[1:38] You guys want me to bring the agenda up on the screen?

[1:44] Yeah. What did you say? The agenda. What about it?

[2:00] Good morning. Again, every time. Good evening. It is August 13th calling to order the administrative control board a central based and special recreation district. It is 6 p.m.

[2:20] We have Brandi online in person is Alisa, Amanda, Sean, and myself, Ryan.

[2:36] We're going to be moving to first line of agenda on, first line item on the agenda,

[2:44] the public hearing for proposed parks, trails, open space and recreation impact fee analysis,

[2:49] this where there will be consideration for approval resolution BRD-2026-041, impact fee

[2:58] analysis for parks, trails, open space, and recreation facilities.

[3:05] Brat, are you going to be sharing that?

[3:13] I don't see Suzy on the line yet, I just have Bob here to the meeting.

[3:17] She is here.

[3:19] Oh, she's in person?

[3:21] Yes.

[3:22] Nice.

[3:22] Okay, I tell. Okay. We see the see the presentation. Hello for you go right there. I'm okay here. Okay. Can you just be okay? Okay. Okay.

[3:33] I just introduce yourself and it's all your show. Thank you. Okay. Well, great. Thank you. Thanks for letting me work with you and Zion's I am Susie Becker. I'm a Senior Vice President at Zion's Public Finance, which is the Division of Zion's Bank.

[3:46] and we work out of the downtown Salt Lake City office.

[3:49] Public finance is a wide range of studies,

[3:52] including impact fees.

[3:53] And so we'll take just a few minutes.

[3:54] I'll go through this quickly for you.

[3:56] I know you're familiar already

[3:57] with the Impact Fee Facilities Plan,

[3:59] so I won't take a lot of time.

[4:01] So let's go to the next slide.

[4:03] And thanks first to Robert.

[4:05] He was great to work with and for putting this together.

[4:07] He put together this presentation.

[4:08] I wish he were here to do this,

[4:10] but let me just tell you what he did.

[4:12] So really has six things we're gonna cover in here.

[4:14] Why do we need to do an IFA?

[4:16] Well, look at growth projections, service levels,

[4:19] because that's the basis of calculating a fee.

[4:21] How much money are we really gonna need?

[4:22] And now we're gonna divide that up into a fee.

[4:24] How we're gonna cut the pie.

[4:26] And then finally, next steps.

[4:28] Okay, next slide.

[4:29] So let's start first with why we do an IFA.

[4:31] It's because Utah law requires it.

[4:34] It's section 11-36A.

[4:36] You have to have two documents.

[4:37] You've already seen the IFFP.

[4:41] So what we have to do in here, it has to show service levels.

[4:44] You have a high service level, which will be reflected and you'll see you have a relatively higher fee than we see in other communities because you have so many facilities to offer.

[4:55] You did advance notice.

[4:57] You know, published that you are going to look at amending impact fees and then we have certified the report.

[5:04] So that covers this slide and then next I think we talk about the growth on this next one.

[5:10] So as you know, no surprise to you.

[5:12] you are growing. But the demand for your facilities comes not only from population, but

[5:17] it was felt that in the site of a basin that employment, commercial growth in the area

[5:21] also added to the demand for parks and recreation facilities. So employment is considered

[5:27] so we can charge commercial space but at half the rate of population. And the analysis is

[5:34] quite detailed in going through and making sure we're not counting resident population

[5:37] if someone also works here. So the demand units carve that out and just so

[5:42] population and then any addition people who work here but don't live here to

[5:46] come up with the demand units. So next slide. So we look at the service

[5:52] levels and impact fees can be charged to maintain existing service levels. You

[5:57] may want to have a much higher service level up here but you can't charge a new

[6:01] development this service level and have existing only paid here. So it's got to be

[6:05] proportionate and be viewed as fair. So you can just see the different areas that we measured

[6:10] service levels for here. It's based on what you now have. Parks, trails, your trails, structures,

[6:15] open space, you've got the field house, and then the ice arena. The ice arena is highlighted

[6:21] because it's different from the other facilities and that for all the other facilities, we're saying

[6:26] parks, trails, what all, you're at capacity. We want to maintain at least the service level you have.

[6:31] We can't say that for the ice arena because you're not going to be building more ice arena

[6:35] space in the next six to 10 years, the time for this analysis, and so you obviously have

[6:40] excess capacity there.

[6:42] So that means that new development has to buy into the actual cost of that ice arena,

[6:48] their share of it at the time that you win and with it, with per on it, with Park City.

[6:53] Okay, so the next one.

[6:56] So this is just to fulfill a requirement of the code obviously if we don't do anything

[7:01] the service levels will decline because they're measured in terms of you know how many

[7:06] park acres do we have for a thousand people where we're going to have you know that that

[7:10] service of a less park acres because we have people and we have an added parks.

[7:13] So same with trauma, same with all of these standards and we're not we just don't deal with

[7:19] the decline that much in the report of the vendor fulfill the code and to put that in there.

[7:23] what we care about is the existing service level.

[7:26] So, we're getting close to getting a fee here.

[7:28] Let's see the next slide.

[7:30] And if you have questions, please feel free to jump in yet.

[7:34] So, in order to cut the pay of cost,

[7:36] we need to now have it the pay is

[7:38] and need that about $24 million

[7:41] that you will need to spend on facilities

[7:44] over the next 10 years

[7:46] if you're going to keep the same level of service you now have.

[7:49] So while we've calculated that the by parks and trails and open space and all these different categories,

[7:56] then we're trying to blend the report so that if you want to go spend it all on trails or on open space,

[8:02] you don't have to keep the exact same proportion, but this level of overall investment needs to be the same as we see for existing.

[8:09] And this will be what it costs to buy the properties or the amenities today and today's dollars,

[8:17] but it results in the same level service,

[8:19] the same amount of park land or trails,

[8:21] you know, structures, whatever, per capita,

[8:23] or per demand unit, because of employment.

[8:25] So that's quite a bit of money.

[8:26] So let's see what it looks in a fee.

[8:28] Let's see if the next one shows us.

[8:31] So here we go.

[8:32] It divides it all out.

[8:33] You can see there that parks are a big part of this,

[8:38] but you can see the relative share of it.

[8:41] Icerine is very small.

[8:43] So the total gross cost per demand unit

[8:45] is $4,800. But then how are you going to charge it on a demand unit basis? Well, for residential,

[8:53] you're going to multiply it by the household size. So you're going to charge it on an average

[8:56] household unit size. And then for commercial, you're going to charge it based on the building

[9:01] square footage, assuming there's this relationship between employees and buildings square feet. So

[9:07] on the next, oh, and there's a small credit, we have a fund balance. Okay. And we have some bonds.

[9:12] So we have to make some bond credits and the idea for that is we've said this is our service

[9:17] levels. Pretend it's right here. So we're going to charge new development to this service level.

[9:22] But we really haven't paid for this whole service level. We've really only paid for maybe this much

[9:27] of it. So if we charge new development for this amount and then oh lucky you, over time you could

[9:34] depend on these bonds that's also going to make up this gap, you know, for what existing development

[9:39] it sells to pay. So we have to make that credit. So in theory, the new development impact

[9:46] these should pay for their for share of the bonds because we're paying for this existing

[9:50] service level. The existing portion, we have to credit what they're going to pay over time

[9:57] and property tax to pay for existing share on that bond. That's the only part that's a little

[10:03] hard to get your head around. You have questions on it at the beginning but those are the credits

[10:06] that we make so that, so if you were doing a utility just to make it a little easier, and I'll move on quickly, but years ago,

[10:13] Tempanoge Special Service District, they had high rates to cover all of their costs, but they had

[10:22] accredited for the fact that some of the bonds weren't paid off, and so rates were higher for new development,

[10:27] and they needed to have that credit and they got challenged, and so we always make these credits.

[10:31] Okay, so the next one, what does it end up being in fees?

[10:36] Okay, oh, here's your schedule.

[10:39] So you're going to start out with $10,000, $11,000.

[10:43] And it's going to go up a little bit over time to $13,000.

[10:47] People will say, and correctly, oh, it's inflation.

[10:51] The fee is going up.

[10:52] The fee is not going up for inflation.

[10:55] That gross fee is really that $4,800 per demand unit.

[10:59] at times the household size, it stays constant.

[11:03] But the idea is as we have fewer and fewer years left

[11:07] on the bonds, the credit goes down

[11:10] because you won't be paying for as many years

[11:13] in your property tax.

[11:14] So in theory, it's the idea that you're either going

[11:17] to be paying it at the building permit counter

[11:19] and an impact fee or in more property taxes over time.

[11:22] And so over time you pay a little more

[11:24] at the building permit counter

[11:26] because you're going to be paying just a little bit less

[11:28] in the credit, but it all adds up to that same gross fee.

[11:33] So, it is not going up for inflation.

[11:36] So, there you go.

[11:37] There are your fees.

[11:39] 10,000 is fairly high for a residential unit,

[11:43] but you have a really high service level here, as you know.

[11:47] So, you would expect that.

[11:48] Most of the fees we've been calculating lately,

[11:50] and it depends on the community,

[11:53] four to six thousand, maybe seven thousand,

[11:56] and it's kind of the range that I've been seeing.

[11:58] So you are higher.

[11:59] So there is the impact fee.

[12:01] And then does that do us?

[12:04] No, we have compliance.

[12:05] So let's see what else we have here.

[12:07] Yeah, all of the notice hearing certification requirements

[12:10] have been met.

[12:10] You proposed notice you were planning to amend this.

[12:13] Dave has kept you right on track with everything else.

[12:15] We certified the report.

[12:18] And so this is where we're at with that.

[12:22] We're basically done.

[12:23] I think if you approve it tonight.

[12:24] So I think that's the end of it. I think that's the last slide. Do you have questions?

[12:32] Rob, do you have anything to add?

[12:39] No. Other than maybe just a clarification, we were talking about the impact. So on the employee side, it's not that they're kind of this half.

[12:47] So basically it takes two employees to equal one full-time resident as the way that math works.

[12:52] And

[12:55] so then this is also, as I mentioned in the county council meeting, one of most recently is why we also extend the not not only do businesses participate in property tax, but commercial businesses also participated through impact fees.

[13:15] Therefore, that's why we extend resident rates to employers who choose to offer that as a benefit to their employees.

[13:22] members

[13:29] of the board have any questions before we open for public hearing comment.

[13:39] Seeing

[13:40] your comment from the board will open this public hearing for public comment. There is no

[13:48] public in person. Is there any public online that would like to comment? Please raise your

[13:53] hand or I guess we're not that fancy just to unmute yourself and talk. Yeah.

[13:58] Yeah,

[14:03] hearing no public comment online.

[14:11] Rob, do you have a specific resolution or do we

[14:16] just reference that number? One that I got up. If you want to read any of it, let me

[14:22] know. I can scroll to it

[14:27] or at least read the title and the number and the title. We can

[14:31] call out the reference number within the packet. You can and understand you're doing one resolution

[14:38] where you're simply improving the impact to analysis and then you'll have a couple of hearing

[14:45] on the actual and accurate list. Yes.

[14:50] Okay, then can I have a motion to accept resolution number

[14:55] BRD-2026-DAS.

[15:00] Zero, four, one, as stated and provided within the board packet, titled a resolution to be

[15:09] minister to control board of the Senate of all Basin Special Recreation District adopting

[15:13] an impact fee analysis for parks, trails, open space, and recreation facilities.

[15:20] Amanda

[15:20] makes a motion. Can I have a second?

[15:27] Second? Carry seconds. All in favor?

[15:32] Aye. Aye.

[15:33] Hi.

[15:34] Hi.

[15:36] Motion carries unanimously, thank you.

[15:40] Now we are moving to, as Dave described, a second public hearing on the impact fee enactment

[15:47] for park's trails open space in recreation facilities.

[15:52] This is resolution BRD-2026-043, the impact fee enactment.

[16:03] Rob, do you have anything to kick us off here?

[16:07] When we say that once the fee schedule that was discussed through the IFA, once the enactment

[16:13] is approved, we would not start charging the new fees for 90 days.

[16:17] So we would go through the process of getting our new fee schedule published to our website.

[16:21] We would do all the proper notices through the Utah public notice site, and then it would

[16:26] not be until late November that we'd actually start collecting the new fees.

[16:30] Does

[16:34] anyone on the board have any questions?

[16:40] No question.

[16:41] I just want to kind

[16:44] of thank Rob for starting this and getting this done.

[16:48] This is the way we constantly hear from the public why aren't the new people paying for

[16:53] it.

[16:54] You know, the outsiders, whatever those comments are.

[16:58] And this is the way that is done so that it's not all just done to people who have lived

[17:03] in this community for a long time.

[17:06] And so I just want to commit to the staff and Rob for following.

[17:15] Thank you.

[17:17] So we'll open then public comment for the public hearing session of the consideration

[17:23] for approval of the impact fee enactment.

[17:26] There are still no public in person.

[17:28] Is there any public online that would like to issue a comment on this topic?

[17:35] hearing

[17:42] no public input online, I would see if anyone would make a motion.

[17:50] There's one. Oh, sorry. Mr. Castro, please go ahead.

[17:55] I guess the one comment I have or question, when other facilities such as the Olympic Legacy Foundation comes to Basin

[18:06] and ask for an adjustment or a reduced rate.

[18:13] What is the board's comments or how are you going to handle that situation?

[18:23] The impact fee.

[18:32] Make adjustments or credits.

[18:35] And one of the things that it said, I'm trying to get there,

[18:37] It is a waiver for public purpose.

[18:41] 3.6.

[18:45] I think this is the actual enactment resolution.

[18:51] Disrupt amount of project by patent project basis.

[18:55] Authorize exemptions or adjustments.

[18:57] The impact fee.

[18:59] In effect for those projects.

[19:01] The district determines to be of such benefit to the community.

[19:04] as a whole to justify the exemption or adjustment such projects may include low income housing.

[19:11] So, to the extent UOP wants the benefit of any kind of a waiver they would have to demonstrate to the administrative control board that is whatever the project that's coming before you is that kind of benefit and community to justify the exemption.

[19:33] And

[19:41] from an administrative control board perspective, I would say we weigh that on a individual

[19:46] basis on the merits while consulting with our council.

[19:55] Thank you.

[19:57] Thank you.

[20:00] Is there any additional public comment online?

[20:14] Yeah.

[20:14] The motion is to adopt that resolution if I'll get numbering that.

[20:25] I'm ready for a motion. I'm ready for a motion.

[20:29] Can I hear a motion in which the cycle based on the special recreation district approves resolution number BRD 20264043.

[20:39] impact fee enactment resolution in which it states a resolution of the administrative control board of the side of all based in special recreation district adopting an impact fee analysis and imposing impact fees providing for the calculation and collection of such fees providing for appeal accounting and severability of the same and other related matters and you're making that motion.

[21:04] I have make you that motion. Thank you. Alisa makes that motion. Can I have a second?

[21:09] Amanda seconds. All in favor. All right.

[21:16] Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Zion. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

[21:22] My shout. Thank you. Thank you. Yo, it's fine working with you guys.

[21:25] Thank you. Next

[21:30] on the agenda review for approval minutes from 7-9-2026.

[21:35] Are there any questions or comments from the board on those minutes?

[21:45] Hearing no questions or comments from the board, can I please have a motion to approve minutes from 7-9-20-26?

[21:51] I'm moved.

[21:52] Kerry makes a motion. Can I have a second?

[21:54] A man a second. It's all in favor?

[21:56] Aye.

[21:59] Motion carries.

[22:04] Next up is review for approval minutes from 7-27-20-26.

[22:11] First, was everyone there?

[22:12] I was not. I need to abstain. Okay. So, Brandy and Elisa were not here for this one.

[22:20] That's great. And Andy. And Andy? He was not there. He was not there.

[22:26] Oh, and all right. Thanks. It was easier to do this now.

[22:32] Are there any questions on the minutes from 727-26?

[22:37] or comments.

[22:41] All right, and then can I please have a motion from someone who was

[22:45] here for the minutes to approve the minutes from 727-26. So, a minute makes

[22:52] motion. Can I have a second? Sean seconds. All in favor. I. And abstaining, I

[23:02] believe, Andy Brandy and Elise is that correct, everyone? That's correct.

[23:06] Correct.

[23:07] Yes.

[23:09] Thank you very much, motion still carries with, um, quorum.

[23:15] Next is, uh, public input for any matter not on the agenda.

[23:22] Uh, so no public input for any matter on the agenda.

[23:26] Is there any public input still not online, any online for anything not on the agenda?

[23:33] of

[23:36] being no public comment online either.

[23:40] We'll move to public comment on future planning matters,

[23:43] but I would like to call out that we are agenda

[23:47] for consideration possible action on a resolution

[23:50] on the bond a little bit later.

[23:53] And as that is on the agenda,

[23:57] we will not be able to obtain public comment for that,

[24:00] but we will entertain public comment

[24:02] for anything unrelated to that,

[24:05] but also related to future planning.

[24:08] There's still no public input online.

[24:11] Is there, in person, is there any online?

[24:18] Hearing none online, we will move to reports,

[24:22] starting with Chair Persons report.

[24:26] I just continuously have to report

[24:28] that staff is doing an amazing job.

[24:33] I don't think I've done more work as a board person

[24:35] in the last two weeks than I have ever only possible with staff. Thank you all.

[24:43] Moving to Treasurer's report, Amanda.

[24:46] Okay. I'm following Treasurer's report review of Q22026 financial report.

[24:55] Yes, thank you. Okay. So I'm going to start with the July financial report.

[25:02] In terms of revenue, the field house passes continue to the decline in terms of revenue

[25:12] down 11 percent for July compared to 2025, but the fitness passes have went up and the

[25:23] monthly passes went up, both of those 14 percent, but daily is went down by 7 percent.

[25:28] The bid change, and this has been to you for most of the year, but July is the biggest

[25:36] change, is the 55% reduction you can see in these passes.

[25:42] In terms of recreation programs compared to 2025, recreation program revenue is up 1%,

[25:50] the big youth activities were down 51%, but athletics was up 66%.

[25:59] other charges for services, that was up 110%.

[26:03] So, even though you have some of these big changes,

[26:12] it's pretty, otherwise it's pretty stable.

[26:15] In terms of expenses,

[26:21] admin was down about 27%,

[26:23] compared to 2025, parks and recs, down five,

[26:27] I have trails and open space down for recreation, down 10.

[26:30] And that continues the trend that our expenditures

[26:33] are below what they were in comparison

[26:37] for the same time of year in 2025.

[26:40] In terms of the second quarter,

[26:44] revenue, property tax revenue was comparable to 2025.

[26:48] Field house passes were for the quarter down at 9%.

[26:52] program, revenue was up 36% of their services down 5.

[27:00] But as you can see, the increase in program revenue offsets the field house pass decline

[27:09] revenues.

[27:10] That makes sense.

[27:12] Expenditures for Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Edmund was pretty much all comparable

[27:21] to the second quarter for 2025.

[27:26] One-knife fleet management was down 20%, and that's probably due to the contract with

[27:34] the fire department and the new things you're doing on that.

[27:44] The impact, the revenue interest was 57, 57% of the budgeted amount, so a little bit more than

[27:53] 2025. Impact, the expenditures were, there was silver creek and aquatic design,

[28:03] concept design and trails improvement. Capital, the capital fund expenditures were for the two

[28:13] F10 to 50 trucks and a mower and an angle sweeper, so that is my report.

[28:21] Anyone have any questions?

[28:26] Thank you for a very good report.

[28:33] Now we'll move to review for approval prior month expenditures.

[28:37] Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding prior month expenditures?

[28:45] Here are no questions. Can I have a motion to approve the prior month expenditures?

[28:49] So moved.

[28:50] I'm in to make some motion. Can I have a second?

[28:54] I'll second.

[28:55] Andy seconds all in favor.

[28:58] Hi.

[28:59] Hi.

[29:00] Any opposed?

[29:03] Motion carries. Thank you.

[29:05] Next the clerks report.

[29:07] The clerk does not have a report.

[29:13] Committee reports next.

[29:15] District director liaison carry.

[29:17] We did meet and we spoke, we met last Monday in advance of our council meeting on Wednesday, which was mostly what we discussed will be discussing further. So I think it's a change to go on to that.

[29:32] Thank you.

[29:34] Strategic planning, brand new unit position to comment.

[29:38] Yes, we've had several meetings mostly related to our bond and facilities planning as

[29:47] well as discussing partnerships

[29:52] on the different things that are coming up and those agreements.

[29:56] And so most of that's getting covered this meeting tonight.

[30:02] Thank you. Andy, financing governance.

[30:09] I would also state that we met. We also discussed the bond and facilities planning and the county council meeting that happened last week and any adjustments that we need to make to be more responsive to the public. And that's.

[30:34] and all of those issues will be discussed tonight.

[30:38] Thanks, Annie.

[30:40] A personal operation.

[30:43] We did not mean.

[30:45] And the audit committee is no more.

[30:48] So we'll pass over that one.

[30:49] Can you take, will you take it off the agenda?

[30:52] Yeah.

[30:54] Now we'll move to director's report.

[30:57] I don't know if this will be a tag team between Rob and Matt

[31:00] or just Rob.

[31:02] I can cover quite a bit of this. I'll be brief. I'll just kind of summarize that all of our

[31:10] software projects are progressing nicely. So everything from our diligent software, which

[31:15] Justine's been working with them on getting our new board management software up and running

[31:19] to our counting software asset management. All those are progressing. The team is developing the software

[31:25] they're providing input as to some customizations we'd like to see. So it's going really well.

[31:31] We're also starting the deployment of, and Brian and his team will be working with RecTrack

[31:37] or whatever our new Recreation software.

[31:41] So they'll begin that process as well.

[31:44] So we've signed the contracts with those.

[31:47] We'll have a single platform for payment.

[31:49] And then our single platform for basically everything that track our Recreation.

[31:54] What's going on the bond?

[31:56] Our IFFP and IFA closed out tonight.

[32:00] So we've checked the box, so we've got something done, so I'll work on taking that off.

[32:04] We received the final invoice for that, so I'll work with Susie also to make sure we get the final certified reports for each one of those and get those circulated.

[32:13] And then we did have a meeting last week and the week before on our fee assessment and our fee audit.

[32:19] So, we are anticipating getting a draft fee audit report by the end of this month and

[32:25] I'll be able to share that with the Finance and Governance Committee as a preview for

[32:30] them to review prior to the September meeting.

[32:32] And then the schedule would be just incorrect if I'm wrong.

[32:37] We talked about bringing you to the board having something and what we would like to have is

[32:40] a draft final report somewhere in late September because what we want to do is even if we

[32:47] don't enact a new fees. We at least want to have a draft or have the fee schedule ready to go

[32:52] sometime the first part of October. So Travis and others can start working with those user groups

[32:58] that will be scheduling for and planning to use our facilities and fields in such next year.

[33:03] We typically open up the spring season in October. So we've got a window where we'll need at least

[33:08] publish, publish those. So we'll be working with you all to get that done on our fee audit. But

[33:14] But we're working through a process by which we can simplify our fee schedule from the

[33:19] multiple pages that it is down, something simple.

[33:22] We're considering multiple levels, eliminating a lot of the different discounts because

[33:28] we feel that the program will be able to offer, we'll just basically, through redundancy,

[33:34] get rid of those.

[33:36] But then just have a couple of discounts out to the side that we could apply at any one

[33:40] of those membership levels, such as a senior discount, military first responder medical

[33:47] teacher type of discounts, and then looking at a tier of approach to where we have a

[33:52] resident, and we can discuss this amongst you guys just move for thought that if we come

[33:57] up with a summit county type of material because we know we have people coming from some

[34:02] county that would pay more than residents, and then a completely non-summit county resident

[34:06] So the folks from outside, so as some of you may have caught from my presentation to county council

[34:13] we talked about the bond. We really do have nearly 90% of our users in the field house are local

[34:21] with 72, 73% of them being from our zip code. We do have another proportion. It's about 13% which are

[34:29] going to be or no, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but then the rest of them would be Park City.

[34:35] We have a couple of double digit user groups that come from Camus and then the outlying areas

[34:42] which could also be represented through our employee program.

[34:45] So we have a lot of employees.

[34:47] There are some others zip codes within the Salt Lake City area and other areas in Summit

[34:52] County which again could be reflective of employees coming up and using it.

[34:56] And so really a lot of the out of state and truly out of town people that are using the

[35:05] you know, less than a half a percent every year.

[35:07] So we're talking a few people here and there.

[35:10] So there really is not,

[35:12] well, there is the public sentiment

[35:13] that only 20% of our residents

[35:15] are using the field house and using our programs.

[35:17] That's just not the case, which is supported by data.

[35:19] Our residents are using our facilities

[35:21] and they make up the majority of the people

[35:23] that are using our programs and our facilities.

[35:26] So we'll see that in the chaotic.

[35:30] What else do we have on here?

[35:31] And that's about it other than, so I am working with Moline Creative, we do have a strategic

[35:38] leadership alignment and workforce planning workshop scheduled for next Thursday. So myself

[35:44] and the managers will be in an all day retreat at the Olympic Village if they were borrowing

[35:49] their conference room to do some management team building and to look at their strategic plan,

[35:56] evaluate how we're benchmarking ourselves against the strategic plan.

[35:59] What is in the strategic plan that really is strategic versus some of those things that are recommended that are operational and really kind of setting the groundwork for updating the strategic plan.

[36:11] Obviously if our bond goes through and or if the bond doesn't go through, we really need to rethink it.

[36:18] So the other thing I'll be working with on the one of the committees as I do have a draft RFP ready to go so that my intent would be an October.

[36:28] We published the RFP to hire firm to update our strategic plan based on which direction we're going, but in looking at the disappointing document that we have that's our annual report.

[36:39] I don't think it's anything that I expected and I'm heard from a couple of board members are annual report with that is not what you guys expected.

[36:46] So, my intent would be is we actually kind of

[36:50] suss out at better, more explicit RFP scope language.

[36:56] And we send that out. And what I'd like to do is send it out so that

[37:00] the annual report is a subset of the company that would do our strategic plan

[37:06] so that they come back every year.

[37:08] Not only do they analyze how we're following the strategic plan,

[37:11] but then they can also do a lot of other financial and other strategic plan

[37:15] and type of assessment of how we're doing year-over-year,

[37:19] and we can continue that contract for a few years out.

[37:23] And that is the bulk of what I've got to talk about,

[37:27] because everything else we're gonna be talking about

[37:29] here in a couple minutes.

[37:31] Any questions?

[37:37] No questions, thank you.

[37:45] All right, moving to then new business.

[37:48] So we will bring up a review for approval resolution

[37:51] BRD-2026-047

[37:54] in relation to the Princess Di-Connector Trail Project? Does anyone have any additional comments

[38:03] from what is already on the staff report from staff right now? No? Do any board members have any

[38:13] comments after reviewing the staff report on this trail project?

[38:24] Do you have any questions or comments

[38:26] from staff then, can I please have a motion to authorize the district director to contract with creative trails for the Princess Die Connector Trail project for an amount not to exceed $228,283.

[38:44] So moved.

[38:45] Amanda makes a motion. Can I have a second?

[38:50] Carrie seconds, all in favor?

[38:52] Aye.

[38:55] Any opposed?

[38:59] Motion carries, thank you.

[39:04] Next, we are moving to review of a Memorandum of Understanding with Jen Riff or Park City

[39:12] Sculptured Garden in Minigolf.

[39:15] Rob, I'll turn this over to you and ask if you could kind of give just a general, like,

[39:20] really quick update on what we're doing with Memorandum of Understanding right now, too.

[39:25] So I've worked with Dave, so we have a draft MOU that's really just a template that we need

[39:30] to use, but in order to fill out out, you know, we'd need to start negotiations and start

[39:34] having conversations with several organizations.

[39:38] This first one was with Jen Rift, so she came and gave the presentation on the sculpture

[39:42] garden and mini-golf.

[39:46] So this resolution does basically recognize that, you know, their group, we need to establish

[39:52] an MOU to move forward.

[39:54] And then what this would do would authorize me to start that negotiation.

[39:58] There's language within here that the bottom line is, I'm not going to sign in MLU without

[40:03] bringing a final draft, obviously having Dave review it, her turn he would review it, and

[40:08] then we would bring drafts back to the board.

[40:11] There is a section still within the language that if there's any other limitations that you

[40:19] guys would like to list, there's just this highlighted section here.

[40:22] So through discussion tonight, I was ending the, you guys want to include, we can do that,

[40:26] else I can strengthen it before I finalize this. But basically what this would allow me to do

[40:31] is to take that draft that Dave and I put together, send it to Jen, and begin the process of feeling

[40:38] it out and start negotiation of what the relationship is going to be, what we need to do,

[40:43] kind of set the schedule for how we work together on developing this. And then ultimately the idea

[40:49] would be, once we have the MOU, we would be moving towards more of a partnership agreement, whether

[40:54] that be a lease, it be a nonprofit agreement, or some other agreement.

[40:57] The MOU just allows us to start that process to figure out what is the next step.

[41:03] And the MOU doesn't obligate us to anything.

[41:06] It just kind of puts more formality to our relationship, and then allows us to start those

[41:11] negotiations and documenting what each of us expect from an eventual partnership, if any.

[41:19] Thanks, Rob.

[41:21] I'm going to kick us off and just say this is pretty exciting.

[41:24] We have long talked about partnerships and what we can do to offset overall operational

[41:32] costs by partnering with outside other organizations.

[41:36] These memorandums of understanding are the first steps and we're looking at three of

[41:40] them tonight.

[41:42] That is, I think, a fantastic job by staff.

[41:46] I'll reiterate that this doesn't in and of itself bind us into any agreements, but this

[41:52] does authorize Robin Staff to be able to go out and start those so that we can come and see them

[41:58] again as the full board prior to moving forward. So again, I'm really excited about this.

[42:05] Long talked about it. We are checking some major boxes this evening. So thanks, Staff.

[42:14] Does the board have any other questions or comments?

[42:18] That's

[42:24] the only comment I want to make is thank you again, thank you to staff, but this

[42:28] is these public-private partnership opportunities are things that, you know, bring new amenities

[42:35] to the district without putting the burden on the taxpayer.

[42:38] And so being able to take an MOU while also helping utilize our, you know, land and ways that

[42:47] are for public recreation benefit.

[42:49] And so being able to take these MOUs have something out.

[42:53] so that we have an ability to start those conversations and let staff proceed with those conversations

[42:58] is really important. And so thank you for doing this. Thanks Dave for your work too and

[43:04] getting this lined up so we can proceed with conversations with different groups on ways to create

[43:10] recreational amenities for the public.

[43:16] Any other comments or questions?

[43:23] Seeing no other comments

[43:24] Can I please have a motion to approve resolution number sbsrd-2026-044, a resolution of the Administrative Control Board of the Senator Bill based in Special Recreation District, authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with Jen Riff representing Park City Sculpture Garden in Minigulf regarding a proposed Sculptured Garden in Minigulf.

[43:54] off amenity on district property.

[43:59] They're moved.

[44:00] Brandy makes a motion.

[44:01] Can I have a second?

[44:02] Second.

[44:03] Amanda seconds.

[44:04] All in favor.

[44:06] Aye.

[44:08] Aye.

[44:09] Any opposed?

[44:11] Motion carries.

[44:12] Thank you.

[44:13] We will then move into our second MOU review of Resolution BRD 2026.

[44:21] I geez, that's 4 or 5, a memorandum of understanding with Forest Carey for learn to ski hill community

[44:30] amenity.

[44:34] Rob, anything additional to add on this specific or is this going to be in essence the same

[44:41] format?

[44:42] Same format, it's going to be the same draft MOU that I circulated, so obviously the draft

[44:47] we would need to fill it out and it would be different specific to him.

[44:49] I did have a conversation with Mr. Kerry a couple of weeks ago and he actually said that

[44:53] he's looking at establishing a non-profit that would help with this but he's also reaching

[44:58] out to the U.S.

[45:03] I also had conversations with folks at the Utah Olympic foundation because the park city ski and snowboard club is a subsidiary LLC underneath them as a nonprofit. We have a couple of different ways that we can go with this. But this will allow Mr. Kerri and myself just to start the process and negotiate and figure out what that partnership structure needs to be.

[45:28] that if I what he needs to do from his end and allow us to move forward with developing this program too.

[45:36] Thank you.

[45:38] Any board comment on this resolution with Mr. Carian, learn to ski hill public amenity?

[45:47] Fabulous.

[45:55] All right.

[45:56] Then please have a motion to approve resolution number sbsrd-2026-045.

[46:04] a resolution of the administrative control board of the Senatorville Basin Special Recreation District authorizing the executive director to negotiate a member

[46:12] of understanding with Forest Carey, representing community members in support of a learn-to-ski hill public amenity on district property.

[46:24] So Amanda makes a motion, can I have a second?

[46:27] I'll second.

[46:30] Sean seconds, Andy.

[46:32] Sorry.

[46:34] All in favor.

[46:35] Hi.

[46:35] Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Rob now moving to review for approval or last

[46:45] MOU BRD-2026-046. A memorandum of understanding with low companies to amend the Silver Creek

[46:55] Village Development Agreement. So this ties into what we're doing with

[47:01] Regardless of the outcome of the bond, we know we own two properties at Silver Creek Village.

[47:07] We have the Silver Creek Village partial that was given to the district by the developer.

[47:11] We also have our Farman's Fund partial there.

[47:14] But what this does is kind of goes down the avenue of allowing myself and

[47:21] the developer to start having conversation and explore what needs to be done to amend the

[47:26] development agreement.

[47:27] I know that Dave has made mention a couple of times of the current development agreement

[47:32] would allow us to do, you know, kind of what we are planning and doing on the property.

[47:37] County Planning Office has kind of made some statements to the contrary,

[47:41] but what this allows us to do is then begin that process where, and I have brief Nathaniel Low,

[47:49] who's a general manager of low companies about what our plans are, what we're thinking about

[47:52] doing with the property. He's very excited and is supportive of us building amenities on that

[47:58] property. But what we need to do then is basically come together the United Front, but I think

[48:05] it would be very helpful that if we go in front of the County Planning Commission or the County

[48:08] Council, that if we have this MOU in place that we are green to move forward with negotiating

[48:16] amendment to the development agreement that will allow us to develop, you know, based on our plan,

[48:21] because what we're going to have to do is the current development agreement had somewhat of a sketch plan in there for what we would do, granted that was 10 years ago, the needs of the district has changed.

[48:32] What we're planning to do, even with the bonded facility or others outside of the bond has changed, and that would include, you know, the thing like the mini golf and sculpture garden, which may not have necessarily been envisioned.

[48:44] And some people may take objection to, so what this allows us to do is to bring kind

[48:52] of our current plan, along with the strategic plan and other things we have planned, start

[48:57] working with low companies to get them on the record that we will amend the development

[49:02] agreement, which would hopefully remove some of the roadblocks or some of the objection

[49:06] to anything that we're trying to do, because it doesn't initially meet the letter or the

[49:10] intent of the current agreement.

[49:11] Right.

[49:13] Thank you.

[49:16] Any board comments regarding this MOU with low companies?

[49:21] Rob, I just want to say thanks for approaching it this way.

[49:24] I know I've seen the initial graphs of what we would do when it was a call it a big

[49:31] sport field complex.

[49:33] And I think for residents of that neighborhood, maybe it's something different now.

[49:38] And so thank you for approaching it this way and working together with the developer to

[49:42] figure out what our strategic plan says we need in that space and understanding where

[49:48] they're going with it as well.

[49:51] After sitting in a couple of county council meetings, particularly with a few things and

[49:55] sitting in on a couple of council planning council meetings, you know, they always talk

[49:59] about the intent of an agreement.

[50:02] I think one of our council members made mention that one of the last meetings, it doesn't

[50:06] matter what was intended.

[50:07] It's what the document says.

[50:08] And so there seems to be a lot of disagreement over what the document says.

[50:11] can it can't be done versus what the intent was and county council can't

[50:16] legislate intent. They can only legislate what's actually in a document so we

[50:21] just need to come together and if the document is fine as is we just need to get

[50:26] all parties planning commission and the county council and us and the developer to

[50:29] say hey the document is fine the way it is we're gonna do this and everybody agrees

[50:32] or we start ironing out where those differences are and his interpretation

[50:36] and if we need to amend it to actually codify intent

[50:41] into here's what the document now says,

[50:43] that's really what we need to do.

[50:47] Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

[50:55] Any no other comments or questions?

[50:58] May I then please have a motion to approve

[51:02] resolution number SBSRD-2026-046,

[51:08] a resolution of the administrative control board

[51:10] of the Snyderville Basin special recreation district

[51:13] authorizing the executive director to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the low companies regarding a proposed amenity to the development agreement for silver Creek Village.

[51:24] Carrie makes a motion. Can I have a second?

[51:27] Second.

[51:30] Alisa seconds. All in favor?

[51:33] Aye.

[51:34] Aye.

[51:35] Aye.

[51:38] Aye.

[51:39] Any opposed?

[51:42] Motion carries. Thank you.

[51:43] I'm moving to the 2025 district annual report, Matt.

[51:55] We

[52:02] can't hear Matt online at least talking.

[52:07] Hold on.

[52:12] Thank you.

[52:14] Thanks, Brandy.

[52:17] The context I was just relating is the, you know, the process took a lot longer than we

[52:22] thought it was a little bit more painful than we anticipated. I think that ideal next

[52:27] phases would be to take this document, window it down to what we actually want to convey

[52:34] to the public and to monitor for you guys to monitor as the board. What are the most meaningful

[52:40] metrics that are a part of this? I will say we started from a very large list of metrics

[52:47] and data that we already collect. So this is even more limited than that.

[52:53] But as we are,

[52:57] you know, already more than halfway through this year, that's probably an exercise for the

[53:03] in-report next year. So open to comments, thoughts, ideas about how we move forward with this

[53:25] I just hope that either if we have a retreat in September that this is one of the issues

[53:33] that we can work on in terms of, you know, what we like, what we didn't like from this

[53:39] from the 2025 report what we would like to see going forward for 26 and I really like the idea

[53:45] that Rob talked about using the same contractor for the strategic plan update and also for the annual

[53:56] report because those two are incredibly linked and so that would be my comment to put that on the agenda

[54:03] for the board retreat or another board meeting?

[54:08] Probably not September, but okay.

[54:12] We'll talk later.

[54:14] Some time before January.

[54:16] So you know what you're collecting?

[54:19] Yeah, I'm Terry.

[54:22] Just thank you.

[54:23] There's a lot and

[54:26] Arduous and again going back to more man said and

[54:31] in planning, maybe in a little bit of things sound a bit.

[54:37] Yeah, Lisa.

[54:40] Yeah, I agree. This is a giant document.

[54:43] And I just wanted to see a little bit more in the highlights.

[54:48] You had some specific things like the connector trail on the RFP award for clientele.

[54:54] But I think another highlight of the district is maintaining.

[54:57] and supporting this incredible open space and trail network that we have in a really successful way.

[55:04] Few injuries, great maintenance.

[55:07] We were providing this huge amenity to the area without any cost, you know,

[55:16] besides the front besides property taxes that people pay, but I just feel like that should be in.

[55:26] Great.

[55:30] Andy.

[55:36] Sorry.

[55:37] I just have to remember to turn the mute, but not.

[55:40] No.

[55:41] I thought it was great.

[55:43] I know that I agree with highlighting some open space issues as well.

[55:49] But overall, I would say that so much progress has been made and just a short amount of time

[55:56] and highlighting it in this report.

[55:58] I mean, it seems like it, it almost just doesn't do it justice and probably can't do it justice

[56:03] in terms of all the good things that have happened in this past year.

[56:11] Thanks, Andy Brandy.

[56:15] No, I think this is a great start. There are some little things as far as commentary that I'd

[56:20] love to see as far as overall impact maybe to go alongside these numbers. And one other thing

[56:27] that I noticed, and this is nitpicky, right?

[56:31] But on slide 22 where it talks about

[56:33] where operating, spending by department,

[56:36] it would also be great that I don't know

[56:39] that we collect revenue, you know,

[56:41] by, I know we don't look at revenue by department, right?

[56:44] But you see, like, recreation expense

[56:47] and understanding how much of that revenue

[56:49] is tied to recreation versus we know trails

[56:52] and open space doesn't produce any revenue.

[56:55] and so things like that would be great to show the public that cost recovery

[57:03] conversation that constantly comes up so they understand that while money's

[57:08] going out there it's also coming in.

[57:11] Thank you. I'll just say that I think the

[57:16] idea my idea anyway behind this was something that was going to be meaningful to

[57:24] quick glance to be able to show the impact that the district has and something that will

[57:30] be easy on staff to continue to report and bring up. I think it's like, first of all,

[57:40] the pictures of, like the pictures in here are really good and like seeing staff in the

[57:44] pictures I think was pretty cool too. But I don't know if we need 13 chapters in the plan

[57:52] and I don't think this also was easy on staff.

[57:58] So from a board perspective, I would just want to reiterate

[58:03] hopefully when we talk about this next time at the next retreat,

[58:06] which is a fantastic idea.

[58:09] You'll be able to make sure that this is something that's repeatable

[58:14] if there were no consultant.

[58:17] If we look at this at a six-month period too,

[58:20] that you all plug in some numbers, and I know I'm making that simple, but even if it's

[58:26] like 20 numbers that is plugged in and we get an update on it, that is, I think, the

[58:31] board intent is not to create a workload on you to try to go above and beyond to try

[58:39] to get this done when you're in the midst of a whole lot else right now, too.

[58:44] So the first attempt is always going to be the hardest.

[58:48] The whole dynamic of how we track everything is going to change with the software.

[58:54] So that's a very good point.

[58:55] I'm very hopeful that that will, that's going to feed us all sorts of different data in

[59:00] a more efficient way.

[59:02] But what we can use this document for is that values discussion, which I think is a great

[59:07] one to have at a retreat.

[59:08] We can really dig into what specific measurable components of our operations are what you

[59:15] care about and by extension the full creativity.

[59:18] But this enables us to be more transparent as we have been working towards maybe even more

[59:26] transparent than we initially thought since it's been so long.

[59:30] Matt, do you see, given all the new software, that is going to be available?

[59:35] Do you see that Basin staff could produce the annual report without using a contractor?

[59:42] If it was, if you had all the data there and it was just a matter of formatting,

[59:47] or do you think you'll always need to have a contractor do it?

[59:50] We'd probably want to have a contractor do it.

[59:55] The software, we have test versions of the software now that we're already using.

[1:00:00] So we can see kind of what these dashboards are, what these outputs are going to look like. And it's always going to take some interpretation or some design savvy that the software just can't do automatically. That's what a contractor could do. Yeah, at least to get the template, right, like if this is not so. This was not what you guys want, you know, so there's got to get a new kind of move you guys say, like this is it. This is what is what we want. Then maybe we're just pulling metrics from software and inserting.

[1:00:29] as opposed to redoing an entire document.

[1:00:33] And I think that input from SAS can be really important,

[1:00:36] so we know what we want is great.

[1:00:39] But if we want something that's a ton of work,

[1:00:41] we don't want that.

[1:00:44] Well, I think the other thing to keep important,

[1:00:46] this important with this is that from a public standpoint,

[1:00:50] as far as transparency goes,

[1:00:51] if this was an internally generated document,

[1:00:53] there would probably be less credence placed on its validity.

[1:00:57] There's always something to be said for when our external auditors come in and perform

[1:01:01] our financial audit.

[1:01:02] This was done by a third party audit firm, same with our fee audit.

[1:01:07] This isn't us going through this.

[1:01:08] This is the third party that these are professionals that do this for recreation districts and places

[1:01:13] nationwide, you know, they're going through this.

[1:01:15] So by having this done by a third party, I think would also help with that transparency

[1:01:21] to say we can say that, look, this isn't us saying this, that we're just providing the data

[1:01:24] And this is this other company's auditor who's doing this.

[1:01:28] So, you know, I think, you know, this one was done by

[1:01:31] I work a marketing firm, which is why I think this annual report does read more like a marketing

[1:01:36] brochure, something that you want to get perspective residents moving into the area, versus something

[1:01:41] to where if we target and have done some research, there are other companies out there that this is

[1:01:47] much like Bald King who's doing our fiat, that there are other firms out there that they do strategic

[1:01:52] plan. They do annual reports, they do this type of thing and they audit and their industry niche

[1:01:58] is parks and recreation and they benchmark us against the NRPA. They can benchmark us against

[1:02:04] other recreation districts and places within the state of Utah, which I think is also important

[1:02:08] is for us to be able to provide that, you know, yes, it's great process, all these great things we

[1:02:13] do and how much money we spend or don't spend. But I think there's also some value in having some

[1:02:18] comparison out there to benchmarking us against our peers to give our residents something to

[1:02:24] compare us to.

[1:02:29] And I work on I will I have the draft scope of work I will go ahead and start

[1:02:35] circulating that amongst the committee members for them to give some input but really just as a quick

[1:02:40] overview you know what I'm looking at the annual report I think what it should have done is obviously

[1:02:45] we have our audit so we the annual report should show something about financial performance

[1:02:50] With our assets and our infrastructure management, we should talk about that because we do hear a lot of public input about all the buildings and everything else we have.

[1:02:58] Fleet management, I think we ought to talk about that. We're constantly getting comments from members of the public about the fleet and what we are aren't doing with it.

[1:03:07] Operational efficiencies, we can talk about that. I think we also need to, you know, a strategic plan.

[1:03:13] And if it just sits on our website,

[1:03:16] it's just a static document when I do anything.

[1:03:18] So I think our annual port should also report

[1:03:21] on our progress on the strategic plan.

[1:03:23] Where are we having successes?

[1:03:25] Where do we need to rethink and track us on that?

[1:03:28] And report on our KPIs on that as far as a scorecard.

[1:03:31] Here's some things the strategic plans

[1:03:32] that we should be doing.

[1:03:33] Here's some things we are doing.

[1:03:35] Here's some things that we're not going to be able to do

[1:03:37] or based on public feedback.

[1:03:38] We're bending that goal.

[1:03:39] And then also talking about our community programs and the impact, what impact we have in the community as far as, you know, those because in our fee structure, we talk about not charging as much for certain things.

[1:03:54] And we need to really celebrate and talk about things like our free movie night at, you know, at the park or we need to talk about all those our easter egg hunt and those things that we are doing.

[1:04:02] that are free for the community, but there is a cost.

[1:04:06] And what is the benefit of that?

[1:04:07] Bringing the community together for these type of free events

[1:04:10] and other things that we're doing.

[1:04:12] So I really think that we need to take a harder look at this

[1:04:15] and I'll work with you guys to kind of get a better scope

[1:04:18] for what we want our annual report to do,

[1:04:20] and we'll get that going.

[1:04:23] Thank you.

[1:04:25] Any other comments or questions for anyone?

[1:04:31] All right, thank you all.

[1:04:33] Next moving to the final item consideration

[1:04:35] and possible action on a resolution of the Administrative Control Board

[1:04:40] determining the necessity for and requesting the County Council of Summit County, Utah,

[1:04:45] to call for a special bond election to authorize the issuance of not to exceed $71 million

[1:04:51] dollar general obligation bonds of the district for the purpose of financing all or

[1:04:56] a portion of the costs of constructing recreational facilities and related improvements.

[1:05:03] So, I'll start on this one and we have presented a lot over the course of the last couple

[1:05:12] months, decisions on what we present and how we come to our ideas have gone through a

[1:05:20] lot of public input and no part of it has been unilaterally decided by this board or by staff.

[1:05:29] so I do want to thank staff for really reviewing comments overall from the

[1:05:35] public to decide how we get to where we are and part overall of listening to

[1:05:41] what do we put out there as far as what the public wants is then obviously to in

[1:05:48] the course of events as to how we have to put things out to the public is to then

[1:05:53] present a cost. And what we heard over the last couple weeks was that everything that

[1:06:00] the public wanted costed too much. So we still listened, we still are a part of that,

[1:06:07] we still want that as continued data points. So as we move forward, I'll talk a lot now about

[1:06:16] kind of getting into the weeds of what we're going to do, but I do want to thank the public

[1:06:20] for submitting those comments, attending meetings,

[1:06:22] and being a part overall of the process.

[1:06:26] And thank the county council for continued guidance

[1:06:29] in our last meeting with them

[1:06:30] that helped us to get where we are now today.

[1:06:35] So we will then as a result of ongoing listening

[1:06:39] and understanding what the community continues to want,

[1:06:44] we will move forward with reduced plan

[1:06:46] and not to exceed bond amount of $71 million down from the original ask of $150 million.

[1:06:54] That comes to approximately $120 a year, $10 a month, per million dollar of fair market value, primary home valuation.

[1:07:08] When looking at that same impact for a secondary home or business,

[1:07:13] That would be about $220 or $18 in some change a month for a $1 million fair market value valuation.

[1:07:25] Thanks for sharing that run.

[1:07:26] You're welcome.

[1:07:28] So as we look and think then what that means from a facility perspective,

[1:07:34] we would be concentrating on one main facility with an aquatics feature being built and funded

[1:07:41] directly by this bond. We do plan also to review and continue to plan enhancements to secondary

[1:07:49] site with recreational opportunities such as outdoor fields and courts. Additional improvements

[1:07:57] that we had originally recorded and presented as wanted by the community and any other facilities

[1:08:06] that would have been paid by that original bond amount will continue to be reviewed by staff.

[1:08:13] And we will be reviewing these over time using a primary funding mechanism of impact fees

[1:08:19] to consider the placement of these recreational opportunities at additional sites.

[1:08:27] So basically it might take longer to deliver and we're not going to be focusing

[1:08:32] really on that full scope that we have, but there are still mechanisms out there to try to get what the public needs after a bond would be approved for that primary facility.

[1:08:48] So the strategic planning committee has met with staff, we have reviewed this approach.

[1:08:55] And I'll let Brandy, if you're up for it in a sec here, chime in from as the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee on what that committee's role has been over the last couple of months and especially over the last couple of weeks to help guide us to where we are now in conjunction with staff.

[1:09:13] And then I'll also talk about what what this looks like on our schedule moving forward Brandy.

[1:09:19] Yeah, so the Strategic Planning Committee has been throughout the last year working with staff

[1:09:25] and alongside Elliott Work Group and Zion's Bank to really figure out how do we deliver

[1:09:30] on what our strategic planning, our strategic plan and our additional public input from

[1:09:39] our user groups has been.

[1:09:43] And so when, you know, we had this conversation last week with Council and had additional

[1:09:48] public feedback. We've gotten back together and said, okay, if we're going to deliver something

[1:09:54] out, scale back, you know, we heard the public, let's let's start with one place, not two.

[1:10:01] And then let's move forward. But we know we still need to deliver on what recreational assets

[1:10:10] the district needs and its citizens want. And that's the goal of this bond is to make sure

[1:10:17] where we're delivering things, whether it be a pickleball court or a, you know, aquatic

[1:10:25] facility with some kind of workout amenities that serves everybody from the young population

[1:10:32] and the parents to the people who have lived here for 40 plus years and are looking for something

[1:10:37] to do in the winter because they can't spend as many days on a ski hill.

[1:10:42] And so that's the kind of facility, you know, we're looking at building now and keeping that

[1:10:47] in mind with how do we build something using bond money that is as responsible as we can

[1:10:55] be with that money and with the growth that we're doing for the district.

[1:11:03] Thanks, Brandon.

[1:11:06] I'll go to Rob for staff comment on this too and then I'll go to the rest of the board

[1:11:12] to see if you all have anything.

[1:11:14] I think one of the things I want everybody to key in on is we talk about $71 million.

[1:11:18] dollars that really what we're talking about is event construction program about just shy of 60

[1:11:24] billion because we have to count in our soft costs between our permits and other things. So we're

[1:11:29] not going to be building a 71 million dollar facility. It's really going to be, we're going to have

[1:11:33] about 60 million dollars to play with, which really still gets us a very good size facility. So we're

[1:11:39] pretty and we might even be able to consider a smaller while not a recreation facility at East Canyon,

[1:11:45] and maybe a community center, something with open space,

[1:11:48] multi-purpose space, they can be used for recreation

[1:11:50] or fitness classes, but also provides that community

[1:11:53] some place to go inside and also anchors

[1:11:57] the outdoor amenities that we're gonna build using

[1:12:00] and pack these or other things.

[1:12:01] So, you know, we have multiple things we can do.

[1:12:03] I think the amount of money with $60 million,

[1:12:06] we will be able to do quite a bit.

[1:12:09] And I think it's really rephrasing the community,

[1:12:12] you know, came out of the last couple of minds

[1:12:13] and said they really would like a fully loaded, you know, Hummer, and we really, and they're

[1:12:18] realizing that they're really on a Honda Civic budget and we really kind of get the basics

[1:12:23] of what we need. But at the same time that, you know, we want to look at this and so we'll

[1:12:29] work with Elliot Workgroup to how we design the building so that if we decide to do an addition

[1:12:34] late in years on, whether the public goes with another bond or we find impact fees or donations

[1:12:40] are a P3 that we can add onto the building with minimal expense by being

[1:12:46] modeled on. So modular design, get those those amenities that we really need

[1:12:51] in looking at where we are with our impact fees in the field house really the

[1:12:55] weight and the recreation and the fitness classes are overused. So even having

[1:13:00] just one additional facility that has that is going to take that load off of the

[1:13:04] field house. And then by looking at some of the other outdoor amenities we can we

[1:13:09] can build on the sites using other funds, that will continue to take load off of the fieldhouse.

[1:13:15] So, you know, this is not, you know, we're not in a bad position. And I think if we can get

[1:13:21] the public support behind this, and then the other thing that Ron and I had shouted about earlier

[1:13:26] today was that if we do something in the future, and we really need to start rallying, it's really

[1:13:31] the citizen groups, the user groups that need to start rallying and really get a petition drive going

[1:13:35] and really get other residents behind us doing an addition rather than us doing surveys and doing this.

[1:13:41] So we're really going to have to start putting some of the residents that want these specific, you know,

[1:13:45] whether it be an indoor field or an indoor pool or something or a climbing gym that we really start to rally those residents

[1:13:52] to then they can start getting interest among other residents.

[1:13:55] So we can get them behind this more show than we have here.

[1:13:58] Because I think through this process while we've been hearing from people who really love us

[1:14:02] and they suggest to do this big thing that it really is the people that are against this,

[1:14:09] that are more vocal. But again, I think the core element of what we're going to be able to provide

[1:14:15] should speak to everyone. And I think the wellness and fitness will address most of those.

[1:14:22] And so my intent would be is that Matt and I have been working with the other work groups to kind of

[1:14:26] come up with a watercolor sketch of what this site plans might be for this. And I think we can also

[1:14:31] built some excitement there amongst the residents to show really what we had planned overall for both

[1:14:37] sites. Not just the building that the bond would pay for but really what we're looking at for the

[1:14:41] next 10 years as we collect impact fees as we start to go out for other grants because we are

[1:14:47] more eligible for and can get more grant money for outdoor amenities than we can for an indoor facility.

[1:14:53] So there's plenty of other things and then the other advantage is you know and I didn't mention

[1:14:58] just we're talking about the MOUs.

[1:15:00] That if we go public with these MLUs that show we're really looking at other partnership ways to fund other things, that should give us some traction too. And hopefully, what it'll also do is spark some ideas from other residents who have ideas of things that they can bring other people to the table that we could do more P3s. Thanks, Rob. Yeah. And the one other comment right now I have is from the strategic planning committee. The other thing we talked about is I know we have two sites in Silver Creek and in what we're calling e-cannion flush

[1:15:29] client dolly to look at and really working with Elliott and whoever we were to hire this bond

[1:15:36] passes to optimize construction cost and pick the site that has the best building footprint

[1:15:44] that keeps the cost of construction down. So not necessarily with this bond committing to which site

[1:15:51] it will be on yet, but committing to being good stewards of public money.

[1:15:58] Thanks, Brandon. Andy, do you have any comment?

[1:16:07] I do not. I agree with what others have said before me. Thank you.

[1:16:11] Thank you.

[1:16:13] Sean.

[1:16:16] I'm good.

[1:16:17] Thank you. Amanda.

[1:16:19] I really appreciate the flexibility and things change and the board and the staff have said,

[1:16:26] okay, then we need to make a change too that we're just we didn't stay locked into something that maybe wasn't going to work out.

[1:16:33] we were too far along that we couldn't regroup. So I think it is really impressive. We were

[1:16:38] eight that you guys, the strategic planning committee and everyone was able to say, okay, let's

[1:16:44] let's look at it. Let's look at going a different way and that's um that's incredibly commendable.

[1:16:51] Alisa? I also agree with Amanda that I'm glad that we can pivot based on public input

[1:16:59] and council input. What I'm concerned about is making sure that when we go to ask for the 71 million or ask the public for the 71 million that we have a comprehensive plan that we're not just saying, oh, this is just half of what we want to be for, but like, OK, what exactly are we going to do in the 71 million and where?

[1:17:21] I'll talk a little bit about next up soon.

[1:17:25] Right.

[1:17:25] There.

[1:17:26] Nothing to add.

[1:17:27] Yeah.

[1:17:28] All right.

[1:17:28] I did also want to call out public-private partnerships to that.

[1:17:34] I didn't have that in my initial comments, but I know that's been a very, very big driver

[1:17:39] of what do we look at when we see future growth and future partnerships and future big expenses

[1:17:45] on trying to see how we can offset that for the taxpayer.

[1:17:49] So I think that we started to see that today on initializing these MOUs and I think that's going to be a really fantastic part overall of a deeper strategy moving forward.

[1:18:03] So if we do approve this action today by referring this back to the county council,

[1:18:13] So we are on the county council agenda for the 19th to review this and we are, we would be requesting that they put this on the ballot for November 3rd, not that they approve the bond, but they approve this to go to the ballot for a summit.

[1:18:35] like Poundy, Senator Bill Basin, special recreation district, public to be able to vote on that.

[1:18:44] And then after that, there are two additional meetings.

[1:18:49] And those are the meetings where we're really going to get into the weeds.

[1:18:52] What does this mean?

[1:18:55] And not just what does it mean, so Rob said, like some drawings and be able to showcase,

[1:19:00] but with extra research in on the actual construction costs that Rob put up

[1:19:05] there too. So it's not just any more a great idea. We are now probably

[1:19:13] neck deep in understanding all of the construction costs with every single

[1:19:18] different version that we come out with with this. So there would be a September

[1:19:23] public hearing with the county council on this where we would present more

[1:19:30] specifics and then in October public meeting as part of the requirements for the bonding process,

[1:19:39] in addition to it being reviewed in our board meetings and information continually updated

[1:19:45] to our site. Do I get that right everyone who knows more about this?

[1:19:54] With that, I will see if

[1:19:56] anyone has a motion to proceed.

[1:20:04] I've got a question for Dave real quick. We had a previous resolution.

[1:20:07] and do we need to amend that resolution,

[1:20:10] or have it somehow?

[1:20:13] You know, and amend it,

[1:20:15] you make a recommendation to the county council

[1:20:19] and how on what the resolution may be

[1:20:23] in terms of the actual amount.

[1:20:27] So you're just making a recommendation to the council

[1:20:29] who has this on their agenda.

[1:20:33] Thanks.

[1:20:33] Okay, so we don't need to have any other docking

[1:20:35] coming out of this meeting.

[1:20:37] No.

[1:20:38] Okay. Do we have a motion?

[1:20:42] Do we have a motion to approve the resolution of the Administrative Control Board determining, determining the necessity for and requesting the County Council of Summit County, Utah to call special bond election to authorize the issuance of not to exceed 71 million in general obligation bonds of the district for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of acquiring and or constructing recreational facilities related site improvements and trail and open space improvement.

[1:21:07] with the district approving the form of the resolution calling the bond election to be presented to county council and authorizing the officers of the district to present such resolution and request to the county council on August 19th, 2026.

[1:21:21] Makes that motion is there a second? Second Amanda seconds. Oh in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed?

[1:21:30] was motion carries unanimously.

[1:21:33] Thank you all.

[1:21:39] That is all my computer turned off.

[1:21:43] That is it, right?

[1:21:45] Yes, that was a comment.

[1:21:47] Announcements and comments.

[1:21:48] Thank you.

[1:21:50] Does anyone have any announcements or comments at the end?

[1:21:56] My only comment is good job putting this to the vote of the public

[1:21:59] instead of us just improving money to be spent.

[1:22:02] I think that's the best thing you can do as a board.

[1:22:04] So good job.

[1:22:09] Anything else?

[1:22:12] I do want to say the downhill and grill was amazing this year. I was there and putting kids on bikes and having them race around cones and whatnot is probably the most entertaining thing for anyone staff that was there kids doing it.

[1:22:30] My favorite part was the random parent who jumped in at least once per race to push their kids.

[1:22:37] I had a great time though. That was really good. You guys did a great job there too.

[1:22:44] And with that, I will hear a motion to adjourn. So move. So I'll make some motions there a second.

[1:22:51] Brandy seconds all in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Thank you all. This was a big one. I appreciate your time.

[1:23:00] Thank you everybody. See you all next one.

[1:23:04] All the time you've put in, Ryan.

Board Meeting

Transcript