.
For affordable housing, what did we, did we
waive fees for like Park City Heights, affordable housing?
We have not to date. They've got a request in, but we're holding on to that.
We've told them that we can't even consider it until we have the pricing.
And they're on the market. Maybe I'll waive something if they're on the market.
I'm pretty irritated about that.
And then I have another, on our own projects, like the ones that are under construction
right now, the two historic homes, glad to see those guys up on Stilts and getting the
project going.
Did we waive our fees on that for ourselves, or do we not even bother charging ourselves,
or do we waive them, or what?
We are actually in conversation about the most appropriate thing to do for city projects.
Given that it is a city project and we would be just moving a budget item,
waiving the fee here means that we, I mean, waiving this fee means that this,
it's one budget to another in city projects.
But it's money though, then would be probably coming out of the RDA.
And so we would have less affordable housing if we, you know, we might be able to get one more unit out of all the fees that we waive, I don't know.
Right. Right. And we haven't, I mean, we've waived some of the initial fees, but we're still, we're just getting ready to hit the big fees right now.
And that decision hasn't been made yet.
Well,
you know, I see the benefit in waiving the fees for the affordable housing.
I see the benefit of waiving the fees for a public benefit.
We waived the fees for the museum.
They're raising funds for a new building,
and that is a, I believe it's a public benefit.
And we all know we're having more projects on the horizon
that we can say will either be connected to affordable housing
or public benefit.
And
so can we raise the fees so that we can, what can we do?
I mean, we're going to want to waive those fees.
We're going to want to waive those fees
because these people are raising money for public benefit
or we're building houses and we're going to want to build as many houses.
We're going to want to raise those fees.
But we can't totally, you know, strip the budgets of the departments.
So like when the special service contracts,
They have $200,000 that they plan on waiving.
It's budgeted in.
And I wonder if that's what we need
to do for the building department that we have,
or the other departments.
You need to have so much money that you're
planning on budgeting in to those departments
that you know that the city council is probably
going to waive it.
That's what we've done in other departments,
and such as a special service contract.
I mean, service contract, not service contract.
What is the special events?
Special events, right.
So we've definitely kicked around that idea
and we've talked with Diane a little bit about it
and it's something that I think could be on the table
and I think Rota kind of hit upon that.
You could, especially for city projects,
you're kind of moving money around in that regard.
Right now. There's still money.
Yeah, I know.
It's still money that goes from one project
potentially that could fund something in the general fund and there's different
pockets of money for sure it's not just one big pot of money right now we're our
main focus is really ensuring kind of a more more criteria to look at these
waivers so we're looking at establishing you know you can see all
these right here they all the different you know things that are
really related more to our critical priorities and to our goals but
also establishing an application process so that we have more of a basis and it's
more thorough whereas right now it's just hey do we want to weigh fees and your
council is looking at it as a one-off without considering all of the other
pieces to it and now we'd have something that's a little more rigorous but in
terms of having a budget I mean that's definitely something that we can
look at and that's something that we've pointed out as an alternative back
Okay, so I have two questions, but they're kind of connected.
So one is, what is the history of granting fee waivers to nonprofits in Park City?
I am aware of the two that we've done this year for the Christian Center and for the Park City Museum.
But is this something that comes up frequently?
Would it have passed councils?
How often have they granted fee waivers and impact fees?
And then the second question is, is if you create an application, does that kind of open the floodgates for people to do it?
right now they're coming in as kind of one-offs, but if you create an official
application, does that open a process for more people to both know about it and to
apply?
So on the first, we don't have a significant history of waiving fees beyond the two that
have happened more recently.
However, we do anticipate several coming down the line that are currently approaching
planning for future development.
local non-profits. We have Kimball Arts, the National Ability Center, Peace House, IHC,
throughout non-profits that are potentially going to be applying for building permit fees
in the very near future, or building permits.
And to answer your question about the application, it's a good question, right?
Because, like, the idea of how will they come, I think the two pieces here would be,
one is you do want to add some rigor to the process, you know.
So what if there was this incredibly well-funded foundation
that maybe a political candidate at the national level had
and came and wanted a fee waiver
and you didn't want to grant that?
City Council would then have more of a basis
by which to evaluate and to be able to make the choice.
I don't, none of us are under the delusion
that you're gonna look and say,
oh, this beloved non-profit
who has a long history in our community
we're not gonna waive their fee, right?
So it's just, it's simply adding some rigor and structure to the process.
There's also the question and the value in our form of governance of equity, of equality.
So if somebody doesn't apply for a fee waiver or non-profit simply because they don't know it was available to them,
well, that's a fairness issue and we do want to create that level playing field.
You know, it struck me as I was reading the staff report and then, again, during your
excellent report today.
It seems if we're waiving fees, especially for affordable housing, then the cost of that
affordable housing per square foot isn't going to be reflective of what the true cost
is.
Am I right on that?
Or how do you account for that?
So, so if we waive whatever, $1,000 in fees, no, I said whatever, however many thousand.
Now, whatever thousand.
Yes.
That's big.
That's a lot.
That's a lot of thousands.
How does that get reflected in the cost of the affordable units?
Well, we'd have to put it in the chart, you know, that that was waived and still
put it there so that we can evaluate it.
It seems like it would have to be in there, but.
But when you're reporting the cost per square foot of affordable housing, would that be included in there?
It depends. If it's our own affordable housing and you're talking about our own matrix, we could do it the same way
where we do the land, where we include it with the fee and without the fee, depending on whether we include
the cost of the land, whether we just have to buy the land or whether we already have it.
But it does bring up a bigger point, which I think is another part of this report is
understanding who, when you talk about the different money, pots of money, who is really
subsidizing affordable housing when you start doing that.
When you get into the impact fee side, it really starts to get somewhat complicated
because one of the largest impact fees is the water impact fee.
So you say if we were able to waive that for a developer who wants to do affordable
housing it would make it easier for them to do that.
The way that impact fees are calculated,
I don't want to get super bogged down in impact fees,
but basically from a water standpoint you take a system
and you say this is the system that's needed
to provide water to the city.
As a new development comes in,
we're charging them for their impact to that system
and how much money does it cost to make it
so that their impact is mitigated within that system.
and we have the same level of service.
When a fee gets waived for a housing development,
that impact still happens to that system.
And so those costs still have to occur.
There's no fee being charged for it.
Within the water system, there's only water impact fees
and water service fees.
And so if you've waived those impact fees
but you still have to build whatever that capacity is,
Because you've shifted that cost onto the water service payers, onto the rate.
And so you have to ask yourself a question, now water rates and water impact fees are always
going to be used on water infrastructure.
But you have to ask yourself a question of by us waiving that fee did we just take
a portion of affordable housing and subsidize it with water rates.
and in theory that is what you're doing.
It's hard to track that,
and also the question comes up of,
is that really what you want to be doing with water rates?
And so while it is different pots of money,
they do affect things different.
It gets a little more generalized in the general fund
because we use general fund money for housing
and we use general fund money for parks
and all that sort of thing.
And so we base the impact fees
and that new development that we have to do to any of those systems, whether it's water or parks or streets,
based on the impact fees that came in.
And so we're always going to program those out.
If the impact fees didn't come in, you have to ask,
should we then be transferring more money so that we're not lessening our level of service?
Or how is it that we're reflecting that?
And that becomes very difficult on how to track that and how to reflect that.
None of it violates code. It's just understanding what you're doing and who's subsidizing
what when you waive these fees.
But back to my question, if we waive those fees, whatever amount they are, that doesn't
get added back into when we say this affordable housing was $400 a square foot.
Is that right?
Right. Yeah.
I mean, unless you can artificially say, plus the value of the fees that we waived
should be included in the statute.
Which is a more accurate reflection of what it would cost.
I think Andy was next.
So I got a couple of questions and a couple of comments.
But first one is, have we had any deficits due to fee waivers in the building
department thus far?
Well, I mean, if you look back at this right here, this kind of shows the deficits
over time.
So our expenses are the green line, the revenues are the gray kind of dark line.
And where was this specific to fee waivers, I would say only, you know, the last ones we've done were the last fiscal year.
We have way fees for our own building projects, but that's not reflected in here.
So if there are shortfalls, though, it comes out of the general fund transfers.
It's not like we cancel the Christmas party for the building department or layoff employees, right?
So when we have discussions about it, it could impact our level of service at it.
Those aren't, that isn't necessarily true.
The General Fund would make up the difference under the current scenario.
The General Fund always has to make up the difference in this case.
And so it's really a long-term perspective type of thing.
And we look back over the last 12 years in terms of when the revenues were really high
back in 2006 and 2007, that was able to subsidize building, and you can see how building expenses
went down in FY 11 and FY 12, and that's when we actually did let go some building
inspectors through attrition mostly, but when we were, you know, facing that recession
that, yeah, that was a reality that we faced.
Yeah.
If I may, I just want to add, because I had the pleasure of going through the Budget
Results Committee this year. And what it does is it impacts the whole budgeting process.
If there's a shortfall, which we had one last year, the revenues didn't come in,
where we anticipated. And what that does is it stretches the general fund for the next year
and it changes the outlook on what we can or can't fund and how we look at the budget.
So we do cut back on things like training.
We potentially don't get to justify vehicles that we believe we need to have our inspectors
be out there.
We also did not continue to contract inspectors because we didn't feel the revenues were
there to justify them.
So I believe it does impact level service.
We try to really minimize that and have no one notice it.
But it does impact the conversations of what we believe we can fund as we go through
the budgeting process.
But it's not dollar-for-dollar, so if the, you know, revisions don't come in that
year, we're not firing people.
It's more of a, it's taking a long time to make sure.
I just want to be clear, because I think that's a little bit murky when you say
impacts level of service.
I mean, it does take away from our ability to fund other things that maybe
wants as opposed to needs, but it doesn't.
We're not tying the two directly together.
The number of permits doesn't determine how many building inspectors
we have or such.
That's accurate.
Well, and I think what you heard Ann say, though, and this is, I think
I think this is very important, is that in that budgeting process, this department,
not meeting its revenue goals, is not getting either additional people, additional
funding that they would have.
That's perfectly clear, Diane.
For me, affordable housing is a need.
Extra staff training is a want.
So that's what I'm trying to clarify.
Sure.
However, understand that a vehicle, I'm simply, I'm not, I'm not arguing the validity
of, of waving a fee for affordable housing.
I mean, this is a counsel critical priority.
I'm simply saying that it does affect specifically level of service because when you don't
have a vehicle for a building inspector, that person is either getting there and we've
had money bites, which is great.
But, again, are we at that point where we don't have enough vehicles to get our
inspectors out to do inspections right now?
The answer, building would say yes.
It's a long and complicated discussion we can have.
We actually don't have one vehicle per inspector.
It's a, we have a fleet is incredibly expensive and we'll bring that one back for another day.
So can I, I have comments, but if you guys have questions, I'll circle back to the comments.
You said you were going to give the comments as well, so.
Just a couple of thoughts on the fee waivers.
I break them down into a lot of different buckets if you can stay at the screen in terms of where they're appropriate or not.
Like I feel like affordable housing and city projects it makes a lot of sense to do the fee waivers
We're just internally exchanging money and particularly with some of the impact fees like paying a water impact fee on the pub
Seems kind of silly and I think when we're looking at the actual impact of a lot of these a housing
We're taking community goals into account. We're gonna have high water efficiency
We're gonna hopefully have them in central locations where they're not heavy impacts on our roads
I'm not sure how they're going to have a negative impact on our parks and open space.
So I think those kind of impact these.
We really put those in place to have development pay their way, not to punish community-based
projects that are going to enhance the community.
So I don't have a big problem waving a significant portion or all of those.
But I do think it starts to get really murky when you talk about all the various nonprofits
because some of our nonprofits are pretty niche.
some of them niche. Some of them impact the entire community but some of them
may be for a very specific group and so we have to be careful how we define that
and maybe cap, maybe we limit ourselves to half at max, half waivers or something
just so we've got something to fall back on so it doesn't get abused but as
far as city services, city facilities and affordable housing I think it
makes sense to have significant if not full waivers on those. Cindy. Well I
I want to say, and I'm supportive of the developing some criteria for free waivers, but we do have
some history.
So the National Ability Center, when they come back, that must be their third project
on that piece of land, at least.
Did we waive national ability fees before National Ability brought?
We have not waived any fees that I'm aware of recently for the National Ability Center.
But, I mean, when it was first built.
I believe it was in the county when it was first built.
And I stem later.
It was in the county, you know.
And so what, in the hospital, the same thing?
Did we waive?
I mean, they just finished something.
Did we waive those fees?
Did they ask to have fees waived?
I'm just asking.
I'm just trying to collect the information.
The hospital did pay the fees associated with their development.
The goal is here with this criteria is that in anticipation of potential applications,
whether it be from the hospital or elsewhere, that we consider those, that we still have
the opportunity to approve fee waivers, but that for scenarios just such as the hospital
or that are out of the box nonprofits that we might look at differently for whatever
reasons, that we have this criteria in place just so that we consider all of those
factors when we make a recommendation on the waiver.
second well I always think it's nice having criteria but as we kind of have
been learning with SEAC they came up with a list of criteria and we rated
things on it and then really what we got to is we were kind of inconclusive and
you still nobody likes saying no so I don't know if there's a way to have when
you're developing criteria or looking at applications, I'm not, I mean, I feel like even with applications
and with criteria, it's hard often for us to say no because we do have a lot of nonprofits
that do a lot in our community and I'm absolutely in agreement with Andy that I think that as
far as affordable housing goes that we should be willing to waive those fees. Nonprofits
I think get very tricky and I don't know if we've already kind of opened Pandora's
box, but we have so many nonprofits in this town and every one of them is deserving.
It does a lot of good in our community, and I don't know how you're going to find
criteria that say we should do this for one and not for another.
So I think that that's going to be something that is going to be very difficult
to get into.
And with the, Andy said, city projects, affordable housing.
Did you mean like for ivory homes, we're going to waive the fee waivers
for their affordable housing?
Just to.
Is that a city project?
No, but she said affordable housing. I'm just trying to clarify.
I mean, I mean, city is affordable housing.
I just wanted to clarify one more time.
Well, and to be clear, we aren't recommending fee waivers for housing obligations.
When a developer has a housing obligation based on what they're building in the community, they are not eligible.
That's a very important point.
I think that's a good point, too.
Now, I'm really in favor of developing some sort of criteria because I think that
gives transparency and so when people are getting ready to apply, they know how their
application is going to be judged. You know, what criteria are we going to be looking
at when we decide whether or not they're going to get a fee waiver? And I think
that's fairer to the applicants than to just say, well, go ahead and submit and
we'll decide at that time whether we want to do that or not. I'm in favor of
waiving the fees for city projects, but I really would like to see some way where those
fees can be calculated into what the cost of the per unit is for those units.
We'll do that.
We'll come up with a way.
Thank you.
Tim?
Well, I mean, I think you guys are asking for clarity, and if we give you clarity,
than you can figure out ways to address the direction that we give you if it's clear.
And I don't hear a lot of clarity.
I mean, that's the problem in my mind.
So I think we should be having a conversation more about the higher level philosophical and
policy question here, which is, how aggressively do we want to use fee-waving as an additional
form of subsidy, because that's what it is.
And are we comfortable with the way it's been done?
Would we like to be more aggressive?
Would we like to be less aggressive?
Taking into consideration the impacts on the budget and how it affects, you know,
the revenue and expense flow and all the things that we can't, you know, be prepared for.
And I get that, but we're kind of skipping over something, in my opinion,
that is kind of the foundational conversation.
So maybe I'm just a little slow.
I started out with that, saying that I think that we're going to want to waive fees
for some of the upcoming projects that we can think about.
And so I think that if we
want to raise fees, we're going to have to think of ways to make their budget whole.
And maybe we, maybe, I mean, we probably would like to waive all fees, but...
Well, and, you know, let's, like, we could kind of play out those scenarios in my mind.
What if we waived all fees in, with projects that we want to subsidize?
And how does that change the subsidy versus just subsidizing them?
I mean, if you build an affordable housing unit, and it's a city project, we're
subsidizing the damn thing.
And, you know, so we subsidize it at a man's point at $250 a square foot
or $278 a square foot if we account for all the fees we've waived.
What's the difference, you know?
I mean, the difference is what pool of money it comes out of,
how it gets explained, how it gets, you know, presented,
what specific department it impacts
and those specific impacts on that department.
So I'm a big fan of subsidizing our critical priorities.
Is fee-waving, both impact and the other one, the building department, are those appropriate
ways to do it, or could we just somehow fold it into the general subsidy, and does it accomplish
the same thing?
So my question back to you would be, what's the most effective way for us to subsidize
the critical priorities that you've listed, you've outlined?
Some of them are called out as critical, some of them are just things that we feel
are critical and essential to do.
So from staff's perspective, what makes the most sense?
Do we revamp the whole program and get rid of fee waivers,
or do we create criteria to more narrowly define
and give you tools to create a process
which almost, to me, starts to create layers upon layers
of process as opposed to doing it in a more simplified way.
But I'm just throwing that out
so we could have that kind of a conversation
because I feel like we just sort of blew right through that.
Yeah, I don't completely agree we blew right through it, because four of us said,
these are things that we clearly do want to do fee waivers.
And to me, and I do want to hear these guys answer,
but to me, it's a matter of what bucket the money comes out of,
whether if we want to make sure our critical priorities are funded,
we've fought to get that money put in place.
So if we want to spend more of that money on fee waivers,
then that money essentially goes back into our general fund
and other things that are less critical.
So I'm of the opinion we keep it with the critical priorities and we fund it from elsewhere
And we track it and if we need to adjust it if it's becoming
cumbersome or we're going into deficits because of it then we're going to have to reconsider the policy or we're going to
Do some fund transfers, but for the moment, I don't really want to take I don't want to make the affordable housing fund smaller in particular
right
I'm with you on that. I believe I heard Matt
what's your name? Diane say that for somebody, maybe it was you, calculated the projects
that we know that are out there, and you said there would be $4 million worth of fee waivers
over the next 10 years.
So divide that by 10, that's $4 million divided by 10, yes, how much per year?
Come on, Matt, come on. $400,000, okay.
So, I'm thinking that we should, I mean, special, I mean, the service contracts waive $200,000.
I mean, special events waive $200,000, and they have it in their budget.
I think we should have a budget line for waiving, I think we should have a budget
line for what city council should use to approve.
You know, maybe it's not the whole.
That's not a bad idea.
440,000, maybe it's 200,000.
And we should also have a criteria.
And we should...
And city projects, maybe, are, you know, are fully funded.
Well, but the other, I mean, the same, same concept,
but another way of constructing it would be to take that $4 million over 10 years
and add it back right now to our housing program
instead of having a 40 million pot, a 44 million dollar pot, and make the adjustment
that way. And then you're not having this fee waiver discussion on everything
that comes along, and you still have created the same pool of money. And I'm only
saying...
And it's for affordable housing, and the city's doing it.
Yes. And I'm just saying, and I think that was the example where the 4 million
came from over 10 years, if I'm not mistaken.
Wasn't it the nonprofit things that you expect to be built to?
No, it was just housing, just the...
All right. Sorry.
So I'm just using that as an example of there are different ways to kind
of accomplish the same thing. And I don't know, I mean, maybe we have to really discuss
that, but...
Well, in my mind, I feel like we're kind of all on agreement that we would like to
see the affordable housing subsidized. And regardless of what product comes out of,
I feel like we should find the place to make those v-waivers happen. I think
where it gets trickier for me is when we start talking about non-private
We are trying to find criteria to rate which nonprofits we would be comfortable subsidizing
as you would say. And I think that's a lot trickier for me to go to because they might
apply to our critical priorities, but they might not. But looking at any of our nonprofits
in the face and saying that, you know, we understand that you do a lot of good for
our community, but we're not comfortable subsidizing or we are comfortable subsidizing you, I
think it's going to get very tricky moving forward. And so I think that's of a greater
are concerned for me I think if we all say yeah we want to make sure our
affordable housing fee waivers are covered moving forward and that's one
thing but then how do we make decision on nonprofits and are we willing to
subsidize all of them or none of them or some of them in place of value on them
and is that also something that could come into our city service contract or
something like that where that money then is applied to fee waivers or
something other than if they know that they have something coming up
where they can apply for our city service contract and that fee waiver
comes out of that and is opposed to direct donations.
It is murky, and I think it's complicated, particularly when you get into the 100-100
nonprofits that we have in this community and who gets something and who doesn't,
but we do need to develop a criteria for that.
And for me, it's going to be those, those entities that have been underserved,
those communities that have been underserved, and to the extent that we can help those
entities, I would support it. But those that are just an overlay component of the
community that perhaps hasn't, isn't a part of that community of the spin-left-out
of the equation, those I would struggle with supporting. But we need to have
something that's clear, because we're going to get hammered here.
Well, if we, to your point, the underserved would be a great way to put a lens into
the criteria underserved, and maybe it ties into affordability also, because we're
talking affordable housing, but underserved and affordability are very closely
related, and also that's a part of the community that, you know, we risk losing
because of the escalation of prices and the affluence of the community in general.
So we could tie in that affordability concept that we brought into play during the last
retreat in this manner also.
Right.
And you may want to add your goals of energy and transportation to that.
So, for example, set up some criteria where you're willing to waive more fees
if they're going with a lead gold standard, and if it's in an area where a bus stop would
make sense, if they're supporting that kind of thing, or transit-oriented development.
Yeah, we'll have to talk about that. I think that's, you know, for me, there's a difference
between those entities and the underserved component of the community.
But, yeah,
we're not helping you a hell of a lot here.
And I'm going to, I think it's going to be very tricky when we start talking
even about underserved populations, because we're going to hear from our arts organizations
that provide sponsorships to underserved populations. We're going to hear from, you
know, places like the Christian Center, which do direct services. But I think there's
a lot of ways the film series shows on the weekends for kids, like it's going to get
very complicated, even with that.
Freida, go ahead.
Thank you. I'm going to jump in because in a little bit we're going to give a quick
little report on fee reduction update with regards to special events. One of the
recommendations that's going to come forward in a little bit is relooking at the fee reduction
criteria. And I also wanted to clarify that I think when I started with the city we were
again kind of getting these fee reduction requests literally weekly and we almost couldn't keep
up with them and we didn't really have necessarily a way to budget for them. So coming up with
the criteria in a process helped not only provide clarity to staff but it also helped
provide clarity to the event organizer and understand that the fees that they
would possibly have when they're planning for projects or events.
And furthermore, in our fee reduction policy, we are going to say that we want to align
our policy with the critical priorities and actually develop measures so that when we
are looking at the policy, we can say, hey, they are or are not meeting these actual
priorities.
And are these nonprofits really providing a service to our community or are we just,
You know, are they just, I don't know, fun and a non-profit, and therefore we're granting
a fee reduction?
But what service are they actually providing, and why would we feel that that fee reduction
is necessary?
I think we've given some strong incest to what we think those priorities are in terms
of creating that criteria.
It's affordable housing, right?
It's going to be affordability as another component.
What else?
I was just going to, Mr. Mayor, to clarify.
It seemed to me like that there was good support for affordable housing and city projects
not having to go through the criteria.
Council was saying it's a policy decision that we believe those are appropriate
for fee waivers and impacts to simplify things.
Right.
Is that safe to say?
So that takes two of the bigger ones off.
Right.
And with the caveat that I think Nan's correct, we should track those.
So we know what those impacts are and we can come back.
and then the rest of the items are the ones that we believe that we need the criteria
for including affordability.
And the only other piece I'd add to that summary would be that you'd like to see staff figure
out a way to handle this in the budget both so that we can accurately view how much
affordable housing we are subsidizing, as well as not manage the impacts to the
departments wherever appropriate.
It would be great if we could take the great unknown out of what this number is for
a year, which was your point, Tim. You know, if there's a budget, a number that we
can put in the budget for a free reduction. But Mr. Harrington, I think you were
just going to add that.
Well, I think the other approach is if you look at the charts with the three
lines, you're already subsidizing new growth, new construction to a degree already.
So it's going to be hard to factor that out, like, specifically, but you could set
some parameters that if the budget has a level of service impact or this red line
crosses a certain percentage unexpectedly that's not in line with other growth or
application variations, because what allows you can attribute to market
conditions. So you should be able to tell the difference between a huge subsidy by
virtue of a big project that gets fee waivers versus the incremental flux that
occur in a natural market environment, and then just have it alert so that you know you're
not crossing some threshold of subsidies for the department as a whole, and then you'd
have to be, you'd have to ratchet it back or set a new deadline, but I think you could,
you could do that.
But what I'm hearing is you're largely, the State set this policy for you for impact
fees to a degree in the statute to Tim's point.
It said, affordable housing, you don't need to identify where the money is shifting
to from fund to fund, everything else you have to.
You're kind of extending that to the rest of the fee waivers in building for plan check
and others and saying give additional criteria for the application requirement.
So I think where you are is pretty consistent with where the state is on impact fees as well.
So the question is, you know, whether and where you want to offset those subsidies in
the actual funds.
Yeah, please.
Do you expect the revenues and the expenses to become more in line with the new fees,
the new restructuring that you've done?
Not necessarily.
The revenues are very volatile and they very much reflect the market, nature of the
market.
it, it's difficult to forecast that.
However, you will see a consistency with the expenses
and the long-term expenditures. There are very consistent and steady in the hopes of
meeting that in the long-term, not necessarily on a year-to-year basis.
I mean, that's part of the reason that we're talking about this is, you know, last
year we ended up, you know, $230,000 less than what we wanted to. And so that's
That's the reason that we were increasing fees.
And so if we were to waive more fees, then we'd probably want to increase the fees in order to make up the difference.
Mm hmm.
So we're already subsidizing new construction, so that
we subsidize nonprofits or our housing when I'm doing more of that.
And this is that's what a lot of the smaller jurisdictions have to do.
And, unfortunately, with that, that means great fluctuation of your staff in year
to year with your revenues.
And so I think part of this plan accommodates that subsidy year to year for a greater
stability of level of service.
But certainly you can do the other and have direct, and we do account for that.
I think that's what Jett was referring to in terms of the, you know, you consider
the prior year in the future budgeting, but not directly in terms of some of the
smaller jurisdictions and counties, that's a much bigger challenge for it.
And that's why you see their staff and go up and down with the economy.
So we've got to move on to another discussion.
But did you get all your points out with this?
Or do you want to return with a continued discussion?
I'd like to catch up with our agenda.
I'd be in favor of returning with a continued discussion.
It doesn't have to be a continuation of where we are today.
I mean, it can be staff going back doing a little bit of retuning, refining, thinking
about it.
With these comments, I mean, hopefully we've given you something to work with.
I personally think that there is a budget aspect here that I'd like to see our budget
guys explore a little more deeply, which is, and I think it would help us to sort
of create some sort of threshold that Mark's talking about, that I think we could incorporate
into the budget as an overall fee waiver threshold that, you know, do we exceed it, do we, how
close to it are we, how comfortable are we as an additional subsidy, because it is an
additional subsidy.
Right.
I'm comfortable with that.
Andy?
I just want to check.
So it was, with this budget cycle, we increased a lot of these fees, didn't we?
So we haven't seen this line could look very different for 2017.
Yeah.
we, you know, we're early in the fiscal year still, you know, three, three and a half months,
four months, I guess, into it. So the revenues are down just a little bit than what we want
for the projection, but, you know, there's still a lot of the fiscal year left. So hopefully
we'll kind of pick up. Usually in the spring, we see a big increase. So yeah, you're
going to come back if we might have half our year in and nice to see that.
I was just going to ask Council, there was a conversation about, you know, looking
looking at the criteria and pulling out affordable housing and city projects.
So if we came back and came up with a new criteria that was really focused more on nonprofits
and then talked about a budgeting piece or a threshold or a tolerance level for fee waivers,
is that what Councilors are at?
Yes.
Nate, anything else?
Just so you're aware that the impact fee will be addressed probably different than
that because of the different funds that it goes across and because of the state code.
So going in that direction with the budget and all that sort of criteria, we're going
to probably separate out impact fees a little bit from the other fees that go towards building.
So just so you're aware of that.
I mean, there's a couple of ways we can address that, and I think I could show you the
impacts and how that affects different funds if I show it to you directly from
I'm just an impact fee standpoint and there's two different roads that you could basically
go down.
I'd like to see that.
Are you pointing that out to us as a cautionary tale?
No, I'm just saying that that's what you'll see.
Because there's basically two ways that you could do it.
The code allows you to do affordable housing and city projects within those different
funds and just waive those.
The other way that you could do it is the way that we do it when we get grants
That's where we actually use the grant money to pay those, and then we see the whole subsidy,
whether it's from a grant standpoint, but since we're paying for affordable housing
out of the RDA, you could have the RDA pay all of those, then you'd see the subsidy altogether.
If you wanted to increase the funding within the RDA, you could.
But if you really wanted to get even more money and kind of spread it out between
the different funds, the code allows that as well.
So I'll show that to you both ways.
I think that will be helpful. Good. Anything else? Thank you.
We're going to shift to the back of the room for our discussion regarding communities
that care. So we'll slide back there with you all.
Yeah, so it's probably some constitutionalists or something, just warming up. Yeah, exactly.
I know, she could be on TV, but I don't know if he's on TV or if he's on TV.
I want you to be upset that I'm going to sue her.
You better trust me.
She's the mayor.
Oh, yeah, do you want to go sit on the air?
Yeah.
Do you want to go sit on the air?
I'm doing it.
I know I'll sit at the end, but she doesn't mind it.
I'm lying.
You're lying.
All right, so we're going to open this discussion for communities of care.
There you go.
Really quickly, yeah. So this is Maya.
Oh, go ahead.
I'm Maya Levine. I have started with a few other kids, the Youth Council of Park City.
And so then I was elected mayor recently, so I'm here to represent our youth council.
Does anybody have any questions?
So I'm really excited that you're here today and that you're going to be with us for the next year, I think that's awesome.
And just kind of as a really quick introduction, not long after our community lost those two
young men, Dr. Connolly pulled together a group of about 40 community leaders to kind of look
at how we might be able to address this as a community, these issues that are facing all
of us.
And what kind of came out of that group was everybody had an idea of what should
be done, but there was no central place for that to be done, no coordination, no framework
to make all of that happen. And so, she did a lot of research on a lot of different models,
and when I met with her recently, she had come across a program called Communities that
Care, and so that's what this study session is about today, and I'm just going to turn
it over to you to get us started.
So it definitely has been an evolving process.
I'm looking at Wade.
Wade and I have become very close colleagues
in the last couple of months.
You know, I'm happy to have him as a friend,
but it was under really bad circumstances.
So thank you for your time today to listen
to some of the statistics that I'm going to share,
kind of the story around this.
And I'm really thrilled that you're here
so you can also, you know,
support on that student side of that.
So as this started unfolding, there were a couple of things that happened specifically.
One was I started getting a massive amount of emails from different organizations, different people,
from our community but also from around the country nationwide.
And while I know school fairly well, I know the system of school,
I found really quickly that trying to manage that was way beyond what my scope could be.
And so very much what Nan shared was I pulled together some of the relationships that I
built with some of you, leaders of organizations, and we first came around just around the
grieving process to help us understand that not only are we grieving the lives of these
two boys, but as a community it was a grieving moment because it was a wake up call I
to many of us. Shortly after that, I was contacted by the CEO of Westgate. So I don't know if
many of you know the story behind Westgate. So we have a Westgate Resort, but the CEO
of all the Westgates contacted me. 15 months ago, he lost his daughter to an opioid overdose.
And he has since stepped down as being the operational guy and has sunk his time
and resources into learning about this. And so we had some really great conversations around
how do you, you know, how do you really have a culture of change? And so he shared with
me, and again, this is this evolving story, this idea of communities that care. Well,
throughout our community, I found out that we have several people that had been trained,
and I had the opportunity to meet Rob. But we also have several being with the
coalition, Tanya has been part of the anti-bullying coalition, Wade has had
instrumental peace in that, and it provides a framework. So what I want to
talk about a little bit is I want to give you some statistics right now about
our community, and this information is taken from the SHARP survey, so it is a
survey given to all of our students in Utah, and it helps us understand
risky behaviors. So it's a risky behavior survey and it's given at the age of 6
through 12th grade. So I want to just give you some quick statistics about our
drug use situation. So in talking about alcohol it talked about 6 through
12 that 61% of our 6 through 12th graders reporting having consumed
alcohol at home with my parent's permission and 62% of that was at someone else's home
without parent permission. Sources were of course at a party and then it goes through
that. So then it talks about the marijuana use and 21% of them have used marijuana
and in the last 30 days it was 30% or excuse me it was 12%. And prescription drugs so
think six through 12th grade, these are 12-year-olds all the way up to 18-year-olds, that's 6%
district-wide.
So you're thinking, okay, 6% prescription drugs doesn't seem like a lot, but then as
we drill down in this data, and we focus on our 10 through 12th graders.
So just on our 10 through 12th graders, 71% of them had used alcohol, 41% of them had
used it one of the last 30 days, and that's double the state norm.
So again, we live in a unique state, which isn't, you know, alcohol is definitely one
that we know isn't used a lot in Utah comparatively.
But then we looked at the marijuana use, it was 50%.
So out of our 10th and 12th grade, 50% of them had used marijuana.
By 12th grade, we had seen almost a double in hallucinogens.
So abuse in the last two years in our 12th graders.
and the cocaine use in our 12th graders tripled going from 2.5 to 7%.
So if you start seeing the trends of hard drugs, you know, alcohol versus marijuana and then the hard drugs,
and then we're more than double the state norm for prescription drug use,
and over the last couple years has increased from 5% to 8%.
So I share these with you that we're seeing a gradual increase of these types of really risky behaviors and drug use.
Let me see if there's a couple more that I want to share with you that really got my attention.
In the process of this, one, we've learned that we need to do a better job educating our students along the way.
So we have some very specific school things we need to do.
But one of the other things that we've looked at is providing a drug testing policy.
And so I know that there was a survey sent out to the student body and we just received the survey back.
And I literally just opened it.
And I want to share some of the, these are students' comments from the survey.
It talked about teach parents ways to prevent and deter their children from doing drugs.
Get kids educated in more detail at an earlier age.
Educate students on the negative impacts of hard drugs.
Testing students randomly may lead to a use of hard drugs,
so they were thinking that just drug testing from marijuana may lead to drug use in other areas.
I want to read one that just caught my eye, sorry, just a minute.
This one, I feel that having more education on the topic would help.
There are a lot of students who aren't aware of the dangers.
And then one specifically was, it talked about the culture that you're never going to change the culture of the town,
but at least you can educate us about hard drugs.
And that really stuck in my mind of, well, I really think we do have an opportunity to change the culture in our town.
And that's been how I've kind of come upon Rob and the framework.
So just to give you a little bit about the communities that care, it's very, it's an organic process.
And we, and Daniel, I know that you have, and Nancy too, with the anti-bullying coalition, you're familiar with it.
It's out of the University of Washington and 25 years of research around social development.
When I talk about social development, how do communities really address the negative factors
that are occurring in their communities?
And so you'll be able to share the process of that.
But what I think that I have found that has been most encouraging about this.
One is that we're not creating it.
We're not creating a framework.
It's already been done.
There's been 25 years of research and they have tools ready for us.
And what it requires us to do is to come together as a community and commit to this.
So I'm going to kind of hand it over.
Do you guys have questions before I hand it over to?
I have one question.
Okay.
So these surveys are voluntary.
So it's dependent upon the students, honesty, level, disclosure, and such.
I'm just curious that the numbers are scary.
And they clearly point to a lot of things of concern.
I'm curious if we've compared those to out of state numbers.
just because it was kind of unique culturally, there's such a stigma. I wonder if there's
less disclosure among these. It's in the dark through me. It is. So how do we compare to
say Boulder, Colorado, or Chicago or something like that? And I want to share with you, I
had this last weekend, I had some area superintendents from Vale, Aspen, Telluride, Jackson Hole,
Sun Valley and McCall and we were here in Park City and so I asked them you know
what is your biggest issue right now in your community and they said mental
health and substance abuse hands down like they we cannot get ahead of it so
suicide ties into that absolutely yeah it does and so what national nor so
So prescription drug use is 20% for Park City, which is double our state norm.
What age groups are these again?
This would be our 10th through 12th graders.
But it's equal to the national norm.
And I, knowing how competitive we are in Park City,
that's the last thing we want to be in competition with at the national level.
They don't give it for town, but they give it compared to nationally.
That's what I was just wondering about.
I mean, we're clearly way out of skew with the rest of the state,
but I'm wondering nationally how we play out.
It sounds like we're a little more in line nationally.
You know, and I have to tell you, I've had some conversations with some of our high school students,
and it has been really eye-opening to talk with them.
I mean, most of you know, I mean, we have kids that just went through the school system,
but having your own kids versus having two kids just talk to you.
I mean, it was really, you know, most of my friends believe that marijuana's not bad.
In fact, it's good for us.
I mean, so those are kind of some of the understandings that I was really shocked.
But one thing that I, that they shared with me was the level of stress that they feel.
And whether it's the level of stress to perform academically or athletically or just be in Park City,
they, all of them have stated it's a hard place because of that.
And I would say that's a national trend of those soft skills that they're,
that I'm going to say even that we were raised of that perseverance and that resilience.
We have some kind of disconnect and I don't know why, I don't know why but I think we have a lot of smart people here and people that cherish kids in this community.
We're seeing the same trend in higher ed in terms of the services required to help our students deal with the loss of stress that they are encountering.
It's a really unique environment right now.
And the Bully Coalition really just started with Kevin McIntosh and Ray Nurek who are kind of passionate about kids that are sort of slipping through the cracks.
But it's really evolved into the whole thing of, it's all under one big umbrella.
You know, kids that are having issues, and suicide, drugs, it all goes together.
And so that's why we started looking at this community, so care...
Because we need to look at a more official format, which has been proven, and then there's
opportunities for grants and all kinds of great stuff if you sort of head down that way.
Sparging is our numbers are, the positive side of that is that they have these CADK grants
that I know Cedar City received, and their numbers weren't even close to ours.
But I was fairly involved in that. They received $650,000 to address some of these issues
with the ability to apply for that after a five-year period, and I went back to Washington
D.C. with a group of these kids, oh, I guess it's been four, five years ago, and it was
nice to be able to have the funds that they could actually drill down and find out what
these issues were and be able to put the resources in it.
And I don't know if, and we applied for this grant several years ago, and it was
a really short notice for us, but since that time you can speak to this, a lot of the resources
we realized what we needed to be successful in that grant, and so we've had these discussions
about substance abuse and a lot of these other issues that will help support us if
we try to apply for that grant again.
And some of you may know that yesterday we had our third community leader meeting
And the question was how it was twofold is how are we going to keep our kids safe during the holiday season?
Because that's a short term and we had students at our tables and I said so do you
And I asked the one student, I said so do you know of anything that's going on this holiday season during Christmas break?
No, do you know of any activities that you can be involved in?
No. I mean so we're seeing some gaps in services for our kids to have some
safety nets for them. So if you don't have things planned, they're gonna plan
things for themselves and some of the behaviors that we are seeing. I mean the
things that have come across my chest in the last month have been, I thought
again I've been a seasoned educator, have really been eye-opening and I know
you've seen some of those in the paper the rentals of the ERBOs and the big
parties and these are 9th to 10th graders and it's just what they do so
I'm
curious if any of you remember past discussion on issues within the
community that kind of focused on the school district and there was this
sleep it under the carpet and denial.
And it came from the business interests, let's say,
and maybe the real estate interests in town.
They didn't want to acknowledge that there was a drug issue
in the school district.
They didn't want to acknowledge that there were issues
within the community because they thought
that it would present the community in a poor light
and that people wouldn't come here.
Now, it seems like the landscape has changed a little,
maybe because it had to change and we're changing in reaction to these events, but I'm curious to
number one you all remember that conversation like 15 years ago it was a big deal. I mean there
were people who were saying hey we got to wake up and there were letters to the editor and then
there was this huge community backlash oh let's just get that all tamped down and not even talk
about it. So I'm glad to see we are talking about it. Are we past that kind of community pushback
or ember or use hearing a pushback from any segment of the community that does not want
this to be part of the community dialogue because of the potential implications for sign
real estate.
Most of my feedback has been very positive.
Anybody else getting a pushback?
We created our, you know, the website that we have for the police department, when we
have people ask about specific areas, we don't say this area is better than this area, we
say go to the website and it's within 24 hours it will show you what has occurred in that
area.
So it's real time.
They can look and make their own decisions based on-
People do ask you?
Yeah, they do.
We get, when people move to the area they say, can you tell me what area is the
best place to live. I said, well, it depends on what you want. I mean, this community is
very different from one end to the other. And so we have these conversations and it's a
nice tool that we can point them there and they can actually go online and it's right
under our...
Or maybe that explains it, you know, it's the information age with instant access to
all sorts of information on the internet. And that's a perfect example. There are
websites where you are providing information in real time that people can access on
their own without having to go through a middle person
and create a narrative around the community
that can actually see the doubt for themselves
and make their own decisions about the narrative
of the community.
But we had huge pushback 15 years ago on the reality
of, you know, and a narrative that was being created
to hide a real situation.
Yeah, I don't remember specific things that happened,
but I had kids in school at that time,
And I do remember kind of the feeling of hushing, hushing us.
It was a big hush.
Well, there was that study done, which was kids here don't do it.
You know, I mean, and there was, I mean, it came out,
and it was basically just a sales pitch of how,
really, there isn't a problem here.
I'm concerned about the narrative.
I think dead kids probably give you the worst narrative down.
Right.
What do you think program plays?
And it really is a human awareness about this.
So we know it's been in our community for a long time.
I told you before I've got a spectrum of five kids of 21 years between them.
And it's, you know, for the most part all of them have seen drugs
throughout their middle school and high school.
Less so of the elementary school syndrome.
But they'll all tell you, you know, that the drugs are so much more lethal now.
I think that's the other thing that's been a realization because, I mean, I certainly,
we have to all parent our children, but the level, you know, the way marijuana is now versus
how it was 20 years ago, it's a totally different drug, and I think that that's something that
not a lot of our parents realize.
I think the synthetic marijuana now is so potent, which isn't even the same thing.
A lot of people don't realize there's marijuana than there's synthetic marijuana,
which has really adverse effects on young people, on everybody.
I want to talk about the comment that you made, Amber,
about the opportunity to actually change the culture of the community,
because that's where I'm going with this.
15 years ago, the community didn't want to have a discussion about the reality of the
culture of the community. And now we lost. Now we're in a position where for whatever
reason, internet, events, the type of drugs that are prevalent, we're willing to have
that conversation and dialogue. So I feel like that's a great opportunity.
I think parents and the community are expecting us to do something.
I think that's something too, I mean some of you may have read the article about the vandalism
and the very next contact I got was I'm going to go to the school to get some help.
And that's a really hard place for us.
I mean we are going to help our families, that's what we do, that's why we're there.
But in the long run, we're not the hub of helping families get through these situations.
Well, it's not our wheelhouse. It's our intent. It's our intent to provide those supports for our families.
But it's not what we do best. And so it would make sense to collaborate and get the people and the resources that do it best.
So Rob, you want to share with us? Can we use it here?
Yeah, certainly.
And you were going to talk about Tuala, I mean, are you going to talk about that?
So just by way of introduction, I'm Rob Timmerman.
I work with the state's Partnerships for Success program.
I'm a regional director.
I work with Salt Lake, so many Tuala counties.
And I'm happy to be here.
Thank you so much for letting me come up and talk a little bit about communities that care
and also kind of prevention and where we've come in prevention,
how we get to community coalition models like the communities, the care model itself.
And really quickly, in the prevention speak, I'll address kind of what you're getting at,
is we call it readiness, community readiness.
Fifteen years ago, the community wasn't ready.
I would say two or three years ago, the community wasn't ready.
And oftentimes there are things that spark readiness.
And the triathletic center of the Colorado State University has studied this for years
and has come up with a readiness model.
And I think as you look at where the community is in Park City now, certainly we're ready to start working.
And that wasn't the case.
So a quick background.
Thank you for the great segue on the research that's been done behind this.
And I do want to say that this is research-based.
This is a way of looking at prevention much differently
than many of us in the room grew up looking at prevention.
Just say no, it doesn't work.
The aid in the frying pan doesn't work.
Everybody remembers that commercial.
The stoners remember that commercial.
Those that had problems with alcohol and drug abuse,
they remember those things.
But their environments led them down the roads
is where they chose to participate in what we like to call negative outcome behavior.
And so as we start looking at community prevention, as we start working on some of these things,
we are looking at outcomes. And the outcomes are we want our kids to be healthy and safe.
And so when things happen that our kids aren't healthy and safe, we call that a negative
outcome or a negative outcome behavior. So when we're talking about things like
alcohol use, underage drinking, or we're talking about some of the mental health issues that
were brought up, those are outcomes and those are things that we know that we can prevent
through this research and through this science. Really quickly, this model is based off of
risk and protection. If I were to say to you, I'm not a part physician, but if
I were to say to you, I can pretty much tell you the risk factors for heart disease,
right? You all could do that too, because we know them. They're ingrained in us. We
know that it's a set of nearly lifestyle. You don't exercise. If you have a family
history of heart disease, you're more likely to. And so the researchers of the
University of Washington, kind of for the first time, put prevention research
into that frame of the public health model. What are some of the things that
we know are risk factors? What are some of the things that we know can be
protection. And so that then kind of leads to, well, how do we implement that in our communities?
And so they develop the communities that care system. It is a five phase process, very much
you as a community in Park City are in the first phase. And that is this getting together,
holding meetings, organizing, getting some people together, formulating relationships,
kind of starting to set, hey, we've got some things that we need to take care of in
how we're going to do that. The next phase is involved training and
implementation and then evaluation. Again, there's five stages of that. I've got a
video that I'll show which is which is quite helpful in kind of being an
introductory video to the communities that care process and I imagine you'll
some questions after I show this video, but maybe I'll show the video, and that will help
you answer questions or formulate questions, and then I'm happy to answer some questions
with that. So I think we've got this set to head up here.
I just have to adjust my
It's
warm so deeply to how their young people, but they don't know how to go about it.
CDC shows you how to do it, gives you great tools so they can do it efficiently and effectively.
I think the communities care a lot and really have our community bring in a number of,
if you will, resources together to have a collective impact and reduce the amount.
Montmelo is a neighborhood in Denver's far northeast area.
Montmelo has historically been underserved.
Communities that care was chosen because,
well for many reasons, they have a space major behind it,
but also there is a requirement for a significant community involvement.
Community's care is a process for organizing all the stakeholders in the community
who care about young people around a common science-based framework to promote the healthy
development of young people by reducing knownness factors in the community, enhancing protective
factors in the community, and using evidence-based programs and policies to achieve better outcomes
for young people.
When I saw CTC and the Research Foundation in a strong background that it had, I really
felt that this had a good chance of making a difference here in our community.
Community's the care is not a program. It's a process. It's a way to bring all the stakeholders
in the community together to make joint decisions based on their own data about what's going
to be important for the youth in their community. So when you look around my community, you
We may be surprised that we have any problems at all.
People are surprised to hear that we actually have pretty high rates of substance abuse.
If suicide, marijuana use in particular, what we found, we thought that the data we do indeed
have much higher rates than we would expect of those particular problem behaviors.
The reason I work for CTC is that it's a way to get ahead of the curve.
Instead of reacting to problems in kids after they happen and always being on the
cycle of reaction. It's a way for us to move upstream and get ahead of the problem so that
we can do things to strengthen communities and strengthen families, strengthen school
systems so we all do a better job raising our children and keeping them out of trouble
in the first place.
Communities in care helps communities choose the right programs and policies for their
needs based on surveys of young people and based on data from the community. They
They then can choose evidence-based programs from a menu that have been set in perspective,
addressing very niche communities.
Music care really seeks to promote well-being.
And one of the things that I love about music care is it provides a strategy for doing that
called social development strategy.
It says if you provide young people meaningful opportunities to be involved,
and you teach them the skills to be successfully involved,
recognize them for their involvement,
they develop a stronger bond to that community.
going to have the standards and beliefs in place to promote healthy development,
more likely to follow those standards.
An exciting finding from the Communities in Care randomized trial is that
communities using Communities in Care end up strengthening protection across the board.
Communities in Care is a good investment for communities.
It produces $5.30 in benefits to communities for every dollar spent.
Because communities in care has been shown to prevent crime before it happens, to prevent smoking before it happens,
it reduces the cost associated with those problems.
The
best reason to use a community care system is because you know it will work.
The reason it will work is because there's science behind it.
that they've done their research like,
how about if you do X, Y, and Z, do you get A, B, and C?
I've been involved for 10 years.
I've seen that change happen.
But it doesn't come quickly.
And it comes with much effort.
It comes continuing to maintain and continuing to do
over and over again.
But the fact is, we're seeing results.
You mentioned Tawella.
And I'll say in here, they talk
about the randomized control trial.
Twila was actually a resource group, so they were part of the trial.
They were given the CTC model.
Price Utah was part of the control group, and if I were to compare them to where they are at now,
it's night and day with some of the issues going on in price,
and some of the successes that Twila has had.
Twila has been using the CTC model for approximately 10 years.
Currently, they fund a full-time position and a part-time staff from their city budget.
It's a line item in their budget to fund those positions.
But then they also offer, through the city, they offer programming in classes
and also coordinate programming that is done in the Tuala Valley,
but into a city itself, working with the school district
and working with other nonprofit groups out there
that provide direct programming to kids.
And with that I'll say, so the communities that care program
is not a direct service program.
It is a way to coordinate the amazing efforts
that are going on in communities.
And so everybody's on the same page
with the same message and doing the same work.
And that's really vital to success
of community coalitions, is being
being able to have a center where there is an opportunity for resource sharing, for marketing
of a particular program, meeting the need of another program with a potential partner
or a coalition member. And so the CTC very much becomes that kind of hub as they work
with community partners and coalition members in the community. Please.
Well, you mentioned that Tuva has a line item and an employee out of the city budget.
And so are they considered the coordinator for the city?
Yes.
And in like Camden, Maine, that was an example there.
Is it, once again, the city?
Or is it, I just wonder, is that the...
So a really good question.
And I can give you the varying structure here in the state of Utah.
There are, I always like to say communities.
So communities are involved in the CTC.
Sometimes they are city driven, sometimes they
are school district driven.
Provo City School District just last summer
started the CTC process.
South Weaver County has a kind of a conglomerate for cities and
all of them are pitching in. I saw one of the things that said five-town CTC town, five-town.
So that's, Camden is one of the five towns. They have a, they have a coordinator for
the five towns.
Yes, yeah.
And throughout the state of Utah,
some CTC projects are
driven by either
county or local substance abuse
authority, which loosely based on
health
districts throughout the state.
Some of the county having its
own, it is its own substance
abuse authority, but throughout
the state there's communities
that work directly with
city, county, school districts, or private non-profit is the other one.
Before my current position, I was the director of the coalition in South Salt Lake,
down in Salt Lake County, and we were a private non-profit.
So there's all sorts of models within.
There's all sorts of structures within, you know, kind of how CTC is operated.
Just to go to Wade's point, though, real quick, is on that CADFIT grant, you know, it's a $650
grant.
So if we can get ourselves to fill out this grant by February, March, or whatever it is.
I don't know what the date says.
Something like that.
It's usually on your February.
March is on your March.
You know, there's a huge opportunity there to bring a lot of funding in.
And the great part is, you know, we have a lot of these pieces in place already.
They're just kind of all over the place.
And when we have a great team council, we have the leaders for life.
And, you know, we have the bully coalition, which is already 501c3, and we have a lot of these pieces that are needed for this grant.
It's really a matter of having somebody kind of pull them all together, you know, getting it in there.
And then putting them into, you know, a model like this and getting us on our way, because they're all kind of working on their own.
They're working, but, you know, there's a way to push them all together.
That's the hardest part, is the communication and the messaging.
Yeah.
And to your point, you know, sitting in the meetings that Emerson's pulled together with
these community leaders, it's obvious everybody wants to do something, or is already doing
something.
Like, our council has talked about what is our role here, and how do we connect in with
all of this, and there's talk about readiness.
This group is really ready to jump in there, but there's no hub, there's no central
to get people out of their silos, talking with each other, and so whatever told me about this program, I thought that makes perfect sense because we've got people ready and willing to do something but nobody to tell them how that's going to fit into the big picture.
Can you tell us a little bit more about how the program works and what's involved in the different stages that you mentioned? We're in like the collaboration stage.
What kind of training and implementation is involved and what really does the program look like in a community?
Okay. Yeah, sure. So again, this is very much phase one. There's five phases.
Phase two moves into
training. And so one of the first things that's done is there is what's called a key leader orientation.
Key leaders are
it says it right there, a key leader in your community.
And so as a few people start working together
and start formulating and coming together,
that's known as kind of the core work group.
And in each core work group, there's usually a catalyst.
There's usually someone that's spurring on the effort.
That's, again, that's kind of what's going on here
is that form.
I mean, from that key leader or from that core work group,
they start identifying key leaders and actually make
agreements, formal agreements with those key leaders.
Those key leaders then become what you can kind of look at
as an executive board that help drive and make decisions.
It could be anywhere from financial oversight to HR,
that's the body that the potential coordinator
or facilitator would answer to.
And that key leader group, again, kind of very much
on an executable level, has oversight over in CTC language
what is called a community board.
I use the term coalition because that's kind of more
acceptable.
That community board becomes the coalition.
So that consists of the pastor from the local church
and the director of the Boys and Girls Club and the principal of the high school as to
where the superintendent may be one of those key leaders on the key leader board.
So a mayor may be a member of the key leader board.
Yeah, the key leader board, that's right.
And then, so down, so key leader, community board or coalition, and it's really these
people that do the work. They're within that is the staff position that provides resources
and is very much a facilitator called a coordinator facilitator that does the work of the process
of the communities of the care. So what I'm describing now is what's called phase two.
It's kind of a training phase of training members of the community on the science
prevention and how and why we know what works in prevention works. Using the risk-protective
factor model, kind of getting that to be the basic level of understanding if we reduce the
risk that's going on in our community, we're going to have better outcomes. Our kids are
going to be less involved in those negative outcome behaviors. Adding protection, using
the social development strategy. And I like this video that it shows that. We talked
about the culture, a culture change that we, there has been, there is a shift, and there
needs to be a greater culture change. So we do that through the social development strategy.
Then we start talking about in phase three data, collecting data, analyzing data, collecting
information on the resources that are available within our community, and then finding out
where the gaps in our community. That's done in phase three, and that ends up with
amazing reports that literally can hand it out to stakeholders in the community
to say we know exactly what's going on in our community and we know how to fix it
and we know we have the resources and we also know that there's some gaps and so
there there may be some programming or some policy gaps that we as a community
need to adopt whether that is direct programming through using the coal
which is part of the member providing a direct life skill building curriculum
them to kids, giving kids safe places to go, safe, safe events and opportunities to, are
there policy issues that you might need to look at as a body of policy leader? That's
something that you can have direct effect on.
You, in the video, had also said that from the communities that carry, you can choose
the tool that will fit your community.
Exactly. So the tools are providing events for students or safe places for students? Are those the tools?
Or providing education to students?
So through the process, it would drive you to evidence-based programs, policies and procedures.
So, an evidence-based programs would be like a Botvin's Life Skills, which is a, probably
one of the best substance abuse and other anti-social behavior or negative outcome programs.
It's on national registries that communities in the care model will point you to what's
called Blueprints programs as a national registry of tested and effective programs.
And so that's on one hand you have programs of things that you'll actually provide to the youth of the community.
Then on the other hand you'll have those practices and policies that you'll be able to change.
So a quick example of, and I use this one because it's really easy to get tobacco tax.
If we increase the tax on tobacco, we will lower the availability of teams that don't have money.
Please.
To purchase or adult populations that have money being super shopped on their folding lower,
or I'm sorry, that tobacco they're folding lower, tobacco use.
Is there something that's available to us in Utah on a city basis?
Certainly you look at ordinances that you've got as a city,
and you certainly have opportunity to talk about tobacco.
You certainly can.
New York City has the highest tobacco tax in the country,
and it's something that was done at the same level.
I know, it is a different state, can you?
Yeah, but yes, within the state of Utah,
you certainly can't do that.
And you can do that through zoning ordinances, zoning out
head shops, tobacco, specialty shops.
There's all sorts of policies that
are science-based, that are evidence-based,
that work to reduce availability,
work to reduce some of the other risk factors that we'll talk about within the risk-protecting
model.
From phase three, that gets you into the planning phase, which is phase four.
And that is, okay, so now we've got all this great information, what are we going to do?
And the process will drive you through coming up with a community plan, and that will
will include implementing or calling for implementation of programs, practices and policies.
Phase 5 then obviously is we institute and we do the work of the coalition in our community.
A lot of that implementation comes in evaluation piece making sure that what we are deciding
to do when implementing is community is working and if it's not we'll make adjustments
to that.
So I'd like to share a couple things because I know we all will go back and do some
research of our own. So communities that CARES has their own website, communitiesthatcare.net
and the University of Washington in their social work has a huge amount of research that's
down around the programs. I would also like to say that I've had a lot of different
entities in Park City throughout the county come and say, financially what can we do
to get this started? We don't have a funding to keep this long term, so we need to
talk about long-term ways for the facilitator of a communities that care
framework but I know that we have some at least a little bit of support
financially in other entities and nonprofits. So the five-step process you're
talking about is delineated in the website or on the communities that care
website? I'm certainly having to send out links if that makes it easier as
Well, within the state of Utah, the state of Utah actually
has a contract with the indigenous and Washington
folks, the social development research group
folks, that do the CTC.
And with that, Park City is already
slated underneath that contract.
What that will give essentially the community
in whatever form, if it's the city, school district,
Summit County, private nonprofit, whatever
the community decides, what that will do
is allowed for a match of up to $10,000 for three years, but the state will give
back to the community. And again, that's to whatever entity makes the contract with
the state. Within that contract is the is the coaching that's provided to
communities on how to walk through the five-step process. So the
the facilitator of the coalition, the facilitator of the CTC itself, will get hands-on training
within the state structure. We're creating water coaches within the state structure,
and those coaches have direct access to the Center for Incubation Care at the University
of Washington. The University of Washington will send folks to help do the original
key leader orientation and throughout we'll be participating so you'll get kind of a
hands-on, hands-on coaching and technical assistance from the USCGC with the
agreement from the state and again there's a $10,000 match right there.
So the main cost then is the salary and benefits of each facilitator?
Exactly.
And eventually when we have a staff which is, and I, you know, again if we invest in a
grant writer as well, you know, we have an amazing opportunity to get this CAPCA grant,
which could, you know, keep avoiding any of that idea.
So, you know, I operated the DFC Coalition in Los Angeles.
So I had the DFC grant, drug-free community grant, is what it is about.
And the past two years I've actually, with the DFC program, I've been a grant reviewer
and have seen 16 different applications for the DFC grant itself.
And it's very clear and very easy to tell because I know the process of a CTC coalition in writing for that grant.
And in my opinion, the CTC model puts you in mind with that grant, probably unlike anything else, other than the actual training that once you receive the DFC,
that you'll get from the Community Network Coalition for America through their Coalition
Institute, which is a contract that they have.
So it's, the CTC very much puts communities in line.
Bonneville CTC is the South River County CTC that I mentioned earlier.
They are a DSC grant recipient, they are a CTC coalition, and they are one of three
other DSC coalitions in the state right now. So the DSC program is kind of near
here in my heart and I would love for more DSCs throughout the state.
Please, a couple of weeks ago Rich Bollig gave me a call to let me know that the
results of the behavioral help assessment, needs assessment that we've been
talking about for so long are available. So he and I got together to
talk a little bit more about that and they're going to be given to the
Summit County Council and then he's going to be here with us on December 1st in a study
session to go over the needs, the results of that needs assessment.
He was really excited to hear about the community sick care and so he met with three of us
and is really excited about it because he feels it dovetails really nicely with the needs
assessment results, because communities that care would be the prevention aspect of it.
And then the needs assessment shows where we need to implement services immediately.
So he's, he was sorry he couldn't be here today, but he had to go backpacking instead.
Does he have really good braidsmen?
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
But he's very supportive of this effort.
Yeah.
Let's see why.
That's very exciting.
That brings up a question I had.
So our community obviously stretches well beyond the city boundaries and certainly we're talking school district-wide
But does it make sense to look at this?
Countywide or is that biting off too much at this point?
Rich is going to have implementation
Countywide but the behavioral needs assessment. So I don't know I can't speak in the business
You know, that's a really good question names for part of that. I would refer to
environmental health
as their prevention program, they work currently with the entire county and had contacts with
the South Summit and North Summit as well. I think then you get to the right mis-issue
again, I think, and only what I know in working with Valenansel, is there are some issues
issues in North Summit that were similar here several years ago.
But the great thing about the CTC is it's community driven and so if you as a county decide that
it's your county that you want to include in this, then that's what you get to do.
And if you decide that it's Park City, we feel that we in Park City have resources
is available and where it is now, it's certainly going to be Park City.
So it seems like given the demographics and the population growth, the participation in
the county, that a broader scale is the appropriate approach, but what do you all think about that?
Well, it's hard to say to the other people in the county, I think they would resent
us, you know, that's a Park City problem. I don't know that they're ready for it,
But we could certainly, maybe they are.
And then I'd be just assuming that they're not ready for it.
Well, I think at least broadening the discussion
to the inquisition.
I don't think that they're not ready for it.
I'm finding that certainly the leadership on this side
is much more receptive to things that I thought
would be coming in four years ago.
Right.
I think the challenge is not knowing as much
about the program itself and how it's structured.
We have a bit of a far-fetched one county, we've got 30 miles in one way and 15,000 miles.
But differently, we're putting in place the programs that are in the community.
I mean, it seems to be something that is based on them.
I don't know how we separate out the others before we can actually accomplish one person.
But again, that's going to be a good test for who just doesn't know.
And to that end, one of the suggestions that we'd like to make, our council is meeting jointly with the Summit County Council and the School Board in December.
And we'd like to suggest that this topic be put on the agenda for a discussion when we're all together.
If you're up there.
Maybe we could get somebody from South Summit.
I've had, you know, I can, we have a really close peer group within the superintendents,
and I've had many conversations with both South Summit, North Summit, and also he was a little bit different,
but I know South Summit would be very open and in need of this.
I mean, there was a suicide there about three years ago that was, you know,
involved a young, a young one in, so I, you know, and they are very close to us.
North Summit's a little bit different, but at the same time, you know,
they're starting to see some of the same issues.
Well, we can do it like with Leaders for Life, I mean, we, we open that up to
North and South Summit. We don't see much.
And then it's the same with the Teen Council that's here.
I mean, those are open to North and South Summit and even Wasatch County.
And we don't see much, but we see some coming.
I mean, so that might be, you know, we go down our path, but we're open, you know, for
if they approach us to include them.
I mean, that would be my take.
And we could open that up more and we could push that harder.
We were more worried about servicing our own kids and make sure we had enough slots
so we could really market it that direction, but we could do that.
Well, you may want to throw that to observe how it starts to tend to be over here.
I'd say it's something that could be scaled and inscribed out.
Let's just say leaving it open and make an opt-in opt-out, but hopefully opt-in.
My concern is hanging this on the school district and school districts.
And I know that that's something you can't do now.
Well, that's why it's a concern.
The easy way to scale something is to go from Harksy School District to North Summit to South Summit,
and then often the other school districts.
But we're trying to separate this out and make it more a non-school, purely school or school-related issue
and call it out for what it is, which is a cultural community issue.
And if we're going to shut the culture of the community, we can't continually scape
out of the school district for schools, or a school, or school children with the issue.
So that's going to be a fine line.
And I want to go back to the question that you said asked me previously.
You know, have we had any pushback?
I've had one ugly call.
But for the rest of it, we've had the business actually calling me and saying,
what can we do to help?
And, you know, the businesses are the employers of our community.
And so it really, that has not been the case, and I see someone in the back right there,
Dean Davis, who's been a tremendous partner with us at the hospital from the very beginning.
And so it's not just, you know, it's not just the school.
It really is all of our medical entities and our behavioral health entities and our businesses.
Yeah, so let's be aware of that.
careful because I mean I have to say when we have these meetings and school board
members come in there automatically there's this perception that the school
district is you know it's not deeply involved driving you know you can make
all sorts of assumptions that you don't want to be real clear on the narrative
and how we present this and how we engage the communities or the broader
I think one of the issues of how the district is pulling this is similar to the police department.
and our kids are involved at that level and so, you know, with this issue with these kids
that passed away. Obviously, when we have just this most recent vandalism, we don't have
a history on the kids necessarily unless they've been on a radar, so I'll call Ember
and say, you know, these kids, you know, what's the tie in there, you know, the
parents, and so that automatically kind of sucks Ember on this and we'll kind
That goes back and forth, which is a great resource, but at the same time it's really
tough on resources because the district has been there and has provided a lot of the mental
health resources.
I think it's tapped them to a point where they really don't, they can't continue to
do it.
And I recognize that.
We'll do it as much as we can.
We really can't do it until the court gets involved and says, okay, the case has been
adjudicated and the judge orders some treatment.
So that's the other problem. So we have this delay in time that really hurts us.
Yes.
Well, we want to thank you for your time. I said, no more pressing issue than this. It's
something that we're all going to be involved in, and we're all going to have to own. And
so we're not planning on just sticking it with the school board. We're going to be
engaged in, we'd love to continue these discussions. It's a great friend of
construction. I'm excited about that. So it was an easy help to that we held.
So, do you have any other questions you'd like to ask?
I guess, comments?
So, we are working with the school board in a sense, and I know there's an email that was sent out to the entire student body on their thoughts of drug-festing all of the athletes and the club members.
Would this be like a part of what we're doing here, or would we work with them to try a different method of helping the community decrease the numbers we're seeing?
It's one of the things that, with the survey that you're talking about, it continued to
say we need to have better education younger.
And that's what I keep hearing, you know, starting at that fourth, fifth, sixth grade
around the facts, not just don't do it as bad, you know, what really are the long-term
consequences.
So, and I think that one of the things that's important is that each entity has
their own responsibility, you know, as a school district we would have our own
responsibility of prevention, as does the city, as does the county, as does, you know,
every single entity, and that's that cooperation and messaging.
I have a question for Maya. As a student, would an educational message carry any credibility
with the students that you interact with if you were to learn, and it was new information
to you that your brain is developing until you're age 24, and any substance you underdress
whether it's coffee, alcohol, tobacco, drugs has an effect on you, the developmental process.
Would you just go, eh, or would that sort of message carry or influence any of the kids
that you interact with?
I think I think the actual topic would help a lot I know when I was in elementary school
One unit was drugs and not to use them. We got below like necklace that said, you know
Don't do drugs drugs are bad. That was about it. We were never told what it could do to us the effects of when we're older
Things like that so we developed
More and I think starting at younger to I know there's a certain amount of information that
that, you know, vibrators might not be able to comprehend at that time. But if we do start
it younger too, I think it would make a difference.
Great. Thanks for everything.
I think kids want to talk about this, by the way. I mean, I think if we give them the right
opportunities, and again, the drug testing is just, it's one tool of many, and we just
put it out there and just kind of start the discussion. You know, we know education
and awareness is all kinds of different things, and it's a matter of figuring out which tools
we want to put in our box to be the most useful. I mean, I know we just did that snow before
you go class for our seniors before they go off to college, and these were kids after
AP tests before graduation, so you know what seniors are like then. They're pretty checked
out, and we had 40 percent of our seniors get signatures from parents to come back
and get, they had to opt in, 40 percent. I mean, that's pretty good for 18-year-olds
who are checked out. So kids, do you want to talk about all this stuff? We just have to
provide the forum for it.
That's true. That's true.
All right, thank you.
Thank you for your time, Leslie.
I really appreciate it.
We're going to take five minutes and then we're going to switch to the other end of the road.
Can I leave my glasses up there?
No, here they are.
I'm going to need to keep you on.
All right, we're going to get going here.
Welcome to the work session for November 3rd,
2016 of the Park City Council.
First on the agenda would be Council questions and comments. Who wants to go first?
Dan?
So I just want to start with the coffee with Council. Thank you so much to staff for organizing that and making it happen.
I know I was surprised and I think Tim was as well with the turnout.
We talked today before and kind of thought if we'd be lucky if we got 10 people there and staff estimated there were 50 plus.
And it was just a, it was a wonderful opportunity for us to share what's going on with the city.
I also hear people's concerns and what they're interested in and questions.
Do you want to add anything while we're talking about this?
No.
Sure.
Linda, I had
several people come up afterwards and said that they were going to look for the schedule
online and that they wanted to attend all of them.
So that's exciting.
Good.
I attended the Arts Council Creative Conversations that they pulled together all the leaders
from the arts nonprofits. This was their first one. And they were hoping to do these on a regular
basis where they can define the Arts Council's role in the way that would be most helpful
to the arts nonprofits in town. I attended the JPAB meeting and was excited to learn
that our 12 new buses are here and they're wrapped. And so they're going to be online
when we start the winter season. And the 6 electric buses have been ordered. They were
able to juggle some funding and make sure that we got six instead of the five buses.
Driver recruitment is going better this year, but they still need more housing for the drivers.
And December 6, when we have our joint council meeting with Summit County, there'll be
the ribbon cutting on the new transit center at Campbell Junction. This morning
I attended the Affordable Child Care Early Childhood Collaborative Action Network meeting.
That's a mouthful.
Okay, I'm not going to.
So that group, first of all, is going to be developing a master plan for affordable child care in our community.
But I was excited to learn there that PCTANTS has identified some space for their satellite.
They're doing diligence on that now.
provided that it all checks out like it should.
They're thinking it could be built out in two to three months.
Judging from their waiting list, they're going to open that facility for zero to three.
Right now on their waiting list, for infants, they have 16 people waiting for slots for infants.
They have 10 waiting for slots for a one-year-old and 14 waiting for slots for two-year-olds.
So you can see that they're focusing their need on the younger kids rather than the three to five year old.
So anyway, and finally I just want to remind everyone, in case you've been hibernating for the last month
and haven't been reading your emails, tomorrow are starting tonight.
At midnight is live PC, give PC.
So there's a great opportunity to support all the nonprofits in town.
That's it.
Thank you.
I got a little update on that this morning and they are doing it in a rolling
fashion. They're shutting down the home daycares as their units come up for
renovation or the lease comes up or something like that. So they're not doing it all at
once, but rather kind of on a rolling basis, which is easier than to help assimilate
the kids into other facilities, other care. But it's still an issue.
Do you know how many of them shut down?
I'm sorry, I know.
Could you all check to make sure your mic's around?
Thank you.
Go ahead.
I've got three that I'll just ditto off of what Nan said.
The Park City Summit County Arts Council discussion,
JTAB and Coffee with Council.
Three other meetings I went to.
Chamber Prospector Square Property Owners Association,
Recycle, Utah, but I don't have anything to report from those.
I wanted to point out that the newsletter just came out, and it's just an amazing review
of things that are happening in the city that are very positive.
I just wanted to highlight a couple of them.
The building department has a great story in there, and I think we're going to get
a staff report on that sometime.
They're not too distant future, so I won't spoil it, but it is in the newsletter,
so it's kind of spoiled anyway.
but some great recognition.
On Your Ground was recognized as a historic real estate department credentialed individual
and got some recognition there.
I thought that was great.
Summit Community Power Works in the Georgetown has blogs on different families and different
people around town.
Hugh Daniels got a FEMA national emergency recognition or graduated from their program.
Management executive committee or a very own chief carpenter of course was elected
Vice President at large for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and they
schedule for the Council coffee or the Council outreaches in that newsletter as well.
In addition, I just wanted to say that we've had a number of issues that have come before
the city and have been addressed very quickly and very efficiently and I think very competently.
and I just wanted to call those out and recognize not necessarily the people individually, because
I'm not sure all of the people who were involved, but we had a situation over in Prospector
with some property lines that had to be resolved, that got resolved.
And I mention these things because it's not like we're sitting around with available
bandwidth or surplus bandwidth at the city staff.
So in order to do these things, there has to be a shift in priorities.
and I was I'm extremely pleased at how the city responded to these three issues
maybe they're more than I'm not aware of but the the prospector issue with the
property lines the in lieu parking fee accusations that were made at the at the
coffee with council and have been made repeat repeatedly at different meetings
were addressed in a in a great way there was a tent a tent down in the
Clark Ranch property that was a hunting tent and an officer from the police
department as well as Heinrich and maybe even Stewie got involved in that
and that got resolved and there's a couple other things that came up but
again my point is that these came out of the blue and oh well Nate's letter
in response to some concerns about the city asking to put the 25 million
dollar Binance of Flats bond general obligation bond on the ballot and I
I thought that was a phenomenal response
with a lot of information.
And my point is that they get addressed,
they get addressed professionally, effectively.
It's great, it's great community engagement,
it's great customer service,
and it also provides us with data
that will inform our policy decisions going forward.
So I think on many, many levels
I just wanted to highlight those and say thank you.
Great, great, here, here.
Andy, nice work, Kim, covering all that.
Okay, relatively light week, Beck and I attended the CAS conference, the Colorado Area Ski Towns
in Pagosa Springs. And as always, it's interesting to go see what similar challenges other towns have.
The one thing that was particularly interesting though is I am pro snow, did a presentation there,
encouraging other towns to take the pledge that Aspen and Park City just did.
And then we gave a pitch to encourage them to do so as did the mayor of Aspen and I think we've got some other takers
We also brought one of the Moab council members along as a guest to the meeting and
By the end of that I think Moab is likely to sign the pledge as well. They're pretty excited about it
So it's the part of our commitment for this Georgetown prize is to reduce our own energy use and improve our efficiencies
But it's also to create a scalable and replicable model
So we are really trying to push this out here.
I believe it's in our actual resolution that we're going to try to encourage other towns.
So it was nice to get there.
And I don't know, Beck.
I thought it was well received.
People seemed really interested.
I think I've let up in the first part of it.
And then the other...
Yesterday I attended the Park City Area Lodging Association luncheon
and had a conversation with them.
They had asked me to speak about our upcoming issues on the ballot, Proposition 9 and 10,
as well as Bonanza Flats just to go in, and it was a Q&A, it wasn't any advocating.
But they had some questions.
And then we talked about some broader issues in terms of the city's critical priorities,
some talk about events, which we're going to hear more of today, and then also a
discussion on the VRBOs and the Airbnb's in the world and at the end of that it sort of
spurred them to action and they want to be, they want to be better informed and maybe support
the city as we address this coming legislative session.
I think there's going to be the same challenges we faced last year.
So that was good and I was expecting, I was worried how we were going to fill the time
but we had to cut them off, there were so many questions.
So that was good and I appreciated the help from back on that.
Next year, that's all you.
And, lastly, I had asked council permission to go to D.C. next week. I don't think I'm going to need to go on that trip.
I think they scaled back the group we're sending out. They're expecting kind of a weird week there, I think, post-elections and so many things going on.
So it did make sense to send a large group. So I'm happy because there's a couple of events here.
I'd like to attend some community things. So I don't think I'll be going.
Okay, good. There's more money for my tear of Del Fuego trip then.
That's a joke.
All right. So as Andy mentioned, I went with him to cast and it was, I think it was a really great opportunity to really see how aligned we are with so many of the resort towns in Colorado and Idaho.
So I was, for a while I was taking hash, hashes, hashes where every time people mentioned housing
or childcare and it came up over and over and over again and it's a pressure that's felt
wildly amongst resort towns and I think that there's a lot of opportunity for us to collaborate
and learn from what we're doing even further than we've done.
Climate change came up again quite a bit and they also had a really extensive presentation
about health care in Colorado and I don't know, we haven't really looked, it hasn't been something that we explored as a council
and I don't know what our role is, but it was really interesting to see that along kind of the belt where the resort towns were in Colorado
that they had much higher premiums than any of the other parts of Colorado.
And so I don't know if that will be something that comes up, but it was interesting to hear about.
and they're also their discussion about how they are responding to Airbnb's and
verbo and nightly rentals and the range from Chakanah is one council I was one
mayor put it is how they were handling it in their town to you know kind of
sending out friendly reminders to make sure that people were paying taxes in
another but again it's interesting to hear how other people are handling
situations very similar to ours. I also attended the recreation master plan
meeting yesterday morning involved in that meeting was the basin recreation
party recreation I was there in the school district and it was a really good
meeting they are about ready to present their kind of master plan that they've
come up with where they their goals were really to make sure that they were
utilizing economies of scale meeting transportation using transportation
transportation hubs and there's one other and I'm forgetting it right now, but they have a very comprehensive plan that they're going to be presenting.
It's a long-term plan to meet some of the recreation needs that they foresee coming up in the next 10 to 15 years and looking at it broadly between our Park City community,
the school district, what they're going to be needing for their school teams and what the county will need overall.
One of the surprising things was just they had kind of gave a chart of all the school hours and apparently cheerleaders
Man, they had the most hours of any high school sport. We're waiting for some verification on that
It's like man those kids like it was like more hours in a month that those cheerleaders are working out than there are
Hours in a month. It was crazy
I'm making a note of this.
Right? What are those cheerleaders doing? Anyways, I digress, but...
I have to cheer for all of the sports.
But so it will be interesting, the school district made it very clear that they're not
able to commit to any sort of plan at this point in time until they have a set of designers
working on some concepts for their next round of school redevelopment that will be coming
out December and then they'll go through some more works and they'll have a better
idea of which plan that they'd like to move forward with in March. And so until that point,
we can't really make a lot of decisions involving the school district. But other than that,
it's a really good plan that shows a lot of thought and a lot of community input
and that will be presented to us on November 17th.
And then I also attended PCALA yesterday and Andy did a great job presenting and
very thorough explanation of several of our propositions on the on the ballot and
then I'd like to remind everyone to go out and vote. Again. Please. All right. Thank
you. Sandy. I had a light week with being on vacation but I wanted to thank the
council people that were able to do coffee with council. I've only heard
good things in the neighborhood about, you know, they stumbled across it at the library
or they thought there'd be a few people there. So it was very well received in the community,
I believe. I heard the same thing. So let's keep up the good work.
Let's put the Historical Society this morning, and Sandra, the director, Sandra Morrison,
the director reported on HPB, I missed it last night for my granddaughter's fourth birthday.
But Bruce, I don't know what the outcome was on the Star Hotel, but I wanted to compliment
staff, Sandra's complimented the staff on the detailed report they had on the historical
nature of that Star Hotel, which is a funny building at least.
Yes, it is a funny building. Bruce Erickson for the Planning Department, the staff recommendation
to keep the Star Hotel on the historic site's inventory as a significant structure was
upheld and it remains on our significant site structure our historic site
inventory. The applicants appeal was denied. Great. Thank you. That's great news.
And then I just want to also say that Sandra gave a quick report on California
Comstock and she was just thrilled with all the work that had been done up
there to stabilize that. There's some more work to be done next year
that maybe they can go up another layer. But as you're skiing, hopefully soon, you should
go on by and see what has been saved by that committee. So that's great. Also, the Historical
Society will soon be submitting two names too for the HPB, for the review of the council.
So, hopefully that we could get a full board then.
And they just have Jonathan, there was somebody for the Park Avenue master plan that we did.
He has the house in front of the parking area and he would like to be reached out to.
So if you could just touch base with me. Have you had a personal talk with him?
I think it would be a good idea since he's going to be an immediate neighbor.
I was very excited about having a community there around him, but he'd like to see the
plan.
So if we can touch base during the break or something.
Is that all there?
Thank you, Cindy.
I had a light week.
I did do a walkthrough of McPollen, and they discovered the steel sash windows in the
bottom of the building.
and they've done a little educational process as to how to re-glaze steel sash window,
which is a lost art and they're doing a beautiful job.
So they're putting back in the original windows.
It's an amazing project. It seems to be on schedule.
Great contractor.
Went to a PC Advocates meeting on the 24th.
I think, you know, they're kind of shifting their context a little bit.
I mean, you know, I think most people that are in that segment of that community, primarily
the Hispanic community, they're not looking for handouts, they're looking for paths, they're
looking for, you know, they're willing to work hard, they do work hard, they're looking
for the same kinds of opportunities and paths to a brighter future that we are.
I want to also, a little acknowledgement of the building department and the Park
City Fire Department where they jumped on it, thanks to the early responders from
the police department. They got up and put the fire out and no one was hurt.
Successful and wonderful conclusion. Went to the Planning Commission again.
Oh, how fun. Missed it so much.
Thank you for that.
I went to the Utah Nonprofits Association panel discussion and sat in a discussion with the
Mayor of Cottonwood Heights, the Mayor of Selleck City, the Mayor of Peskovsky, the Chair
of Summit County, Roger Armstrong, and the past Mayor of Selleck City, Paul Mercky-Pollis.
And we talked about what non-profits do for a community and how do we engage with
them.
And I think we shine in that regard, you know, the way we engage.
You all engage with nonprofits, the time you spend, you know,
connecting with them, explaining that, bringing that back.
I think all of those other entities found that very interesting.
So they're starting to use us as a model for how they engage with the nonprofits,
how it helps in so many ways, participated in the production of The Ten Reasons to Vote.
If anybody doesn't like it, they can complain to the Mayor, whoever he may be.
I talked with Leslie on Friday, continued my Spanish lessons,
went to the Park City Fire Board meeting, went to the Historic Society meeting.
Thanks for stealing all my lines.
And also we had an international business day where I gave a brief on the sister-city
relationship with Corsavelle, the meaningfulness of that, the value of that, how that is such
a powerful entity with regard to really transforming the lives of our children when you think
25 people a year have that opportunity.
As you know, it's transformative.
All right?
Yeah.
I want to thank you for the top 10 video, top 10 reasons to vote. I know that was your
idea and you pushed it and it was really fun and I think it's a fun video. So if anybody
hasn't seen it, they should look at it. Yeah, right? It's great. And if you don't know
what Big League is, Google it. It's how Donald Trump says Big League. And then the
other thing is, and you mentioned you had a discussion with Leslie, and this
There was one of the greatest responses I've ever heard, which was about the yard signs
that are all over town in illegal locations, and she was asking you what the city is going
to do to clean that up, and you said, well, isn't there some responsibility on people who
are running for office to uphold our existing laws who are in violation of our existing
laws?
How about they go out and clean them up?
I thought that was fabulous.
comment about do they get to pick and choose the laws that they'll obey.
Do they have a problem with other businesses putting small signs out along the street corridors?
Yeah, great, great response. Thanks for doing that.
So I got a lot of nasty emails. Anyway, no, I didn't.
So we'll keep rolling right along here.
Next on the agenda is review the draft 2017 city council meeting schedule.
Can we skip that? Can we move that to another date?
We're going to do that another time. We'll go right into special events advisory committee.
Thank you all for being here.
Where?
That's him.
Oh, it is. I got you in there.
Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Jenny Derson, Special Events Coordinator.
Also Jason Glidden, the Economic Development Project Manager, Sarah Klingenstein, and then
also Bob Kohler as representatives of the Special Events Advisory Committee. Really
quick, I also want to acknowledge that we have several other SEAC or Special Events
Advisory Committee members in the room tonight and just ask them really quickly to stand
or wave or say hi.
There you go.
Jenny, can we tag ourselves in the picture you've got up on the screen right now?
Is that possible?
I don't know.
Tonight we are returning to update and receive direction regarding the structure
of the Special Events Advisory Committee and also regarding the prioritization
and threshold of special events and then also fee reduction.
The report this evening begins on page 20 of your packets.
And if it's okay with you, Mr. Mayor,
I intend to just do a high-level overview of the suggestions
of how we intend to move forward, and then I'll turn it over.
I think that's okay. I think that's perfectly okay.
Before I get started tonight, I do just want to be clear
that staff believes that there's a delicate and important balance
in the mitigation strategies of special events.
We believe mitigation strategies can also help to implement changes
with regards to transportation and environmental sustainability goals.
We continue to take our community's feedback and challenges very seriously,
including our residents, our locals, and our business community,
as we are bringing this update to you this evening.
Events are an important part of our community.
They help build and connect community, celebrate our culture,
and ensure economic vitality.
We specifically focus, are part of the recommendations tonight,
and the strategies specifically focus on ensuring reduction of the feeling of event fatigue,
residential impacts, and allowing opportunity to fully evaluate before reduction is implemented.
The first thing I'm going to talk about this evening is the recommended changes in the
structure of SEAC or the Special Events Advisory Committee.
Our recommendation is adding two community at large members, and additionally adding
to community stakeholders.
Specifically being the school district and the county. Those would all be voting members.
We also are recommending to change to monthly meetings to increase some of the education opportunity for public input.
And then also part of that will be quickly looking at adopting policies and also co-chairs for that committee.
Again, an important part of this is an increasing balance of the committee and then also increasing community involvement.
right now we have an intention to come back to the November 17th meeting and we also have
an intention to adopt the resolution to that committee and then also we'll start advertising
for those two community at large positions as early as tomorrow as long as that's the
direction that's okay to head in in a little bit that we get back from you.
The next part of the meeting or the kind of the summary is really to talk about event
and mitigation and the tools that we have to move forward.
Really quickly, we work to define event fatigue.
There's a multitude of words that are kind of referred to
with regards to fatigue.
It is transportation, parking, noise,
and a list of many others.
Environmental sustainability is another impact
that we are considering and making standards.
And there's also this general feeling
of just feeling stuck in this idea of crowd versus population growth and crowd control.
We have a variety of increased mitigations and increased standards that we can focus
on before coming back to kind of some of those places we can get to if we do need to say,
you know, there's some other tools in the box to further eliminate or reduce events.
Again, our focus is to really make sure we're meeting standards or exceeding standards
of these mitigations and we have some more work to do.
I'm not gonna go into all of those
to try and catch us up into time.
If you guys have questions about some of those
then I'll be happy to answer those questions.
And again, some of these ideas and mitigation
really let event organizers have the opportunity
as well as the city, the opportunity to step up
and meet higher mitigation efforts.
And those that do score low on the prioritization sheet
when we readdress how we're gonna be using that,
the opportunity to step up to the plate
and meet those.
Our mitigations will primarily focus on level three events,
but we don't want to take our eyes off
of the level one and two events.
Those events can continue to grow.
They easily become level three events
and we want to make sure they're equally
meeting the standards specifically
during the high threshold times
where there's increased traffic
and transportation concerns.
And we intend to make changes to the prioritization sheet
and some of the policies to that
so that tool can be used effectively.
And again, I reported a little bit earlier with regards to fee reduction, which is attached as exhibit C and your staff report.
We believe our fee reduction for fiscal year 2017 is right around $185,000.
That is under the $200 threshold.
And our intention is to relook at the criteria.
We found that as a valuable tool, but we want to make sure that the criteria we have has some measures and standards.
so it's more clear on for the committee of how to score those better and they have something
to measure it against, and then also aligning with City Council's goals there as well.
That is really the update that I have for you before I turn it over to you.
I do believe Sarah wanted to make some comments, so I'm going to turn it over to her and
then...
Hi, Sarah.
Hi, thanks.
I wanted to make a few comments from the perspective of the citizen at large members.
For one thing, we really would appreciate and welcome two more citizen members of SEAC.
We take very seriously our role in listening to and representing the residents in town who
believe that this would bring a better balance to a group of very thoughtful, diligent
people who make up the committee already. It would be a great addition.
We believe that CX and the special events staff's work is critical in keeping the four core values of the city,
to keeping areas like Old Town viable for primary residents and the rest of the city feeling like our home.
We've heard loud and clear that many residents feel less connected and at times overwhelmed by events.
We don't believe traffic is the only cause of fatigue.
When a neighbor tells you, I feel like an extra in Disneyland, they're talking about more than cars.
There are just more and more people.
Summer events are getting bigger, less appealing to locals because of the size sometimes.
And it's less likely that you'll see a familiar face, not just at the event, but at the grocery store during that week
or during that big summer season.
I know I represent the members of SEAC when I say that we are glad to see a wide variety
of mitigation tools being proposed as well as a chance to revamp the evaluation criteria.
We citizen members believe that the time has passed when we continually need to grow
events to make our town successful.
And we have seen that there are events that hold a greater value and events that
hold for the community a lesser value.
and we look forward to working to mitigate and see where that goes and with the possibility
in the future of reduction.
We look forward to continuing this work and working with the hardworking staff, and we
thank you for creating this and supporting it.
Thanks, Sarah.
Bob, anything else?
So you'd like a little feedback from us.
I get it.
Yeah, and I think what, there you go, I think really what staff is asking tonight if Council
can help confirm the direction that the change in the CF structure is the correct direction
will immediately implement that, and then also our goal is really to reduce that
feeling of the residential and negative impacts in the residential areas and further increase
mitigations and rekind of structure or revamp those tools that we're using to make sure
that we're making accurate recommendations and put those tools to work and go in that
direction.
Thank you, Jenny.
I think Tim was first.
I'm supportive of your recommendations, so I'll just get that out there.
like the direction, Sarah, and I'm assuming you're not saying you'd like too
additional in addition to the two members at large, but you're supportive of the
two that were recommended in the staff recommendations, right? And you know, I
liken, you called it out a number of times in the report, a sense of place, and I
think that's a nice lens that we can look through, and I'm sure that's what
the citizens at large are doing, they're looking at do we add to and
contribute to our building and nurturing our sense of place,
or do these events make us feel less connected as a place
and tear apart our sense of place?
So are they an assault on our sense of place,
or are they helping to build our sense of place?
And then I wanted to point out a couple of events recently,
and this is a little bit of the problem
and shows how difficult this is.
Because it's not simple, but you had a picture of the Halloween parade up there, and that's
a local event.
The Main Street shuts down.
You see everybody out there, and it's one of those, in my opinion, quintessential events
that add to our sense of place.
If you're going to call out a couple of events that add to our sense of place, that's one
of them.
Now, we also had another one recently that may be that same kind of event, and that
was the Shotsky event.
And I saw, you know, I think there were a thousand people in the line, over a thousand,
and then there were probably another thousand people watching, and by and large, they were
locals.
And that adds to a sense of place.
And you know what I heard at the council coffee?
A local resident complaining to me about that event.
So that just shows that even when we're looking through a lens of, does this create
a sense of place? Is it something that the locals go to and they love and they're enthusiastic
about? Yeah, it's still going to generate noise. They're still going to be congestion.
And we're still going to have people in the community that are like, why did you guys
do that? And that's what I heard. So that's what you're hearing. You're tasked with a
very difficult, you know, endeavor. And I thank you, Sarah and Bob and Jenny and
Jason for spearheading this and pushing it along and everybody else on the SEAC
committee. And I think we're making progress. I'm really pleased. And I had one question
about the different events that you listed. I don't know what page it, well, I do know.
It's on page 23. You listed the three level one events that we had last year, the Thinner
Innovation Festival, State Room Presents, Concert Series, and the Shotsky, all of which
I participated in, by the way. But you did not list the level one and the level
two events, you said there were two, level one and three level two. Do you have that?
I do. I can probably just...
Can you just rattle them off or...?
I know one was the prospector drive-in movie over in Prospector, level one event. I mean,
I can also look them up and then provide them to council.
I'm just curious. I'd love to know what those were, just because I'd like to see
in my own mind how the Thin Air Innovation Festival and the Shotsky compare to a level
two and a level one and would just give me a frame of reference. So that was just out
of curiosity. But thanks. I'm supportive of the recommendations.
I think Nan was next.
I agree. I'm in support of the recommendations. But I do have a couple of questions. When
the current members were appointed, they were appointed to attend four meetings a
And now, all of a sudden, we're going to ask them to attend 12 meetings a year.
How, Sarah, you might be able to answer this on behalf of the committee.
How would the members feel about that?
Well, I think for some people, it's going to be challenging given the day jobs they hold
and the other responsibilities they have of family work and such.
I don't know.
It'd be interesting to know if staff has heard, if anyone is really concerned,
or they might have heard more.
I heard that from the citizen members,
but I think everyone's.
So I think I would say, first of all,
over the, we are, we intended to have
four quarterly meetings.
Over the last year, we've had eight or nine meetings
in a year, so we've already stepped that up
just because we found that we needed more time.
Part of the reason of changing the structure
is trying very hard not to have three and a half
or three hour meetings, but really meeting monthly
so we can have like hour and a half
or maybe two hour meetings on those times
when we really have short meetings like that.
I know, right.
I'll try that, that's all I can say.
And then furthermore, when we had our October
Special Events Advisory Committee meeting,
we immediately sent out a doodle poll,
12 of the members participated,
and we found a new date and time that's best
for those members that did participate,
and that will be on Wednesdays,
it's the third Wednesday of every month
at noon, moving forward currently.
And that's when all of those people
could participate at that time.
And so we're trying to find ways to make it work and we understand some of those concerns.
So that's about that.
Okay.
And then on page 26 of the staff report, when you were talking about the scoring sheets,
you said only five out of 11 returned scoring sheets.
Is that because the workload is too great for this committee or is it because the
scoring sheets are ineffective or?
I think it's a myriad of reasons.
I think that's one of them.
it's time it's you know I think some of the committee members felt too that the
applications were incomplete and they need more data and more information to
make accurate decisions and that's another thing that we're looking at how
can we further educate specifically the community members to make sure they're
provided with the right tools and the same thing honestly for the you know
the stakeholder members as well to make those hard decisions because they are
hard and they're complex and there's, you know, a lot of things to weigh out, so.
And I think some policies about how and how to use those prioritization sheets and the
criteria for the fee reduction will help as well.
Okay.
Thanks.
Andy.
I think it was next.
Yeah.
I wanted to start out by pointing out something interesting.
I thought, Tim, you were talking about what great community events there are.
I think we need to look at the time of the year.
And I only bring that up because there's been some discussion, okay, we've heard
from some locals. They don't want to have any events during the off-season because we
want to break. Unfortunately, the off-season has become when we have the best events for
the locals right now. So I think we need to keep that in mind as we look at all this,
that maybe we can't accommodate a few during these down times and still bring our community
together.
I am still concerned a little bit about the composition of this group. We have a
lot of opportunities to hear from our stakeholders. The Chamber of Members, HPCA,
We have regular meetings with them and get constant feedback.
We don't have focused feedback from our residents at large.
And when we formed SEAC, my belief was we really wanted to get a better feel from what a broad spectrum of our residents,
how they feel about these events, how they react to these events, what they think we're doing right and wrong.
And so we've now added two at-large members, and we've added two more stakeholders.
So are at-large members continue to be, what, is it four to, it'd be six to ten or?
I think it would be six to nine.
They're only, I just, I am not disagreeing or agreeing, but I think it's important
to remember the two that we're adding are community-based stakeholders.
They are the county and they are the school district.
And I believe that the interest of those parties is to help us mitigate
and represent our community through those entities that they represent.
I would hope every stakeholder on there would be mindful of the community, but that is a different perspective.
They are representing a particular interest group as opposed to our residents at large.
So for me, ideally, we would have, at the very least, we would have this group balanced.
And it wasn't in the report, so I don't have a list of who the stakeholders are, so I can't be specific on this.
But I believe we could combine a few of those.
There could be, there are multiple business organizations in there.
I think a lodging association, the HPCA, the Chamber, the Restaurant Association,
they could appoint one or two people by proxy to represent that group.
But I think it's important we get better balance in that group, and I think that's
what council asked for initially, and trying to accommodate all the interests
that's grown, and I don't know where the rest of you stand.
But I squarely do, actually, I do. I totally support that. I, you know, I think
when we look at the purpose for SEAC, the reason we came together in the first
place, I believe, is because we had, we were experiencing event fatigue.
you know, we wanted to hear from the community. And so, you know, the equation
of the group is very important in that regard. You know, if we want to hear from
the community, we should appoint residents of the community. And I think there's
representation for those other entities outside of this board that this gives
that if we change the equation, as you suggest, I think it would really make
a shift to the people that will live in the community. It would be their voice with
regard to those issues. And I go one step further. I think that I think they need to
have the ability to recommend whether we support an event or deny an event. I mean,
it's a recommendation, you know, on page 24 of our packet. Sorry I jumped in front
of you, but since you were talking, SEAC does not have the ability, excuse me,
does not have the authority to make recommendations regarding the approval or denial of an event.
We don't.
It states right here.
So I think the idea is that we're...
And I think so.
I'm going to look over there, Mark, a little bit.
Sorry to look at you out there, Mark.
But I think some of the thing, the part of it too, is to really look at prioritization
and threshold.
And when we're talking about new events, you know, we're really balancing that
priority.
Are they meeting that standard?
I think back to some of Tim's conversations,
are they helping to build our community?
Are they, is this event just another event
that's sort of renting our town?
But the idea is that those recommendations
and those debriefs and the fee reduction recommendations
help staff make the recommendation of how to deny
or approve an event based on those.
We're not saying they have the final authority to deny,
but they can certainly make a recommendation.
Well, we counsel.
I think it's in their advice.
It's like a recommendation, right?
So anyway, I had to circle that aspect.
It's in the middle of page 24.
And then I'll shut up just a minute.
You know, there's two ways to deal with the issue.
Obviously, one is to mitigate the impacts of these events.
Part A. Part B is to reduce the number of events.
And I think we have to be looking at both.
So now what you go on I want to jump in just because I go to those meetings and you know
What's your name?
No
I'm not very good with me. No, it's your trails.
Charlie, thank you, Charlie.
Come on.
Always you give me, always you can help me out there.
No, you know, Charlie is, you know, on there for the trails.
We need the trail, the trail, there's a lot of events that happen on the trails, whatever.
So it's, it's, it, he provides a lot of information about that.
But he's, he lives in Park City.
He's, and he really speaks for the community.
And you know, we also have other members that represent groups that live in Park City
that have been great community members.
I personally, you know, if you want to combine one or the other, I don't think, you know,
we did not set this up as just a community board.
That's not how we started it.
If you want to scrap it and start it over again, but that is no way how we started
this thing.
It was going to be, you know, it was supposed to be, you know, the business community
because they rely on these events.
And so in the non-profits, I mean, the reason it's so hard to decide which ones come and go
is because every event supports a non-profit.
I don't know.
There might be one event that doesn't support a non-profit.
And I know that...
So 80 percent of events are organized by non-profits and or significantly support a non-profit.
So yes, I agree with you.
So that's why, you know, so anyway, I personally,
and to leave the county out and the school district out,
because we can't mitigate our things without either one of them.
Can't mitigate our events without either the school district
or the county, so that was an oversight
that we didn't have those in the beginning.
But, you know, and I think, you know,
So if you want to have a different event, a different board, that's fine, but I think
that you're losing a lot of knowledge if you do that because, you know, the event planners
that are on there, they, I think, I forget her name also, Ginger, she's, you know, she's
has lived in the community, she cares very much about the community.
And I, but, you know, so I'm all right with the increase of two community members.
You know, we could change it just so that some people are non-voting.
But it is an advisory where they advise whether an event should go on.
So we recommend or advise.
I don't understand what's the difference there.
But they do have the right to recommend.
I think that what we do is one of the purposes of SEAC is to provide debrief information on
events and through those debriefs we find out how well that event performed and whether
or not that event has needs to make corrective measures to be approved in the future.
And to Jenny's point, we take that information as staff and then work with the event organizer
and see if we can get those mitigated, if not then we can look at denial.
So I think that's kind of where, how that flows in rather than them saying you should deny that event.
Becca, you are so patient.
Okay, so I think a couple of just quick observations. I think that it's really interesting that when you read this report
and starting from the very beginning, you see the word tool used a lot because we use events as an economic tool
to help us get through the summer months and to provide some economic development.
And now we're using other tools to mitigate our tool that we're using.
And so, at some point in time you start...
There are lots of tools.
Yeah, so maybe I feel like we're using our tools too much.
Maybe we just need to back off on the tool a little bit.
So I think when you start looking at that, the economic tools are being used maybe too powerfully in this case.
Then it really does add some thought behind pulling it back.
I'm absolutely in favor of changing the structure of CIAC and adding additional community residents and like Andy said
I would actually be in favor of potentially adding more because I do think that one of the things that we're seeing is
I don't want to say like a schism, but there has been a change in where our business and business owners and our
business community
Lives and it used to be way back in the old day
You know it felt like most the people who owned a shop on Main Street or owned a shop in town actually lived in town
and so they were feeling both sides of the coin and as I think things have
evolved and changed, people have moved out to the basin or out to Salt Lake and
Heber and then the structure of town feels different. So I think the way
people experience these impacts is different. If you only own a business
on Main Street but you don't actually live in town, you're gonna see these
events is great all the time. But I think to have that voice from the
the residents that actually have to deal with both sides of it is going to be powerful.
I also think that one
of the things that when you look at the numbers that you've provided
for us in the reports is just how much the events or business in town has grown over the
course of summers.
And when you look at something like between 2010, I believe this is looking at total sales
tax, between 2010 to 2015, 77.8 percent growth.
That's amazing and outstanding, but I kind of hesitate to wonder if we can handle that kind of growth again.
Can we really double those numbers again?
And I think that that's the nature of events is to continuously feel like they need to grow.
So when we talk to events moving forward, I think that we might actually have to look at some ways of capping their growth.
And I don't know whether that's numbers of people that attend or days or size.
Yeah, I think that is one of our mitigation, possible mitigation strategies looking at those things.
Have you controlled that growth? Is it through capping event attendance or is it through changing time,
day, size, occurrences, things like that?
And I think, you know, we use strategies instead of other strategies we can use is really
looking at some of the, the, the consularities, you know, if we're going to put more strict
requirements on what their transportation mitigation needs to be, what their environmental
mitigation impact, for their impacts needs to be, that adds increased cost to that
event, right?
And you do that in combination with possibly re-looking at fee reductions, you're
going to start to squeeze and you're going to see the cream of the crop start to rise
for the events that are actually doing it and doing it well and providing the value for
the community.
Exactly, but I also even think as far as when we talk about outreach and I mean I
think the events are going to have to take some of this on themselves but when they're
looking at their marketing and their marketing strategies, how much they're spending and
how much they're really reaching out to people and really asking people to take
a look at how much they're growing and to try to restrict their growth from within.
They talked about that a lot. You're just talking about not growing the event out of control.
Yeah.
It's sort of like, you know, you know, although you said that Halloween parade was, or Halloween
on Main Street was a great community event, I find it a little overwhelming myself.
It's
to gone in 10 minutes, you know, there's...
That's your complaint?
But it is interesting, though.
I think that if you attended the Halloween event,
the difference between having it on a weekend
versus a weekday, so maybe it's one of those things
where maybe we even do Halloween on a weekday,
even when most of the communities do it
on a Saturday or Sunday, regardless of the day it is,
maybe we switch.
Yeah, and we always have our annual Halloween
on like the Friday or the Thursday or the Monday
of that's closest to Halloween.
I mean, I think that there are some things we can do working on times of year and dates
that will help us achieve that balance, but I think that's another, just a quick another
mitigation strategy that we're talking about and it's really important to look at that
calendar coordination when we go out, it's kind of this time period of the year when
we go out and try and look at the whole 2017 annual calendar to say, what is conflicting?
What doesn't work?
What's too much?
And really using that also as another strategy for those mitigations.
I still feel like there's a little bit of a disconnect.
Council made a very hard decision at visioning this past year that we do have a thriving
economy and we want to try to balance that out better.
We went so far as to change one of our community goals from the world class multi-seasonal
destination resort to a thriving mountain town.
Well, this report starts out by referencing that we want to achieve our goal as a world
class multi-seasonal destination resort and I still feel like that's where we're
driving on this. There is too much emphasis on the economy. We made the hard decision
that we want to achieve the balance. We're asking this committee to do that, and it's
all about mitigation. We know these choices are going to be hard, and we're just asking
for honest recommendations from this group. Council, at the end of the day, it's our
job to balance out all these different aspects. We have to make that hard decision, but
we'd like recommendations from them on what the real impacts are on the community,
and what are the areas that maybe they see some viable changes.
And it seems to me like there's too many hoops to jump through under this criteria.
As the mayor pointed out, it says they can't recommend limiting events.
There's another section in here that says if they want to talk about limiting events,
they first got to have the organizers be able to come in and make their case.
They're just making a recommendation to counsel.
And I think we can, they can come make their case to us if they want.
But I believe this is, I want this to be more pure from a citizen input standpoint.
And certainly I think there's value to educating the committee.
I mean, there's a lot of information behind these events.
And I think that the citizens at large and the rest of the committee members have offered
to step up their participation to do it monthly so they can get educated and make good decisions.
But I want to give them some latitude.
All of our advisory boards have the opportunity to make recommendations to counsel
and we can take them or leave them.
I would appreciate, you know, I appreciate your comments, Andy.
I think that, you know, the SEAC, and especially SEAC, would love to see a lot more
direction from counsel.
I'm hearing.
Let's see how the rest of the counsel feels with regard to what Andy just said.
Well, I can address the one about the organizations being given the opportunity
to make a presentation, because I feel strongly that they should.
If they're going to be graded on something, and we have that matrix and
that grading sheet, I think it's only fair that they hear from the applicant to be able
to fill that out with, you know, as much information as they are able to obtain.
And I think part of that is going to come from the applicant themselves.
So I feel pretty strongly that that should be in there at the same time.
I agree.
I mean, I think certainly have no problem balancing it out and making it, you know,
if it's a number of citizens at large versus stakeholders
by consolidating some stakeholders,
that's one way to do it, bumping up the number
of the citizens at large is another way to do it
and going at least equal and maybe even more weighting
in favor of the citizens at large.
I'd be in favor of that and support that.
I think they should be able to make a recommendation.
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't, and because it is just an advisory
report, just like all of our others.
We're going to make recommendations. I don't understand where this is coming from.
Well, it's just because it's called out there, SEAC does not have the authority
to make recommendations regarding the approval or denial of an event.
So that's where it's coming from.
Well, because the difference is these are regulatory applications.
So you have an application process, and we can build that in better.
And that sounds like some of you may want to do that.
But if you want to, then, to weigh in on specific applications, you need to do it the
same for each event and have it be the same each time.
They can't pick and choose which ones they're going to review and not review
and who's going to come and not come.
So they have the informal community feedback.
The thought was, you know, we came up with more of a strategy in terms of the overall
matrix and recommendation regarding which types of events or which seasons you want
to focus on and give you the recommendations that you could consider as you apply
the code criteria to approval or denial, not specific event recommendations.
If you want to have specific event recommendations, my suggestion, you can do that,
but it's a higher threshold.
You should, you've got a menu ordinance to build that in.
and everyone will go through the committee
and get a recommendation.
Like Salt Lake City has neighborhood councils.
They have some forms of development applications
have to go through and get a preliminary application
or review from the neighborhood council
that then goes to the Planning Commission.
Some, and then they can consider that.
It's still advisory.
So you're not unlawfully delegating authority
to this additional body.
But you just can't, you can't have a committee that sort of picks and choose which events it wants to look closely at in that regulatory context.
And that's different from COSAC because it's a different, they're applying for an event versus making a recommendation on a piece of property.
Right. You're processing an administrative application subject to code criteria when you're approving master festival or special event.
So that's an administrative function, not your completely discretionary property
you want to buy or not buy, you're an owner.
I don't know what the initial original intent of this committee was because that was
way before my time, but it does make sense to me if some of the members of the
committee can be combined, you know, that kind of have some overlap so that it
is primarily a citizens advisory committee.
And, you know, in my opinion, for heaven's sakes, the committee is doing their homework.
They're the ones that are going through those scoring.
They are looking at all the aspects of the event.
So I think absolutely they should be able to make a recommendation to us.
But, Jason, I cut you off.
That's all right.
I, you know, we're just trying to get the direction and I think we're getting
there, you know.
As far as the change to the CX structure, I think we heard very clearly from at
three of you, that we want to go ahead and increase the amount of community members,
but at the same time look to combine the few of the business stakeholders into maybe
one appropriate one. So we could make a recommendation on how we would do that.
I'm not sure if it's, you know, keeping a chamber on there and removing maybe the
lodging and restaurant. We'll talk about that, you know, in different ways of doing
that. So I think that as far as the structure, does that sound correct?
I'm okay with that. I think it, you know, I think that increasing, I think if you let
it played out the way they suggested it, it might have worked, but...
I think that's pretty much everybody.
As far as the recommendations go, I only make sure we have clarity on that.
I understand that.
I just thought they were going to air buys.
So if I can add one thing, I think the idea today was talking about mitigation,
but to be very cool, these strategies or tools, whatever we are going to end up
calling them, that we didn't recommend using yet, which honestly is elimination of events
and a moratorium on event application and those types of things. We're just not at the point
where we can make that recommendation yet. That doesn't mean they're out of the toolbox.
It just means they're deeper in the toolbox. And we need a little more time to get these
tools that we are at the top of the toolbox, get those really working and going before
we delve deeper into that kind of area if that makes sense.
But, I mean, with that being said, I think that if Council wants to move that quickly
to get to those tools, then we would be happy to move that way if that's the direction.
Or Council could make that move on their own.
I mean, if the majority of Council thinks this is out of control, then they could
put a moratorium on events.
So I mean, we could put, you know, it's just a big, huge learning process that
that people spend almost a whole year, or have spent a whole year at, and, but if that's
what Council thinks, you know, maybe Council should give that direction.
Well, at the last meeting, you know, we heard we used the accelerator pedal as the metaphor
for what we were trying to do, and I think we kind of came to a consensus that we didn't
want to have our foot down on the gas.
We wanted to have it in a neutral position, and there was even some discussion about
possibly even pulling back a little bit, but I think the consensus amongst
counsel was to be in a neutral position. So, you know, and I think Andy's
highlighting that we're still referencing an old, you know, the old
terminology that we've changed, and we need to start referencing the new
terminology to reflect the current position of this counsel in this
community.
Right, Andy?
Yeah, I just don't think we need to remove any tools at this point.
Right.
I think we have a very smart group of people and I think they are going to have a really
hard time finding events they want to eliminate.
They might find some, but the reality when you start looking at that gets very difficult.
So I would like their recommendations, whatever they may be at this point.
So I'm inclined not to take things off the table.
With that being said, I don't feel like Council is giving them direction to cut
six events or something like that.
We're just saying take a hard look.
Nor create a moratorium.
So that would be that you are in favor then of increasing the mitigation, correct?
And taking a harder look at events in general, prioritization, thresholds, big weekends,
and coming forward with further recommendation.
And not looking at elimination for...
You said the recommendations are going to have a lot of staff coming forward.
No, I said let's not take any tools off the table.
If there's a no-brainer that they think needs to be eliminated and they want to
make a recommendation, that should be in their toolbox.
box, is my opinion, but I think we need to hear from the rest of the people.
Well, I thought we had consensus with regard to that.
All right. Some other fine-tuning thoughts.
Can I throw them in there? So I'm doing a repeat. Oh, sorry, Andy.
No, I was just going to suggest, I think at least for now,
as this group is getting up to speed in that, their focus is probably
best placed on level three events, and maybe with the one exception being
when we have big weekends where it compounds because we have multiple events, but I think
as a starting point that might help hone things in.
They already decided that, didn't they?
Essentially, but again.
It was clear in here.
One of those who's on those big weekends, they're part of the challenge.
So I'm going to recap one more time if that's okay.
So I think one of the things we're going to do with the CX structure is kind of work
offline a little bit to look at the structure of the committee. We want to
add the two additional community at large positions. We want to add, I believe,
the school district and the county, but we're looking at some of the other
business stakeholders and how we might be able to combine those to make sure
there is a balance in the committee. That's number one. Number two is
continuing to reduce that feeling of event fatigue. We're not taking any
tools out of the toolbox. They're all still in there, but really
focusing on mitigations and really focusing on sense of place, community, mitigating residential
impacts and increasing city council's goals through transportation and sustainability
efforts and making sure we're tied to a thriving mountain community in various ways.
So if there's anything I'm missing to add, I think I'd add a couple, two more probably
and just making sure that we always keep elimination as a possible tool.
Yes.
That if needed, we can use that tool.
And I think the second one, I think, or the last one I need a little bit of clarity
on is the recommendation. I've heard it a couple of times and, you know, Mark kind of
stated on that's kind of a change in how we would do things a little bit or we'd have
to make sure we're consistently making recommendations on all events if that's
what we choose to do.
I don't get it.
Yeah, we can bring back more specificity with those options, but it's a range.
For example, if you want recommendations on specific events, the best time to do
that is during the application process.
It's very, once you apply, once you approve an event
subject to your code criteria, it's very hard to then
take that back and revoke it.
Unless you have a record in which they didn't comply
with those standards or their conditions of approval,
or you adopt new criteria for the next year.
So just having a review after the fact
without changing the criteria and not having
anything go wrong with the actual criteria
where you have hard findings of noncompliance, it will be hard for them to provide a meaningful
recommendation that you can act on. The better way to do it is make every new application
by code go through the committee, and they provide a recommendation on the code criteria
just like staff does. It's a parallel recommendation. And then you do that in a debrief for
each one. Right now they don't do that. They give a, they do a light version of
that, but as I understand it as how we kind of split the difference was they can give
you recommendations regarding increased ways to mitigate certain impacts and then the staff
applies those to each event says okay then we need to have better parking at this one
so in the renewal we're going to address this parking plan or this noise ordinance
but staff is regulating and still giving you the conditional changes to the conditions
of approval for that renewal, that's different, and that's, that's, that works.
But they're still making recommendations, but it's, they're broader.
If you want to make recommendations regarding approval or denial, then I, I would
recommend you change your ordinance and then, and make that consistent for all events.
That's not.
And that's really going to change the workload of that committee.
And that's going to change the workload of that committee.
And I think we've got to get to a different point with that committee.
But if you have them come in and say, we just have, hey, we've taken a high
level look at all your events. We're going to recommend you to deny this one.
And if you haven't had that any process for that applicant, you will see, I will, yeah,
I will recommend, I want to brief that more fully for you if you want to try and do that,
because that's going to, you're at a higher risk factor.
Can that ordinance be that they only have to look at all the applications for,
whatever tier 3 or level 3 or whatever it is.
And then as long as you're not, like the application is the same, you can break
them out because that would decrease the workload initially just to see how it worked
if we only did level 3.
I think we probably need more clarification and guidance on that.
I agree.
But I wanted to say that the reason that was in there about letting the event
planner come on and talk about their event is because when we were having a committee
discussion, we were like, well, you know, this one here, you know, really causes a lot
of traffic and, you know, not so sure what the community benefit is, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, they just use us.
Wow.
That community, that planner, you know, she had a different opinion and, you know,
And if she had valuable information, we didn't know all the ins and outs of that event.
And so that's what you get from, you know, listening to that, but, you know, the more you listen, you know.
So I think you have a general idea of where we're going.
And the summary was accurate with the exception of the portion that Mark is talking about that we'll have to come back and revisit.
So, I think we have an intention to come back and amend the resolution of the ordinance for
SEAC on September 17th, I'm sorry, I'm not here yet right now, on November 17th.
So I guess I don't know if that is still an appropriate timeframe and our real intention
was to go ahead and, as of pretty much tomorrow, advertise for those positions and have those
new members start at the December meeting because we want to get them in there before
sun dancing and try to start getting them trained up as soon as possible.
So if we just, you know.
I think we had clarity with regard to that.
Okay.
I think we should have an exact number of people you wanted to reduce by the other.
Is it, you want two members off?
You want to combine two members off?
I think we need that.
I think we can do some.
I love that.
that we can do that as well to bring that back to you guys on the 17th.
Yep.
All right, we'll look at that on the 17th.
Good with that, Andy?
All right.
Thank you.
We're a little behind schedule.
We're going to have to do a crazy of Lower Park Avenue considerations of relocation
to the senior center, which we cut short last time.
You know, we're just going to start the regular session a little bit later tonight.
Okay.
It might be 6.15, 6.20 by the time we get around to the regular meeting.
Your Honor, I had about a five-minute presentation.
Is that okay?
Yeah.
Okay.
Three questions in your...
Okay.
Sorry.
Hey, go ahead.
There's the principal of the worker in the car.
Microphone, John.
It is Kim.
Kim's the person on the team the closest to the seniors and probably the most fluent
on the conversations we've had with them in the past.
The three questions again, I'll just read them as I go through the presentation.
Does Council support staff's recommendation?
The senior building needs to be removed from its current location.
We believe...
The site, the higher and best use, if we were on a really decent housing there, is going
to be to relocate that building from its current site. Leaving it there, you'd probably take
away at least 50, if not 60 percent of the site's development potential. The current
needs of the senior program and how they work and operate, they don't really function
efficiently in the current building edges. And Craig and his team have put together
an initial program and floor plan for a building, and we think that really in the end of the
day wants to move to a new building. So that's not going to happen in the existing building
and work really well, and we'll get to that kind of later in the deal.
The second question is, does Council want staff to return with a more focused discussion
of the current senior building's historical value versus possible demolition and learn
more about the current structure and budget implications to do that.
You know, the recommendation right now is, and we don't really want to go through
the historic determination process, we think the best thing to do is to move that
building, keep it within the lower part district. If you start to look at where
that building came from, it was kind of on the shores of the Jordan L. It was
an old.
There was no Jordan L.
Okay. I know the staff report said it would be underwater today, it'd be
darn close. It's where the JSSD intake is from the Jordan L.
The picture on the left is the old rail line that went out to it.
We don't think taking it back there helps either.
There's no historical context for it.
We don't think they probably want it.
Everybody on our team thinks keeping it within the lower park app district is a good thing.
The more we've kind of talked about it and gone through the feasibility exercises,
there's no sites that are really working.
There's no sites that are popping up.
And what we started to learn is we've talked to a house mover.
or is it's going to be logistically very difficult
to get it moved very far?
There's going to be a heck of an opportunity
when we tear down that fire station building,
they pop that thing out of there.
That's next spring.
That means there's some urgency on making a decision.
And again, the more we've talked about it,
this option is the one that staffs actually
is a group recommending at this point.
You could probably equally put it north of that parking lot.
That's the Mowinny lot next to the skateboard park.
with this location's proximity to the trail, keeping it in the district, it's
something that planning is comfortable with, it's something that the team is
comfortable with and at this point again we're recommending that. Well that's the
great question, you know our recommendation would be if we can get
some support from you to focus here we would come back with a strategy to
either dispose of it or lease it or what that looks like, whether that's a
support building for the recreation program that supports skateboarding or
something that, you know, is storage for some of the wreck things they do.
We've had some informal discussions with some local not-for-profits that have
been interested in.
Whether it's a satellite office for child care use or something like that,
those are some real good possibilities.
So we would, you know, again come back with a strategy for disposition,
whether that's an RFP to see if people are interested.
interested.
Interesting.
I'd only be interested in that if there was an actual use involved in it.
Well, ultimately there will be.
And I think what you're suggesting is that it would be reprogrammed and created a use.
Right.
And we would come back with a strategy on how to identify what the appropriate use is.
Again, whether that's putting it out to the public, putting it out to not-for-profits,
or coming back through a more detailed process, likely our REC department to see how they
would want to program it.
There are some limitations in that we don't have a budget identified for it right
now.
we think maybe it'll be about 150 grand to move over there and put out a foundation and
I think tenant improvements and utilities and everything else. There are another two fifty
two seventy five ish. So there was moved when it was moved to this side in 1976. So they
had the technology then to move it. So we probably figure out how to remove it. What's
all the utilities and roads and everything else we've built between now and then that
for the hang-up for us.
The last point in the staff report is,
is council supportive of relocating the senior program
to a new shared community center at City Park?
Or would council like to expand the feasibility search?
I think moving it to this location is identified
by the draft rec master plan
and kind of buffed out here by LA and this team
as they looked at parking.
I think we're just shy as a team
of kind of making that a formal recommendation.
and contingent on some additional study on the circulation, parking, and access considerations.
The floor plan from Craig's initial program works pretty well here.
Wreck hasn't had time, nor has Rav had time to kind of get their arms around whether this
is a priority use for the mark, you know, in my mind, in my mind only.
I don't, you know, the seniors have been really good about saying, hey, we're comfortable
being moved, we're comfortable going to a new building.
We're even comfortable probably with an interim place or a temporary location, but we want to know where that is
We want some security and certainty and in my mind looking at the mark
You're starting to compete for space needs for the recreation program
And I think and again, this is in my mind only you're starting to really worry about or compete with funding sources
You've got a rec master plan that identifies indoor rec space ice and
Ken
In quantities, thank you, plus priorities, and if we're talking about, you know, a funding
source that isn't out there, whether it's a GO bond or whatnot, I think the seniors
probably start to say, gosh, that's really uncertain and the timing is really uncertain
and I think they're less certain.
So that's why Diane and I came out with a stronger recommendation in the staff report
to really just focus on this site.
So that's probably longer than y'all wanted to hear from me.
We can put a lot more detail at any of the things that we talked about for you.
Craig, did you want to add anything?
No, I think you hit everything.
All right.
Ma'am, you want to go first?
Yeah. Can we just go from...
Sure. All right. Sure.
So I think my big question is I was reading this and I kept going back and trying to find it.
Have the seniors come to some sort of a consensus
where they'd like to be?
I mean, have they been asked and said that we don't...
As seniors, we don't think this facility works for us even if it was moved.
We have presented this as far as having the location at the city park location.
We did go on a tour to look at a couple of different rec centers and that's where the
conversation about the mark came up.
Some of what the seniors have asked for is some senior programming at the mark but
in addition to that I think there's additional programming that's more community focused
or arts, crafts, things along those lines.
And so I think there's a combination of both
when we heard back from the seniors
at the last open house and from a number of people,
there is a desire to have programming
at the mark for seniors.
But in addition to that,
I think this also meets a lot of their needs.
So more than anything,
I think they've come up with a list of amenities
that they would like to see wherever they are.
And that is parking, ADA, transit, kitchen,
space for their lunches between 80 to 120 people,
and then a comfortable space where they can convene
with pool tables and different things like that.
And so I think that's more of their focus,
and they do wanna know where they're gonna go.
I'm sure, yeah, absolutely.
So what is it about the floor plan
of the current facility that doesn't work?
Well, there's a couple of things about the existing building
as it is.
The way it currently is structured,
you have to come up right into the space.
There's no place to create a sort of vestibule
without reducing the quality of the space.
It's a very narrow space, and then it has sort of a bulbous
build out on the end.
And so it's broken into pieces that aren't very flexible.
They do a good, pretty good job with what they have and the uses and so long term that
building itself isn't big enough without the addition and the addition is part of the problem
because it's not as flexible with the existing building.
So there's a couple of different things that go with it.
And we did meet with seniors and made presentation about what we were looking for, asking them
questions about what their uses are and I've sort of identified what the floor
area is and the components of that and we feel pretty comfortable that it will work well
in this other location.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
On issue one, I am interested in moving it off the current site.
On question two, I would like to look at repurposing rather than demolishing.
And on question three, I am inclined to agree that we shouldn't be delving into the mark
right now because there's too much uncertainty and we haven't gone far enough in the master
plan.
And that could be a very long drawn out process and it could have implications for everything
that we're doing over in the Woodside area with our land over there.
So I'm in favor of the recommendations that were put forth in the report.
I too am in favor of removing it from the site.
I would love to see it preserved.
I don't really like any of the locations that have been proposed there.
So maybe you want to expand our circle, see if the county has any uses for it or there's someplace else we can find.
I'm not too concerned about the ultimate location of it because it wasn't here to begin with.
And as far as the mark goes, I've always thought that could be a good marriage between
the mark and the senior center. Certainly a lot of the seniors use the mark and you
see them there on a regular basis. And I think it has great access, good parking.
I think it creates a nice social mix to do that.
So I would be okay with exploring that further.
I also really like the idea of having it in the rec building at City Park, though.
So I think either one could work.
One thing to consider is when we, depending on timing,
it seems like we may want to demolish the senior center,
or excuse me, relocate the senior center
prior to the completion of the rec building.
And I wonder at that point if it makes sense
to temporarily set the seniors up in the mark,
maybe in the rec room, I don't know,
Ken, if that's an underutilized space.
It seems like there's a large space down there,
but that would kind of test it a little bit.
And I think we could see how that works at that point and whether we want to explore that further or whether we should be
Building the facility at the city park
Thanks, Andy. I'll give my comment as well. I think I agree with Andy except that I'm intrigued by keeping the
The original I guess what do we call it the key lead train station
Yes, I'd like to see it stay in the community somewhere somehow. I think that's a value to us
You know, it's it's the way towns evolve and change
You know you do shift buildings from time to time and they do get shipped into town
I'd like to see it stay here
But I'm otherwise I'm with Andy
With regard to the mark as well
back up
Can you pop the questions up again?
Okay, so yes, I am in favor that the senior building should be removed from its current
location and I also, I mean if it works there and that you can find a really great purpose
to have it by the skate park, great, but I don't, I'd love to see it not demolished,
I'd love to see it moved to somewhere but I'm not really particular about where it's
moved to and if we can't find a really good location for it in town then I'm
not opposed to it being located further out in the county.
As far as the location of the new senior center,
I think that was one of the really exciting things
we talked about at the master recreation planning
was that they are really looking at doing
the community center at City Park
as a really good area with good access
and good access to bathrooms
and there is a plan for a commercial kitchen
to be in there and that it could really be
an area that is designed to meet the needs
of the seniors in this community.
and then it didn't sound like it was going to be a great fit.
It's at the mark unless I mean to do a full senior center
at the mark you would also have to have a commercial kitchen
put in out there, but there's always the opportunity
to have shared use between both centers
and you know, you do, you see a lot of seniors
at the mark already.
And I don't think, I think that would be probably
the biggest problem with having it be a temporary location
is how would you do lunches at the mark.
So I think that it is going to be really imperative that we find a temporary location
that does meet that need so that they continue to have those social opportunities
and that their lunch program isn't interrupted.
Sandeep.
I'm in favor of moving the location of the senior center and the building.
I don't like that spot where you picked.
But I just don't see the use, a very good use there, so I don't like that spot where you picked it.
I don't want to move a building just to move a building.
I'm all for historic preservation, but we have to have uses for things.
So anyway, I don't like that spot, but maybe I could be convinced.
but you know I think that one thing that the seniors really are concerned about is
parking and acts you know and access so if the parking can be worked out at the
rec building I think that that is at the in the city park I think that's the
preferred location as long as the parking can be worked out we said you
still has a lot of work to do on that, or a little bit of work to do?
We recently engaged with a,
not a, not a ton, Alfred Nance is engaged with the
traffic engineer to, to do some study of current inventory at City Park and make
some assumptions on a shared use scenario in terms of hours of operation
and rec programs and what happens at the park to make some assumptions that it
can work. And we'll work and, and Craig and his team have designed some
additional capacity and concept with the drawing you're looking at there
around miners.
Because I think most seniors do arrive at the senior center in their own cars, or they share
a ride with friends, because I think I mentioned that when I went to lunch with the seniors,
there wasn't 80 to 100 people at lunch. There was more like 30, but the parking lot was full.
So if there were 80 to 100 people, I don't know where you guys parked then, on top of
each other or something, but, you know, it's certainly, you know, they don't want to
have to walk very far.
This would be a second floor senior center?
No, this is on the main level, it's all primary entrance, the opportunity for shared
uses, as you discussed, and sort of an expanded use is much greater by being located
with the recreation facility.
And I think the current, there's maybe 14 spots at the current, one or two more than
that, and here we've got a number, we've got a first of all.
I see you said there's only 14 spots.
That's about all there is in the parking lot, yeah.
It's pretty small.
I thought I counted them.
They'll use the fire station and they'll use all the street parking, and there is
a large portion to drive, there are some that don't, and I have a little bit of
experience with that with my father-in-law.
Do
you want to summarize that one, Diane?
Did you do anything about it?
Yes, yes, no. Yes, yes, maybe.
I think it sounds to me like we're all in favor of moving to building.
Okay, there seems to be some question about where it may go or what its purpose may be.
But I think you can get creative.
I mean, who knows, you know, could be a Latino community center or whatever.
excuse me, not giving direction.
And it seems like the majority of Council would like
to explore the site at the existing recreation building location. Is that correct?
However, Andy and I like the mark because seniors I can vouch for, they like exercise
too.
They're not actually technically excluded because I see Paul there all the time.
All right.
Okay.
So just I wanted to add one piece of data and then had asked we had a discussion about
this last night and I included an email from Ken Fisher from a transparency perspective
just wanting to let council know and there was a line in there about because there are
a lot of basin participants.
when today and talk to staff about what percent of people at the Park CV senior
center live within city limits they actually have some I believe it's
database numbers where they've you know actually know where people live it
looks like it's somewhere between Rota's number was 16, Lynn's number was up to
20 percent but it's not live within the city which is which is a little
surprising I mean and I realize you you know when you go to the senior
and you're saying, you know a lot of the people.
And the reality is sometimes people, they live in the city
and then they move out to the basin or something.
When you wrote a clarified,
when you look at school district boundaries,
the number, it raises that percentage
to between 65 and 80% live
within the school district boundaries.
Okay, great.
John?
Your Honor, just to be clear,
we have a public hearing or a staff, excuse me, there's an opportunity to provide public
input during the normal part of your meeting, which happens after a quick break.
Yeah, if there's anybody that would like to talk about this, we'll open it up during
our regular session, but we're going to take five minutes and we'll come back to our regular
session.
Thank you.
We
have a meeting for the City Council for November 3rd, 2016, thank you very much.
First on the agenda's roll call, and we're all here.
Second is communications and disclosures from Council and staff.
Anything, Diane?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I know that this has been leaked a couple of times,
but we're desperately proud of Anya Ground,
and I can't give her a raise.
So let me give you to her new credentials.
She traveled twice back to back east,
finally up in Washington, D.C.,
where she received her Historic Real Estate Development Finance Professional Certification,
which allows her to provide guidance in housing development and rental house development in
exceptionally complex historic homes. We're very proud of her. We appreciate your supporting
and allows us to do that. Gradually, Anya Granton.
All the planners we're going to stand up.
Anya, you have to stand up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chris.
Thanks Diane. Anything else? Anyone else? We'll go into the next section, which is the
Open Public Input Opportunity. Anybody that would like to speak on anything that is not
on the agenda this evening or that was in the earlier discussion in our work session,
this is your time to come forward and give your name and...
Sure, sure, sure. Hi, Angela Mosquera. Hi, Angela.
How are you? Good.
Good. Bien, gracias.
I just want to weigh in on some of the CAC stuff that was discussed earlier. I did
did attend one of the committee meetings. I'm really pleased to hear tonight that environmental
impact mitigation is a concern.
But I think that maybe there are some improvements that
could be made to this process. Again, I think another really great thing is the addition
of some residents to the committee. But I look at all of the negative feedback that's
kind of offered in conversation that was offered at the meeting, it's really anecdotal. And
so the lack of data for the case against events concerns me, and I still think that there's
a real lack of communication. Some of the larger event organizers that would fall into
category one that I've spoken to haven't really been aware that this process has
been carrying on as long as it has. They're not sure how to get involved in it, and
and they haven't been aware that their events
maybe were at risk.
I look at Park Silly and the soccer tournament.
I think kudos to them.
They've been really engaged in the process
and great at sharing data.
There's been a real willingness to work towards solutions
and I think that they've been able to well quantify
their impact and benefits.
And I know that there are more event organizers
who again would be willing to be involved in the process.
I heard Jason and Jenny on the radio
talking about working with individual event organizers to mitigate impacts,
but I wonder if that's really the best strategy and best use of time.
My suggestion would be to involve especially level one event organizers in the process now,
not trying to add layers upon layers and make this a more complicated process,
but I think maybe establishing some sort of forum with them
that is held quarterly at least.
I think these are people that have tremendous experience
in producing events, not just here in Park City,
but elsewhere, and that they could really add
some valuable ideas, perhaps, to the discussion.
I think they obviously see the value in Park City.
They value our community, and would be more than willing
to work with the community to mitigate impacts
and increase community involvement.
I think Julian Carr, I messaged him while I was sitting here.
He is a pro skier, he is pro snow, as we all learned recently.
And he is organizer of the Discrete Peak Series, which now is at multiple mountains in multiple states.
He said that I could volunteer him in the event that such a committee or forum is organized.
So again, I just turned back to communication.
I think that it is up to the city to find better ways to communicate with residents
about what's coming, when, and why.
Why we're bringing these events to Park City
and the value that everybody believes that they hold.
And then I would suggest placing the burden of communication
on event organizers in order that they communicate
to their participants the values that Park City holds
and how to come in here and respect those values
and respect the community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Angela.
Welcome.
Hey.
I am Gen. C. Carrings and Plummer,
and I have with me Ruth, Dr. Ruth, Zimmer-Newbacher, and we had first gone to the meeting over at
the Santee Library the week after those two boys died.
We both have teams in the system here and have been feeling very passionately that our
city is at the point in growth that we need to have a more coordinated effort to either
knit together the existing teen programming and supplement and find places to broaden
the reach further down into our ECHR students and empower the kids to help each other with
peer-to-peer programs, but also to get a place for them to see that concerned adults
in this community come forward and help, just help them, help anchor themselves into
who they are and give them a stronger sense of better choices that they can be
making. Ruth is an MD who is putting together a holistic program to try and give the kids
better tools for managing stress and that sort of thing. And we unfortunately missed
the earlier discussion because we thought it was now about the communities that care,
that we just wanted to go on the record, that we really want to push our city and
our county to work together to that end. So there will be another opportunity to
engage on that communities with care aspect and appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Hello.
My name is Jason Bartow.
I'm a local arborist.
My first question is, will there be a possibility to comment on the consent agenda of item
number one, or is this my opportunity to speak about it?
We
can actually pull that off the consent agenda and give you that opportunity.
But since that's next on the agenda, why don't you weigh in?
All right.
Well, my name's Jason Bartow.
Mark?
Yeah, actually, I would, if you're going to do that, that requires a natural emotion.
So I would seek at the rest of this Council's, if anyone's interested in doing that.
Because if not, there wouldn't be, but he could still speak now.
So are you willing to pull that off the consent agenda?
Do I have a motion?
So moved.
Second.
Hall in favor?
All right.
It's off the consent agenda.
You may speak.
Wait. No. No.
No, sir.
Not quite.
So now you're still a number.
You're not down to that item.
You're on number two, so he's not yours.
All right.
Unless you're...
Hold on.
Let's just...
Anyone else who would like to speak?
Thank you.
Sorry.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on any issue other than the stuff we have
on our agenda?
Seeing no one, we'll move on to the Consent Agenda, which is no longer a Consent Agenda.
Well, no, that's why there's two items.
So if you could approve the Consent Agenda.
Consent Agenda, agenda item number.
You're on a motion to approve Consent Agenda item number two, or a request to
the city manager to sign an interlocal cooperative agreement between Park City and Weaver Basin.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Aye.
Motion carries.
Yeah.
Pardon me?
The senior center,
we offered the opportunity for people to speak on that and then we came
forward.
Do you have any reports?
Now, consent, what was consent, I remember, I want to request to optimize.
Yes, sorry.
There was a senior that wants to speak, he didn't.
I'm very sorry, so we're going to go back up to the problem again, but.
I wasn't going to speak, but since Andy invited me.
I'm Paul Wisniewski with the Senior Center, and my only comment is that temporary
temporary is a relative term, and I think that since we're in a hurry to demolish the
senior center, we need to choose carefully where we're going to be on a temporary basis
so that the space is functional and we don't lose most of our members due to the lack
of functionality. We don't expect the full commercial kitchen and temporary location,
But, you know, we should be able to carry on our normal activities.
So I'm sure Jonathan and the folks will look after us.
Thank you, Paul.
Given that I just had another birthday, I can identify with that temporary nature of things.
Now on to what was Consent Agenda Item Number 1.
Assuming there's no one else that wants to speak,
are you sure?
come on this
is regard to what we have on our agenda's consent agenda item number
one yes it was to authorize the city manager to sign a professional agreement
with the Bowens Collins associates were an on-call landscape architect
consultant services in a mount not to exceed seventy five thousand dollars in
former.
I guess my first question is my understanding is that this contract is to help execute the
community forest management plan. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay. So that's what I'm here to speak about. My name is Jason Bartow. I'm an ISA certified
arborist. I've attended the municipal forestry institute, the consulting arborist, American
and Consulting Arborist Academy,
and I was named the 2015 Arborist of the Year.
I'm the urban forester for South Salt Lake,
for the city of Francis.
I have a consulting arborist company called Arbor Docs,
and I run a nonprofit called Wasatchback Trees.
I think that we have some really strong credentials
in this area with Arborists,
and I would ask you to please consider
hiring a municipal arborist,
or to at least make sure that this landscape architect
is familiar with Municipal Forestry.
Too many times I've been called out as a consultant
to try to correct mistakes that were committed
in the design phase and the installation phase.
Some of that comes from landscape architects
not being out on the street.
So I'd ask you to strongly consider somebody either
to make sure that they have a strong
Municipal Forestry background if they are to be hired
or to consider somebody whose specialty
is municipal forestry in there to implement the plan.
That's what I have to say.
Good input.
Thank you very much, Jason.
Thank you.
Matt, you want to comment?
Mike Merritt is a member of the team,
and he is Sandy City's purpose.
Okay.
So you feel like, given that he's Sandy City
and they reach into the...
He has helped with the on-call landscape architect
program before, and he's well respected in the Valley,
and we felt very comfortable with him.
Was this gentleman's firm on the Swiss tier?
He did not propose.
We went for public procurement.
Good.
Any comments and or motion?
I have a comment.
Please.
I trimmed the trees in my yard back away from my house.
I did a good job.
I mean, I didn't do it, but the people who did it did a good job.
Is that how you hurt your shoulder?
I feel good about it.
I'll just, I'll make a motion to authorize the city manager to sign a professional services
agreement with Bowen and Collins and Associates on an on-call landscape architect consultant
services and a amount not to exceed $75,000 in a form approved by the city attorney.
Do we have a motion?
Do we have a second?
Second.
Bowen, favor?
Aye.
Motion carries.
Hey, Mon.
While you're up there, Matt, can I ask you one quick question?
Sure.
The Deer Valley Drive, you mentioned a while back that there was another phase that was
going to go in there, which had to do with landscaping after we disturbed the area when
we did the road, when we rebuilt the road and put it in the sidewalks.
And I'm just curious, is that still happening or has it happened?
And I'm talking about the, I guess it would be on the right-hand side as you're
leave in the roundabout heading toward Deer Valley before the bridge.
It has happened.
They've gone back and replaced quite a bit of landscape than I was put in a year ago.
So it has happened.
Okay.
Thanks.
Thanks, Matt.
Sure.
Thanks, Jason.
Next on the agenda is Old Business, a request to authorize the city manager to enter
into a professional service provider agreement in the form approved by the city's
attorney with GSBS, architects, and an amount not to exceed $510,000 for phase 3 design
development, construction documents, and administration, which is really the balance
of their service that would take you through the completion of construction.
Correct?
You're right.
Before you begin, I think I need to re-choose myself from this item due to my
business's proximity to it.
Thank you.
Don't say another word until Andy leaves the door.
And then Andy gets this and Andy gets that.
All right. What do you do?
It's been a few months since you reviewed the schematic design, and we're here to kind of
update you.
Since that time, we've got the schematic design estimate from the team back in.
Your mic's not on.
You're going to have to start all over again.
We got a schematic design estimate from the design team, and there were a few items that
were not included in the estimate, which increased the overall project budget, above the $7 million
dollar number that you all had agreed to for the project so staff looked at ways
to value engineer the project to meet that seven million dollar budget and there
was a group of staff from executive budget community development and
sustainability that reviewed it a few of the items they're listed in the
packet it's changing some of the materials and moving some of the items to
other funding sources and one of the other items that would would be looked
at is the elevator that was considered as a value engineer item but staff is
proposing to keep that in and proceed with the design and during the design
development process we'll be looking at whether that is an item that needs to come
out or something else might need to be moved at that time with the budget. So
we're we're if we go forward with the contract then we'll move into the
design development process, the planning process,
and we'll return with a refined design in budget
somewhere in that process.
So staff at this point is recommending
that we award the contract to GSBS for phase three
and proceed with the project.
Comments?
Ma'am, I want to go first.
On page 78 of the staff report, it reads in part that the plaza should create a park
space and allow for event uses but not specifically designed to promote them.
After the conversation we've just had with SEAC, it seems to me that having that
stage there is promoting events.
And so I'm wondering if that's a component that could come out of there.
It's more pavilion, so it's going to duplicate as pavilion and stage.
So it can be used as a stage, but it can also be used as a pavilion during the regular course of the day.
Yeah, tables and chairs so people can hang out undercover.
cover.
And have you come up with a way to mitigate the noise that we were concerned about going
up into the neighborhoods there if the band were to be on that stage?
You know, I would, if I could rely on the event regulatory process to create sound levels
and make sure we're consistent with the noise ordinance, building something to retain
the sound and orient it north is going to be more structure and more building.
We can certainly go through that process.
Okay. Good point. I think the sound is going to ricochet down the street potentially if
it's amplified sound. Down is good. It's not up into those areas.
Well, we'll throw out the ability. You've talked continually through the process about what's
the process to operate this plaza. We'll come back with a plan at some point to both
staff it, program it, and do that. And if there's an overriding set of goals or
operational plans, you know, like we're only going to do acoustic music at there or whatever.
We can, we'll have that conversation.
It just seems to me that it's silly to build something that we're going to have to mitigate
down the road.
So another question I have, I don't understand on page 82 when they're talking kind of in
where it says prepare construction documents, it says 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent.
What does that mean?
That's just we go through a preparation of those documents and we often have milestones
within those sets to discuss items that we need to coordinate with our client or internal
coordination.
So that's typically just some breakdown that you can see set of drawings and take
a look again and review those kinds of things.
I don't know that all those milestones must say presented in front of the city
council.
I feel like after we get into the construction document phase, it will be more of a facilities
type review, things like that to make sure that maintenance and operations as well as
streets and streets and those kinds of individuals are happy with the direction as well.
Okay.
And my last question, and we received some public comment in an e-mail about the traffic
study for the neighborhood up there, and I'm trying to figure out, do we need
to enter into this next phase in order to have that traffic study done?
Is that what I'm...
Generally, you want to, yeah, I mean, I believe you do.
You need to mature what the actual project's going to be.
You know, we have a concept or a schematic design right now.
And to really nail down that traffic study and the findings of it,
you need to vet the project more and to that about that 60% range.
And we can do that study consistent with that process.
Again, the next big milestone, if we move forward with this contract tonight,
we would return at the end of the design development,
which is give or take 60% drawings,
and that's the time where we can,
we'll make a decision whether we want to move forward
or take certain things out, whether it be an elevator
or a pavilion or whatever other things,
and we would bring the findings
of that traffic study forward then.
If it's something that you would like to see sooner,
that's easy to accommodate,
and we can prioritize that on the front end
of the planning as soon as that's reasonable.
Okay. Thank you. Any of my questions?
Thanks, Dan.
Becca?
In this schematic that we're looking at, is the grain roof accessible, or is that just
so good?
We were proposing in the value engineering matrix that we remove the grain roof and
use that for solar panels to help our net zero goal.
And will that also reduce the cost? Because I know that that was it says, you know,
So they require additional water and expensive to maintain and difficult to establish.
But I was just wondering, it's not something that's accessible.
Is it it's just the roof?
It's not like something that you can walk up the roof onto?
It isn't accessible from the ground level in any way.
There was some discussion with the play structure associated
that if there was some climbing portion to the play structure,
you could potentially get onto the roof as a green roof.
but it wouldn't be a standard version of accessible and those stairs are no elevators.
You said you're suggesting that it's being removed.
Yeah, it's being removed.
Correct.
All right.
Tim.
So I'm always a little suspicious when we start value engineering pretty much anything
because I think that there comes a point where you start to gut a project
and I don't get the sense that we're gutting the project
But maybe I'm maybe I'm wrong. I want to kind of explore that a little bit further
I know it's staff recommendation as we can do these things and still meet the goals and the intention and still have a really great plaza
And and I guess to some degree I'm wondering about why why do we need an elevator? Is that a
essential component to this does that start to get into the guts of the project or
You know because I
What's the difference between being able to walk up a ADA ramp versus taking an elevator?
It's a higher level of accessibility, which staff has heard comments about accessibility
on certain areas and also for events.
So it is somewhat of a concern, and it's a higher level.
We can go without the elevator.
Well, I'm looking at the only thing that jumps out at me from all your recommendations
is the elevator, and I'm not sure why, so I'm just trying to figure that out.
I'm trying to figure out how crucial, but it sounds like there's a back story from
history of issues with accessibility, and therefore we thought an elevator was fairly
essential.
And the elevator was included in the schematic design, which you all approved back in August.
Well, I think we approved a lot of things that we adjust.
Jim, at the end of the day, I think it starts the opinion that, I mean, the elevator is a complete discretion choice of the council.
Yeah.
And, you know, we had it in, and then we worked really hard through this process, and we took it out, and then we said,
particular about that level of service, we even look at some people we know and the current
challenges they have with accessibility and we thought, you know, I'm not sure it's the
right thing to do, so let's look at it as an additive alternative or a deductive alternative
situation so that when we do come back and we have the drawings really refined, we're
going to have that choice whether we want to keep it in or take it out, and that'll
be in the context of both the budget and what the plaza ultimately wants to do.
Besides the ADA accessible ramp, are there other ways, and I'm sure there are, I'm kind
of asking a question that I think I know the answer to, but I assume there might be other
ways to also increase accessibility.
So the main street itself has some grading difficulties. Even though it is seen as a pretty
flat entry point, depending on the level of accessibility required, even its sloping
from a parked car could be a little too dramatic for a code-required accessibility level.
So I think that is a partial response, but I don't think that that necessarily means
that we would rule out that kind of access to the plaza.
Obviously, there will be some level of walking access to the plaza from Main Street
always flat onto the plaza and that's an accessible route in that an accessible
route is not from the parking itself. So the concern for the elevator is to be
able to make sure that from parking below you're actually going to be able to
get up. I don't know if we mean to say that it doesn't mean the plaza is
accessible from other directions and in other ways like that.
Well I'm curious as to what other council members think about the value
engineering aspect of things and how deep you can go before you start to gut a project.
And I don't get the sense we're doing that with this, and so uncomfortable with what's
been value engineered out.
But I do think that we always run the risk of that when we start value engineering
our projects.
You know, we lose things in 15 years down the road, we're paying three times as much
to replace them, and I'm bothered by that, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
I'll take a pass at it.
So, with regard to the elevator, if we didn't have parking
below this plaza, then I think you'd have an argument for eliminating the elevator.
I mean, there's no place to go otherwise. But it's kind of ironic that we're coming
from an underground parking space up an elevator to a street that doesn't meet code.
And there's not hell of a lot we can do about that. The sidewalk doesn't work
and Main Street. And because it's steeper than code permits, typically without rails.
But I think it would be a mistake not to have the elevator. I think we are going to have
people with those needs, and I think it's a fundamental responsibility to meet those
needs. For ADA, I would argue to keep it. And I would look for some other way to
value engineer if we were worried about costs, like taking the structure off of the
band element or something like that. I hate the two words value engineering,
because it usually means taking the quality out as you started to imply.
But I don't know. I mean, you know, this is an expensive project. It's a big fee.
But I think we walked into this asking you to really schematically design multiple
concepts. So we wanted to have you chase out multiple concepts, not one idea which
would have dramatically reduced our fee as we talked about. We've chased out several
concepts, funneled into this point now where we can begin the construction
documents phase and I guess that's part of the reason the fee is so large and so
but Bruce I think you want to speak. Thank you Mr. Mayor. You know the elevator
discussion is probably partially our fault and we would add to the
conversation that one the elevator does not support just folks wheelchair
The elevator deals with small children, moms and dads with packages, all those other issues
that you might not want to send folks out in the rain if they want to go to a concert,
if they want to bring food or beverages, including 12 packs of beer up to the deck,
however you intend to manage those things.
It's not just ADA access.
It's providing adequate access to all those folks that may find some difficulty
going all the way up the ramp.
And so planning brought it up. We're prepared to discuss the costs versus the value.
I'm not afraid of value engineering one way or another on that one.
Thanks, Bruce.
You know, my only other observation is, you know, we've been through this process.
We've carefully looked at parking.
You know, we examined what the cost of parking would be if we put it above China Bridge or someplace else.
We looked at the price per parking space.
We compared it with what we had here.
We've done some studies.
The number and cost of parking actually came down
below what you originally anticipated.
You thought that this would be in the realm of,
I can't remember, $60,000 per space
and came down to 40-ish somewhere.
Am I remembering correctly?
So we collectively decided that we wanted to keep the parking.
We wanted to have the plaza, the functions and activities that we've got here.
I think we've programmed those pretty carefully.
And now what we're looking at is paying the bill for going on with this.
And it's a moment of truth.
Do you continue with this or do you punt?
And I think we've collectively committed to this.
And so, I think it's a good design. I wouldn't want to take anything more out of it. And I think we had to keep the elevator.
But that's my take.
Becca?
I for the most part agree with what you're saying. It's hard when you feel like you're only just getting to the next phase
and already there's an additional price tag added on and then you know that it's highly likely at some future phase
there's going to be a delay and then another little bit added on to it.
And I feel like we've had this talk before about the kind of cost of doing business
in Park City, but I do think that we have a good project.
And we've whittled the cost down from where it came in originally quite a bit,
and I think we should move forward.
Cindy?
I agree with Becky and the Mayor.
The only other thing I remember saying to David Brembs is, can you do this for under
$7 million? And he's not here tonight.
So, but,
you know, is there anybody here to give
comment on this this evening? Raise your hand. Okay. So if you don't mind, I'll take
public comment. Step forward, you've got three seconds. One thousand one, one thousand two.
Mike Sweeney, and I'm here to talk about it in the sense that with my two brothers and I, we own
that facility that you're trying to build and we know how much it costs to build
and we know the functionality and I think these guys have got it nailed.
So without an elevator in there, I have two in my space and when I have an event that
there's a thousand people that come up and they park in the garage and they come up there.
You really do need it. And I have street level out of the garage everywhere. But even with
that, you can't function and put something like on our deck. And the expenses that you're
talking about, I spent a million dollars last year just to refurbish the deck. So
it is expensive, but it's well worth it. And I'm supporting the project.
Well, now I have to wonder why I ran up and down the stairs, hauling stuff for the Tour
de Suds one year, when you have two elevators that I could have used.
I don't know.
Well, where is Charlie Sturge?
I know he was here earlier.
And I even had a handicap parking for you.
Yeah, he didn't tell me there were elevators, he just said, go grab those coolers and
run up and down the stairs.
Thanks, Mike.
Anyone else?
Hi, Thea.
Hi, I'm Thea Leonard, Treasure Mountain Inn.
And all I would say vis-à-vis the elevator is I see it as an, you know, an attractive
amenity, but there is a market difference between what Mike Sweeney's describing and
being able to drive onto the surface we're building.
So it is a little bit superfluous, I hate to say it, but the thing I like best about
the elevator is actually the tower as a design element that encases it.
But I do think in this application you've got other options and it's probably a bit of overkill for the number of parking spots that are down there.
I'm just going to go on record of saying that.
And then I also think if you really, if value engineering is one of the items, the stage could go.
because I do suspect that the, the acoustic pavilion, what everyone, by any other name
a stage, because I do suspect that that is going to have to be limited to acoustic
music after the experience of the Shotsky. That, that, I think it was the Shotsky,
but that day-long music amplified in that location,
even when it isn't super raucous,
it is definitely pervasive within town.
So that is definitely, I can just anticipate
that that is gonna become one of the things
that is gonna have to be closely managed.
And in the new light of do we really need to
attract new businesses with this space.
The reality is in my view,
for as long as we've been talking about it,
this space was intended to relieve
some of the pressure on Main Street.
It was to relieve pressure.
It's a pressure release valve.
It's a place to go for some respite.
And so to continually talk about the thousands of people
that we need to accommodate on that space,
I think is again, straying from the objectives.
So I very much love the design, and I think these guys have done a really good job with it,
but as the costs creep up, I think those are things that we can whittle down
and still effectively accomplish with the space what the HPCA set out to accomplish,
which was to relieve the pressure on Main Street.
Okay.
Thea, thank you.
Anyone else?
Peter Marth, full site avenue.
Welcome.
I didn't plan on speaking, but I got to say that, you know, the process has worked relatively well, I think.
I think the questions everybody's asking are sensitive, and it just makes me more confident going down the road as it progresses.
I wasn't at first confident at all in this project.
But the changes that have happened over the last year are pretty significant and you know what I'm seeing is
There's pretty nice the elevators. What does that run 10 million bucks for an elevator?
There's a there's a lot of I mean you take that elevator out
I mean it's one floor or that that you know brings you closer to get it within budget at seven
It's actually 50,000 is what we're saying because we have to keep it stairwell.
That's not that significant compared to the total budget then.
That's not much.
But anyway, I just wanted to applaud you guys for working and listening to us.
I know we can be paying an ass-stand on that for complaining about traffic.
But what's going on here, I think, addresses a lot of those issues.
And lastly, I think, Tim, you and I had a conversation about Poison Creek.
And I know that it's really late in this process, but you know, I really would love to see some
kind of water feature in here that comes from Poison Creek.
If you could pull it out of the pipe, bring it into the landscape and into the plaza
and drop it back into the hole and put it back in your pipe under the suite.
I mean, I know it hasn't been discussed in the design process, but people kill
for having water in their cities, so I don't know if that's part of it.
Is it Poison Creek that you're bringing in?
We can't do that.
So anyway, it has to be fake poison.
We'd have to put a $10 million treatment for this.
Thank you.
How was the noise for Shatsky? Were you around?
Was what?
How was the noise for Shatsky? Were you around?
I was down in Moab, puddling.
Yeah, so.
Did you hear it down there?
Yes, I heard it from Moab.
I heard it from Moab.
Thank you, Peter.
You just barely heard it down in Moab?
just a little bit. Anyone else?
Mr. Mayor, just a comment on, um, uh, is, Becca brought up a good point earlier
about, about cost. And, um, staff has taken very seriously the prior discussions
Council has had on this. And, um, in fact, in the coming months, you'll see some
things from staff on this. Matt Twombly's been leading a team. Um, the core,
the core team has included Alfred Knott's and Laurent and Roger McClain
and led by Matt Tormbley, but also was included anyone at the city who does capital projects.
And what they are looking at is a standard process across projects, a different, a little
bit tweaked process for vertical versus horizontal just because some of them have different
needs and decoupling the scoping process, you know, what is it going to be from the
actual bid number because you know the reality is I am still going to be worried
that once we get bids on this thing we're going to have to still value
engineer and we just don't
I don't know until we actually bid it. And so I just, I just want to put that cautionary
tale out there.
Are you saying that architects are not that good at cost estimating?
I don't think I said that, Mr. Mann. The guy would ever say that about artichokes.
Do you have a consultant?
You have a consultant that's really good at it.
Okay.
So I do think that is, that's something to look forward to.
Yeah.
Please.
So if we vote to move forward with this next phase, is there still possibility
down the road that we can value engineer that pavilion out of there?
Absolutely.
Okay.
We don't even have to call it value engineering.
We can just deny it.
Yeah, you could bid that as an alternate.
The one risk that I wrote in the staff report is the net zero goal.
Yeah.
So if we remove that, the roof structure, we lose our area for photovoltaics to make
the plasma net zero, so it will be counter to our goal.
So the roof...
Oh, no, you didn't!
So the roof pavilion is photovoltaic space.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, it's good to keep in mind.
And it provides shade.
Yeah.
Can you plug your iPhone into it?
We could work on that.
I think thinking about it as a stage, while it can function that way, we've reduced around
that space so that it does not function that way predominantly.
I really do agree, and I know that it's a semantic thing, but Matt's statement that
this is a pavilion, it's much more now meant as a shade structure, a place that
You can sit, enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning,
frequent any businesses that happen to pop up
hopefully in this area, and just enjoy
the greenscape around you.
It conveniently also is somewhat stage-like
if you wanted to use it for that purpose,
but the actual grading of the site
sort of requires us to step up anyway.
So you'll see something very similar in shape size,
even if we were to say we don't want to use this
of the stage ever, the design of the actual plaza lends itself to that little bit of elevation
there, so I don't know that even removal of the stage would dramatically change the approach
for the look.
Good.
Well, I'm glad you've got the 30, 60, 90 percent completion.
I think that gives staff the ability to check in and progress through this and probably
probably look at modified estimates through that process as well. So we shouldn't
be surprised by what this thing cost.
And that's part of our job, and a part of our job we work really hard to
accomplish. We want to give you the best project we can give you, and we want
to give it for the budget that you have.
Okay.
And that's our goal throughout this entire process until we end construction.
Counsel, any more comments or?
I'll make a motion.
Tim?
I'd like to make a motion.
We authorized the city manager to enter into a professional service provider agreement
and a form of approval of the city attorney's office with GSBS architects in an amount
not to exceed $510,000 for phase three design, development, construction documents
and administration.
We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
A vote.
All in favor?
Hi.
any opposed? Motion carries. I'll get the vote.
No tie. Thank you.
Okay.
I already did vote.
Next on the agenda is... Oh, thank you.
How'd you get all goldfish down here?
So I'm going to read this.
Next on the agenda is New Business Item No. 1. We're going to open a public hearing
to allow interested parties to present arguments in favor of and against the ballot
proposition with respect to the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purchase
and protection of bonanza flats. I'll now open that public hearing.
Just line up
on the right-hand side of the room, if you would, please. Take a number.
seeing no one will. Do we continue or close, Tom?
You can close it. This is the last of the required public hearings.
Okay, we will now close the public hearing with regard to that item.
Thank you, Tom. Nice presentation.
You want to say something?
There are no elevators planned in England Space.
So it should be right about 25 million.
Okay, thank you, Catapult. Next on the agenda's consideration to continue an economic development
grant contract in the amount of $20,000 for a three-year period for anomaly action sports.
We'll now open the public hearing for that item, and this is to be continued.
Is there
And will we continue?
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Motion carries.
Next on the agenda is consideration to continue support for the winter balcony enclosures
pilot program on Main Street.
Anya, we're so proud of you.
Did
you get a historic plaque for your wall?
I did.
It's purple and it's kind of sparkly.
There we go.
They spelled my name correctly, which was really what I was excited about when I opened
up the packaging.
Did they use the right purple?
Does it-
You know, I'm pretty neutral when it comes to purple.
Compliant.
Gentlemen, welcome.
Thank you.
So we're here to talk about something that's not quite so purple and sparkly.
So last year we agreed to initiate a three-year pilot program to allow restaurants on Main
Street to enclose their balconies so long as those balconies were connected immediately
adjacent to the restaurant and the balcony was on a nonhistoric building.
At the time that we discussed it, the City Council had expressed concerns about meeting
the state energy code and we mentioned at that time and we'll reiterate again that it's
very difficult for a temporary structure to meet the state energy code for partially
because the International Building Code, the IBC actually doesn't require temporary
structures to meet the energy code and if they were to meet the energy code they
would have to be constructed as a permanent structure. River horse is again
the only applicant who wants to enclose their balcony over the winter and they
have taken some steps to try to get closer to being more sustainable and they
are here to discuss that and answer any questions that you might have.
Good. Brian?
There's the light on. There we go.
As Andrew said it's pretty difficult to
to make this glass box.
Just for the record for the show,
and Brian Markinen with Elliot Work Group.
So this glass box is a pretty difficult thing
to get in compliance with energy code,
and quite honestly, I don't know if we'll ever get there
without like quadruple pane glass
and filled with some sort of gel or something.
So in light of that,
we're doing what we can to make it a little more compliant, I guess you could
say. And last year we used the radiant heat with the warm board and it seemed
to work okay. There's definitely some cold nights as I understand. So on top of
trying to meet the goals for for compliance we also want to create a
more comfortable space. So a couple of those items that we're considering right
now, one that we'll definitely consider very strongly is putting basically blue
board up in the ceiling cavities. Right now nobody seems to look up there when
they're eating and polycarbonate is not terribly transparent anyway. So the
goal is to put blue board in order of two inches or so up there that would
give another R10 to 15 in addition to the two that the polycarbonate
provides. That'll retain a lot of the heat. That was actually a correction
in the packet to it said that we were going to attain it to but we're also we're
looking for about a 15 up there so that'll keep a lot of the heat coming up
in the space. I'd also like to say that during the other 18 hours of the day it
actually acts as a buffer for the rest of the restaurant so there's a lot of
glass on that frontage too and it does act as a greenhouse a little bit and
help out in that way. We're also discussing some additional radiant heat as possible and
also insulating under the slab on the outside where the sidewalk is. And if that works out
with some calculations that are being run right now, we'll explore that a little further.
I don't understand insulating under the sidewalk. Sorry, insulating the slab that
is over the sidewalk.
It's an interesting space.
OK, over the sidewalk, I understand.
Because half of the deck is actually
over the Main Street pizza noodle, which is the other,
I forgot to mention.
And there's no insulation there, so they're actually
getting heat from the pizza noodle under there.
And that's coming up and acting as a radiant source.
So that's a helpful thing.
But I was talking about over the sidewalk.
And that portion is not protected in any way right now.
Thank you for the questions.
South, is there a benefit from being over a pizza noodle when people walk in and start
to smell pizza and spaghetti, and they're like, whoa, man, am I hungry now?
They get to the top of the stairs and often wonder why we don't have pizza.
Comments?
I'm seeing no one.
I'm going to say where I was last year.
I, you know, I struggle with this because I thought that, you know, it's hard because
you want to support the businesses on Main Street. You want to help them in every way
they can. It's tough industry being in the restaurant business. I know I've done a lot
of work for folks in that business. It's really, really tough. But, you know, we're
trying to be sustainable and I just don't think this idea is. And so I'm where
I was when we looked at this year ago. I don't think it's consistent with our goals
of sustainability. I think it's not a design or a building that functions very well.
R15 on something we normally have probably R40 for the ceiling. I mean, we're heating
the great outdoors. This is a grossly inefficient envelope, and that's what we're doing.
And it's not consistent with our values. Sandy.
Well, I would say, heating the great outdoors is putting a heater out there and running it
all the time and not...
That's an equally bad idea.
So, or putting up a flimsy tent and doing that as part of the year.
This was a three-year project.
I think they're trying hard to mitigate that loss.
I think if they were to operate as they were under a tent, they're probably losing more heat.
Even, I know they couldn't keep the tent up all the time, but I think they were probably losing more heat.
So this, I think Devlin looks better. We agreed to a three-year program.
They invested quite a bit of money in that, so I'm certainly supportive of going forward with it next year.
Thank you, Cindy.
Andy?
Yeah, I share Cindy's position, but I do also share the Mayor's heartburn over the energy efficiency,
so I appreciate the efforts you've made.
And just one question to you.
Would you consider either installing some solar on property
or joining the subscriber solar plan to roughly offset what you are using
since we haven't been able to accomplish that condition?
We absolutely would.
And, you know, going forward, you know, now or in three years or even beyond, you know,
with, again, more structural improvements of this slab, I mean, we can put in, you know,
more thicker-pain windows and, you know, more things to get us up there.
You know, the entire building itself certainly doesn't need the state energy code.
Right.
You know, I'd say they were absorbing some of the heat from below by that.
And, you know, the whole windows on the whole front of the entire building need
to be, you know, torn down and replaced.
So I think we're actually in some ways capturing some more of the heat without you know using the radiant system that we have or not
You know putting a whole impact on to the our utilities. We showed it with our utility bills this year
I mean we didn't even really see an increase in our usage
So I don't know how we can you know exactly measure that there's four businesses within that building
So that's a hard one to put your finger on however, you know, we certainly pay the most out of our
with our landlord before the most space that we have in there,
and we didn't see great increases.
So I think we've came up with a really good way to retain what we are,
and we can continue to do that each and every year moving forward.
We would have to do some structural, some beams and some things underneath there
to add more pins of glass, and that certainly is a cost.
But down the road, that's certainly absolutely something we do in addition to the solar.
So, thank you.
Can I add?
We had been talking with the structural engineer about alternatives, and one of them was double
pane glass, which would bump it up a couple R notches, but it would require re- or retrofitting
the existing structure most likely, unless you're using some historic code references
to fudge numbers a little bit.
So in the future, in the future, if this was a program to move forward, it might be worth the investment of actually getting in there and welding new beams and bolstering the structure, but that has been assessed to a large degree.
Thanks, Brian. Anything else? Hand or emotion?
I would like to move that we continue to support the winter balcony enclosure pilot program
on Main Street and approve an agreement to allow an enclosed balcony over a public pedestrian
right away.
We have a motion.
Do we have a second?
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you.
You're in business.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda is consideration to approve the new Type 3 Special Event License and City
Services Agreement with the Kimbell Art Center as approved by the city attorney.
Good evening, Mayor, Jason Council, Jason Glidden, Economic Development.
With me tonight I have Kathy Kennedy with the Kimbell Art Center.
Hi, Kathy.
Hi, how are you?
Good.
Well, I thought she wouldn't have to talk.
She was a little bit hesitant about coming up, but we have some questions for her.
Yeah, exactly.
I appreciate that. We're here tonight to seek approval on a new city service contract
with the Kimball Art Center in a form approved by the city attorney.
We have a history
of city service contracts with the Kimball and this event is going into this 48th year.
It's a very iconic event and I'm happy that the two teams, I call them teams,
of the city in the Kimbell Rehabil to sit down and work out a new contract here that
really addresses all the goals for both sides. And we're looking at a five-year deal here,
and I won't go into all the details as they were identified in the staff report. And
just like to mention that, you know, again, this is a very well-liked event in the
community, getting iconic. It's also one of the largest fundraiser for the Kimball
Arts Center that supports many of their programming efforts throughout the year.
Enjoy the other thing?
No.
You sure?
Sure.
I just truly thank you for your support of the Kimball Arts Center as well as the
Arts Festival. It's been a great collaborating with Jason and the city.
Looking forward to doing more of it.
And thank you.
Any comments?
on
page 140 of the staff report, there's a significant decrease in the park, the taxes
that came into Park City this year as opposed to 2015. Was attendance down or sales
down? Or what, how do you account for that?
Sure.
Sure. Actually, a lot was down. We moved our date, which then changed the number
were people that typically come,
because it's been that first week in August for 46 years.
So that changed it.
We were on the last weekend of the Summit County Fair,
which was new, as well as the Olympics were going on.
And we didn't have the soccer tournament in town.
So we had, I think our,
I don't have the numbers that page in front of me.
I think our attendance was down 14%.
Yeah, I was going to point out that maybe the anomaly is more 2015 than it is 2016 because
That's how we looked at it. I think if you if you remove that year out 2015 you can still see a percentage growth
That's pretty consistent. Is it about 15 that took that so high then?
With that we've been using the same folks for a while to do our surveys and they said that be higher
And I'm going by memory here. You told me I didn't have to talk here. Sorry, and that we're doing extremely well by the way
Why thank you that the there were older
folks here, our demographic was older and they stayed longer. So with that, then we
had a bigger economic impact.
So they were like, that's a long?
Well, we changed the date. So again, it all changes. We're looking forward to going back
to the original date.
Okay. Back up?
Well, it may have been the best thing that happened to you that you actually had a
lower attendance last year as you've been going through our special events talks
and talking about growth.
And so one of the things that I wanted to mention
was on page 141, it says attendance,
average attendance target shall be established
and verified annually by staff and KAC.
And I don't really think we have any expectation
or one of the things we've been talking about
is the growth of events and not having huge numbers
of growth or huge percentages of growth year after year
and that might be something.
I don't know what the average attendance targets
shall be established,
but I hope they're not huge numbers above last year's.
I don't think it was meant to be anything to promote growth,
if that's what you're going on.
I think it's more of a monitor attendance
and see how it goes.
We're limited within that footprint
of what really can happen.
Yeah, and that's what I would wonder.
Would you say you're targeting an attendance?
I would hope that it wouldn't be a big number,
that I would hope that you would be looking
to have a sustainable event
and a slow rate of growth over time.
I'll make sure that that's addressed.
Okay, thank you.
And then I had one more part when you talk
about the environmental impacts, and this is just something to mention, it would be
good to talk about having some sort of local bike promotion or bike valet opportunity there
and that's not mentioned in the environmental impacts, but that's a big one when we talk
about traffic and our quality of air over those really busy holiday weekends.
I don't need to talk about it, excuse me, I'm going to go to the next chair.
I had one more.
Maybe that's it.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Andy?
Kathy, first of all, I want to thank you for moving the dates, working with us.
So just those dates this year, that was important to accommodate the two events,
and it seems like it did have a bit of a negative impact for you.
So we appreciate you being a good partner in helping us out there.
Just two questions.
The first one is I was really happy to see the environmental impacts section in there.
And I was wondering if we couldn't get a little more aggressive on the zero-waste goal.
Maybe talk to Kate and Michelle back there.
I think they've got theirs up to about 80 or 90 percent now.
Is that true?
And it seems like we could be a little bit more aggressive than 15 percent.
So I want to hang you up on that.
But that's something I'd love to see more.
That's fine.
We can definitely work with them and find it.
We've been working with Luke on these.
So, you know, I think they didn't want to hurt him right off the bat.
But you know we could definitely try to be a little bit more aggressive. That's a agreeable. Well, the silly girls make it look easy
So we have to get our baseline first and then it's easier to determine what we can dip right there enough
Like I said, it's great. You're doing that. I just hope you're as aggressive as possible there
And then the only other question is it's it's item 6.2
It talks about what would happen if the fees go up and there's adjustments and I just worry that seems very
very vague to me. And so I wanted to get Mark's two cents on that when it talks about how
it just says we would meet to negotiate an amendment.
At page 161, and this is if the costs of the city services go up over 180,
it's not really
a formula towards resolving it.
That's actually drafted in our favor.
that we can force them through a substantive amendment if they're requesting
a level of service, so it's meant to qualify the request for additional services.
It's not enough that we've just established a fee for those.
If it actually compresses against our resource availability or cost, we can force them
into a renegotiation as a substantive amendment instead of just them going under the
provision that says they can request more but have to pay the fee.
Okay. Thank you. Bill, better points.
Tim.
So Jason, does SEAC play any role in debriefing or anything at all with regard to the Kimball?
Because I just didn't see SEAC called out at all in the report.
Sure. And it's a fair point. I think that, you know, SEAC has, Kimball has been discussed there,
especially when we were talking about some of the conflicts that we were facing,
And it's always received very favorable comments, not only due to the community value of the
event which they find they love and that pre-Friday night is really enjoyable time for everybody.
But I think overall they like the idea that it supports a local community organization
that does so much as far as arts and culture for the community.
And I would suggest that maybe in future reports of this nature, we just reference that SEAC
did review.
These were the – this was a summary of the comments, just like you did just now.
Thanks.
Thanks, Tim.
Anything else?
Motion?
Motion to approve drill event tonight.
Not a practice.
Let's see.
motion to approve the new type 3 special events license and see services
agreement with the Kimblard Center as approved by the city attorney. We have a
motion and a second all in favor. Hi. Motion carries. Thank you. Next
on our
agenda is the 2016 Park Silly Sunday market end of the season review.
Good
evening. Hello.
You guys need to be quick because I have to get home and
watch the Cubs game.
You're a day late.
That was such a good thing.
Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council.
Jenny Deerson with Special Events.
Also Kate Void, the Executive Director of the Park Silly Market
and then Michelle McDonald, Director of Operations
for the Park Silly Sunday Market.
We are here tonight just to give you guys a review
of the end of season report regarding Park Silly Market.
We are asking tonight for City Council
to affirm that the market operated consistently with the City Services Agreement and successfully
met the measures of success for 2016. We'll be returning at a future meeting regarding
contract negotiations and mitigations in the future of the market. The report this
evening starts on page 183 of your packets. Thank you. She's reminding me to change
slides.
Again tonight it's just a quick review. The market did operate for 14
days. I believe the first date of the market was June 4th. It operated also
through September 18th and then of course the market was not held on either
Arts Festival or Tour of Utah weekends. Estimated city services at the
beginning of the market back in March were at $73,000 roughly there and then
in the actual city services were at 75.
Mid-season report was actually closer to 77.
So there was some changes there.
And then this year we saw-
Can I point out one bigly grammatical error in that slide?
OGL saw it.
Would you please go back?
I'm so sorry.
Parks City, Sully Marks, will operate it.
That's a bigly grammatical error.
Thank you.
This year, so again, it was a 5% attendance growth to the market.
We saw about 199,000 people attend the market this year.
HPCA and working group coordination continues with the Park Silly Sunday Market.
There were three times this year where HPCA was unable to show up for a vendor booth
that they agreed to show up to and did not meet the cancellation parameters
that had been outlined.
Silly Market was able to find a vendor quickly to fill in those spaces in HPCA
to pay a fine regarding that cancelled fee or cancelled space.
Working group meetings, as I said, were held and we also actually had an additional meeting
specifically to look further into some of the sustainability efforts.
I'll talk about further in my slides.
So we actually went out to the Canvas area and took some of the compost out to some local livestock out there
It was quite enjoyable kind of seeing some of the services that we, you know, that we offered to the families out there and they had pineapple, they had Bloody Mary toppings and bicycle breads.
Happy as a pig and slump is a real thing.
It was very fun and great to see that going on.
I think a lot, a big portion of the report also talks about parking mitigations throughout the event this year.
We had some concerns up on airy where we not only saw concerns with the city market but with some other events and other days
Where people are trying to access a trail right there on airy
What we did is we worked with other departments including special events and engineering to get some temporary signs up and that actually
Resulted in permanent signs up there to help with some of those mitigations
Additionally police reported kind of towards the end of the market that people were continuing to leave their cars
specifically on Lower Main Street even though it was already posted and noticed
that there was an event there the next day overnight overnight so that what
happens is when we arrived in the morning those cars were still there we
continued to actually add
Additional temporary signs on the street on Saturday night before staff left and cars continue
to be there. So we're going to need to do a little bit further mitigation. I don't want
to get too far into that, but it is something we're looking in, also talking about looking
at the placement of flower baskets for existing signs that are already posted there. Do we
need to lower those so on and so forth? And then I think the other topic is that we
want to continue to monitor the residential parking areas. We continue to really see
that the residents on Park Ave aren't using those residential parking areas.
So before we kind of determine that they're not needed, we want to make sure we're doing
the outreach for residents to understand that that is there and look at other residential
parking options on Park Ave to reduce traffic and concerns that those residents are having
in the future.
And then also another thing I think that's helped improve some of the coordination between
the parking department and Silly Market and HBCA and is really having vendor license plates
and kind of identifying when vendors are kind of outside of the spaces where we've requested
for them to park. We've been giving them notice and kind of redirecting them to where
they should be parking to allow people that are attending the market or stores on Main
Street the ability to park in those locations. And then specifically I want to highlight
Silly Market for two things. Number one is throughout the course of the busy event
season. There were three instances where the city actually turned to Silly Market and asked for their
assistance with events, not only with their staff, but also with their equipment. And Silly Market
each time was more than happy to make some of those things happen. Those events were Fourth of
July, Tour of Utah, and Arts Festival. So they actually lent us their staff and equipment
to help us pull off things, operations for those events. Number two is, yes, we very much
So I appreciated that and needed those things.
Number two is they beyond lead the charge
with regards to any other event we have
on their sustainability efforts.
They have an 87% diversion rate,
as you can see from the slide I have up on the screen.
And we are looking at the program that we have.
It is a robust program,
I'm sure they can talk a little bit more about it,
but we're looking at this program as a standard for events.
This is the standard and these events
will have to meet these programs
programs, and there will be increased costs. There's things like bike valets, composting,
and you know, all of these recycling programs are not inexpensive, and it takes a lot.
Do you want to take your waste to the pigs?
I don't know. We'll see. Maybe those, maybe we'll have a lot of really fattened-
We're going to need a lot more pigs.
But I think-
Those pigs, those pigs, they could use more, but they're, yeah, we might need
some more pigs.
It's not county fair. We know what they go for.
We do.
And on this slide here, I had some questions just between 2016 and 2015.
The glass actually decreased, and I had asked the silly market why that actually happened.
And they actually encouraged their vendors not to use items that we don't want to see in our landfills.
So they said take glass out of, vendors shouldn't be providing glass bottles or things.
The glass that they do receive at the market is actually people that are coming to the market
get with a drink and a glass bottle, so on and so forth.
So there's a lot of information and a lot of way
that I think we can reach out and reach some of those goals
through events as well.
And before I turn it over, I am gonna just turn it over
actually to Kate to give some comments
and then I'll turn it over to city council.
Kate, please speak up.
No, it did come to my attention.
Don't try not to hold back.
I know, I know.
It came to my attention that I might have been
a little abrasive. So I just wanted to apologize, Mr. Mayor, and to City Council. I'm an east
coaster with a lot of passion for what I do, and most of the time, right, most of the time
I am very much kind of just, I just listen to all the ideas that come at me. I really
take full advantage of what Jason and Jenny tell Michelle and I to do, you know, in the
direction that they give us. And so I-
That's much appreciated.
Normally I just go, okay, yes, we'll work on that.
Absolutely, we will do that for you.
What else would you like me to know?
And really, and that's how I want this next,
that's how I, this year went,
and that's how I want our future to always go is just,
we are here to also, yeah, to partner
and to continue trying to listen
to the community concerns
and listen to city council's concerns.
And again, like I said earlier,
and when I was here a couple weeks ago is, you know, I will be that person carrying that
big arrow telling people that spins around like don't park here or, you know, just whatever
it takes.
I mean, that's what we want to be.
Well, I love your passion.
Thank you.
That helps.
But I apologize if I came up a little abrupt.
Thank you.
I will turn it over to you guys for questions and questions.
Questions, anybody?
Okay.
Rebecca.
I thought it was very interesting.
I don't know if you changed the way you counted your parking,
but this was kind of what I would expect to see,
and it was really interesting that that was a reversal of last year.
And do you know why it went from a smiley face to a frowny face?
I don't. And when I was looking at those kind of parking numbers and parking statistics,
you know, I'm hopeful in 2017 that we can, you know,
glean even more information from that.
And I think, I mean, we did have some calendar coordination things, you know, where certain
events weren't on certain days, and, you know, I think the calendar fell a little bit differently
and that could have an impact.
But, you know, I think we need further data and...
Is that related to overnight?
Yeah.
Is that part of that?
Is that...
So we're doing a parking night.
So it's 10, 1, and 4 o'clock each day.
Okay.
And so I don't...
On Sunday during the day.
Open necessarily and if you look at that chart I think in 2015 and that first day in 2015
It's like above and beyond. I think almost of the five thousand limit
I think that was the first time we did counts and maybe there was a count off at that point
But we will continue to monitor that and I think in conjunction with that help from the parking department
And also some of the data now that we have from
Blank seeing comparing those two using those data collection items together will be helpful as well
Okay. This is, I mean, that would be, this is more what I would expect to have seen.
Right.
Good comment. Anything else?
Is there anybody from the public that wants to weigh
in? Seeing no one? No, I'm kidding. Mike.
Why is it that I like to harass you? You
know, I did it when I was on the planning commission. I do it here.
That's right.
And you do that to anybody else.
It's okay, Mayor. You have the privilege of being able to do that. I like that.
I feel it. Well, I'm here because I'm representing myself and my two brothers with
respect to the silly Sunday market. We worked very closely with them. And they
have done a really wonderful job this year again. And all of my tenants in our
space are extremely happy with what goes on and how they help direct people so that
But in addition to keeping the street busy, they also help keep our patrons coming into
our place.
So they get cutos for that.
And I think that they've gone the extra mile again one more time, and I like to see the
activity that is on the street.
And I do walk up all the way up to Upper Main Street, and I can see people that do
manage besides me walking up there.
So I think there's a lot of foot traffic that we're seeing.
No, that's because you're on a bike.
You don't walk anymore.
You just ride your damn bike.
And I see you going up there, Andy.
So I'm giving them my, we're ready for next year.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mike.
I'm touched.
I'll get out of here.
Thank you, Mike.
Anyone else?
All right.
Motion.
It's just a review.
I don't think we need a review.
We can give my congrats on the great season.
Thank you.
Well done.
Thank you.
Let me get these glasses on.
Nice review.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda is the new business item number six, consideration to continue
public hearing regarding the Stein Erickson Lodge Common Area.
We'll now open the public hearing for that item.
Is there anyone here to talk about the
supplemental condominium plat for St. Erickson
Lodge?
Seeing no one, we'll continue that to November 17th if we have a motion.
Do we have all in favor?
It's gone.
It's out of here.
Next on the agenda is consideration to continue the public hearing regarding the Second
amendment to the resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2 at Silver Lake Village.
We'll take public hearing on that. Anybody here to talk on that? Mike, are you sure?
Is not?
No.
Seeing no one, we'll look for a continuation for that hearing to December 1st with the motion.
Some moved.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
One more thing to do. Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Some moved.
It was a stereophonic motion.
I can't tell who.
We'll give it to Andy.
All in favor?
Aye.
We're out of here.
Thank you very much.