[0:04] All right, welcome. This is the Sugar House Park Authority Board meeting on Thursday, August 13th, 2026. I'm Roxie Christianson, the president currently for the roll call. We have Siv here, Shahan, Eric, Max, and Richard and Chris. I think is here for Patrick.

[0:31] I believe Patrick is jumping on as well. Okay, great.

[0:34] Okay, so first agenda item is kind of up to 15 minutes for public comment.

[0:45] So if anyone here is wanting to share general feedback for the park authority, this is

[0:54] not about your special event application, this is just for public in general.

[1:01] And we start with that and then right after that, if you're here for a special event, we're going to get to the review of the special events.

[1:12] So we'll give it a couple minutes in case anyone is here for that and then if not, we'll move right into the special events portion.

[1:32] You got to use match and

[1:44] max for the special events for you wanting to share still or.

[1:53] Sure, screen. I'll look at the request packet. You mean? Yeah. Yeah, I can do that.

[2:02] Okay. Yeah. If you want to get them ready.

[2:05] Yep. I got them all.

[2:34] All right. I see Patrick is here and Jackie just for the roll call.

[2:39] We have eight

[2:44] of the nine.

[2:44] So, we will move into the special event portion.

[2:50] We have two who should have a representative here and then three others that are just

[2:58] previous

[3:00] returning special event organizers.

[3:04] But Max, you want to take us through those?

[3:09] Yeah.

[3:16] Please forgive the baby noise in the background.

[3:32] So I think first on the list is holiday YSA 5K. Do we have a representative who wants to talk about it?

[3:48] No.

[3:49] Is Kai here?

[3:58] Diane, were they planning to come?

[4:05] I didn't sure that they were not going to attend. I don't know. Maybe we can try to circle back to them. Maybe they're just a little late.

[4:16] Yeah, that makes sense.

[4:18] We could go to the next one.

[4:20] Yeah, okay.

[4:22] is that the Westminster University Athletics?

[4:30] Do we have somebody here who wants to talk about it from Grant?

[4:34] Yeah, I'm here.

[4:35] My name's Janelle Branch. I'm the head cross-in-track coach at Westminster.

[4:39] So I can talk about it.

[4:42] Yeah, go ahead. Just going to give us an overview of what you want.

[4:44] I'm sorry. I don't want my stuff figured out here and just give us.

[4:49] Tell us what you want to do with the events.

[4:51] Sure, so basically we're laughing at this event in conjunction with the University of Utah,

[4:58] where I had worked previously before Westminster.

[5:02] This year, the coach and I decided to each do one, so you'll be probably receiving their

[5:06] application for the next month board meeting to review basically the same thing.

[5:10] But it's basically just a local, like, this isn't going to be a huge event.

[5:16] But it's just essentially all the schools in the area have a lot of people they don't

[5:20] like to travel very far, figuring out their teams and stuff.

[5:24] So we're expecting probably about 100 to max.

[5:28] I don't think we're, I think it's probably going to be about 100 or less maximum, maximum

[5:33] like 110 athletes running per race.

[5:36] I really don't think we're going to get even there.

[5:38] We're not trying to market.

[5:39] This is a huge event.

[5:40] We're just trying to give our local athletes an opportunity to run and it happens to just

[5:45] also be the day before D1 has to set their roster numbers. So that's what this is really about.

[5:52] It's really a chance to be a low key meet. Coaches really like low key meets at the beginning of

[5:57] the season. So we're hosting this and that. I sent the maps for the men's and women's courses.

[6:05] We're not crossing any roads. We had originally had one that crossed a driveway that was left over

[6:09] from last year, but now that the construction's done, we've actually just revamped it to have a

[6:14] little slightly different loop and we don't actually have to cross any roads or anything

[6:18] with this race. We will cross the river at the bridge and actually fewer than fewer times than we

[6:25] did last year. So I guess it evens out to be about the same but a slightly different route than we

[6:30] had last year. So yeah that's pretty much our plan. I don't know what other questions to talk about.

[6:39] So yeah, any questions?

[6:43] Diane, do you have the maps you could forward? We only have the

[6:49] application portion.

[6:55] And you said races? So do you have a

[6:57] app? It's just a little bit more. So women will go first and then the men.

[7:02] Okay, so just two races though. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Honestly, I'd run them together, but the MCW

[7:12] But yeah, the first race will go off at 10 a.m. and then the second race rate around 1045 will be in and out of there by noon.

[7:26] I think last year the clean up went way faster than I even thought it would so yeah.

[7:31] And you're not you're not you're not requesting to close the park so you're aware that cars will be in and out other people will be in and out as well and that's okay.

[7:41] That's fine. Yeah, we didn't have any problem with it last year and we're not crossing any roads, so it won't affect the rise or anything.

[7:51] So, Janelle, for the, it says 800 people. Was that before you in the University of Utah?

[7:58] Did it slide on two events or?

[8:01] No, very honestly, it's because at Westminster, we got a new games guy, his name's Grant,

[8:08] and he is from the Midwest where cross-country races are huge. I have since talked him down to make

[8:14] can realize exactly what this event is for.

[8:18] I think it'll be, and it's on now with Thursday

[8:20] instead of Friday, like it was last year.

[8:22] So I don't think we'll have too many spectators.

[8:23] I think overall 300 is a much,

[8:26] I think that's almost a little like a kind of high bar actually,

[8:29] but it won't be more than that.

[8:37] And you have Bigfield is the pavilion you'll base out of

[8:42] and it's September 10th, is that correct?

[8:46] Yeah, correct. Bigfield's the one that you just built last year, correct? Yeah, in the center. Yeah, yeah,

[8:59] in the morning of September 10th.

[9:04] Um, and then kind of one of the main roles we ask people to comply with is no, no staking of any kind into the into the grass.

[9:10] So if you have any big, you know, blow up race start or race end things, just, just keep them weighted or.

[9:18] Um, or just so we don't, so no staking.

[9:21] So we protect the irrigation system.

[9:24] Can we do like the, so in the past and when you tell her on this, we did for

[9:29] marking because we can't do lines.

[9:30] We've done the little, um, utility, those little tiny flags.

[9:35] Is that okay?

[9:36] Or, oh, yeah, sure, no big stakes going down in the ground.

[9:41] Yeah, no, yeah, no, like large stakes.

[9:43] I need to be hammered in.

[9:44] But, oh, yeah.

[9:45] Okay, if someone can damage a sprinkle line with a tiny little wire,

[9:48] more power to them. There's problems with the sprinkler line.

[9:53] Okay. Yeah, no, no problem.

[9:57] And I also know no vending of any kind, no selling anything at the meeting. Okay.

[10:05] Are there any other other questions about the event from board or nobody else?

[10:17] And can we get a motion to approve then?

[10:19] I knew if you're approved. Richard Moshe.

[10:24] Jackie motions. Richard seconds. We'll take it.

[10:27] Oh, in favor.

[10:29] Say aye.

[10:30] Aye.

[10:31] Aye.

[10:32] Aye.

[10:34] Cool.

[10:35] Proved.

[10:36] Great.

[10:37] Thank you guys.

[10:38] I appreciate that.

[10:39] Of course.

[10:40] Thank you.

[10:42] Do we have anybody here from the holiday YSA ward?

[10:49] Still now.

[10:50] High email that he was traveling trouble getting on and was going to change devices.

[10:55] Okay.

[10:57] I mean, I guess before we can give him a couple of minutes, the other three events.

[11:02] It looks like our repeats. They've been held for more than 30 years.

[11:08] SLC, SLC County, Corporate Games 5K, U of U, Anesthesiology, Event, Girls on the Run, Spring 27.

[11:18] So, did anybody, we just, I guess we don't do approval.

[11:24] So,

[11:26] well we do, we, we do it.

[11:30] You hear me? This is from the holiday of YSA State. Oh, hi, yeah, welcome, Ty.

[11:35] I want you to go ahead and give us the spiel on your event.

[11:40] Right there. I apologize. I'm glad I was having trouble logging on.

[11:45] So yeah, to give you a quick summary, I'll be brief,

[11:50] a group of YSAs from the local stake, or hoping the whole of five can October 10.

[11:57] We have three different wards, one from Sugar House, one from Highland Park, Gary and one from East Mill Creek that will be joining, planning to start around 8 a.m.

[12:06] We anticipate having about 250 participants and will be wrapped up by 11 a.m.

[12:12] I believe that we requested just to close the portion of the road right by the big field to fill in as we're going to plan to set up a timing line.

[12:24] start and finish line for our 5k. The rest of the road will remain open for the

[12:29] for car traffic and any other orders of the park. Okay, so the main loop road will

[12:35] be open by just the spoke road. Correct. Yeah, just requesting this

[12:40] spoke road to be closed so we can set up our start and finish time and keep car

[12:44] traffic away from runners. Yeah.

[12:50] And is your route crossing any roads? No, we're

[12:53] We're just going to be doing two laps of the park in the pedestrian lane, so won't

[12:57] be crossing your roads, won't be interfering with any traffic.

[13:08] Yeah, I said from that.

[13:09] I think that's it after the 5K. We'll be setting up some lawn games in the big field and having

[13:13] just a small and get together.

[13:15] But I think those are the items.

[13:19] Do you have any questions or any other details I can provide?

[13:23] No, I think the two biggest things we ask to be able to comply with is no staking of any

[13:28] So if you have like like big whatever banners or something for the race, certain end that they just need to be weighted down instead of staked.

[13:38] You agree to that.

[13:39] Yeah, that shouldn't be an issue. I don't think we'll have any banners so we can definitely agree to that.

[13:45] Yeah, and then no, no vending or selling stuff of any kind for the event.

[13:50] Yeah, and we can agree to that we won't be selling or vending anything.

[13:54] Cool.

[13:54] Are there any other questions from the board on this event?

[14:04] Then can we get a motion to approve?

[14:08] Richard motions to approve.

[14:12] I'll second.

[14:14] Second.

[14:16] Okay, how in favor say aye or raise your hand.

[14:19] Aye.

[14:21] Thank you, Kai.

[14:23] And just for the verbal record that was civ, who did a second?

[14:28] Oh, sorry, yes, it did a second command.

[14:31] Okay.

[14:31] Thanks.

[14:32] Thank you so much.

[14:34] Really appreciate your time.

[14:35] Have a good event.

[14:36] Yep.

[14:39] Okay.

[14:40] Yeah, so sorry.

[14:41] So back to the three other events that have already been going on for three years.

[14:45] Oh, sorry.

[14:45] So excuse me.

[14:46] So they don't have to appear before the authority, but we still approve their event.

[14:51] Is that right?

[14:52] Correct.

[14:53] Yeah.

[14:54] So really

[14:59] quick.

[14:59] Okay.

[15:01] Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.

[15:05] Now go ahead, Max. Oh, I was just going to say the department of anesthesiology, they're just doing it. I get together. I was wondering if there's another race, but get together. Finding wall, plus some inflatables. Fifth year, I assume they're, they're good tenants. They can, they know what to do. So.

[15:24] And then the girls on the run.

[15:28] Third to eighth grade race, 5K race. Are there any questions about any of these three events? The girls on the run.

[15:35] on U of U NSesiology or Salt Lake County corporate gains.

[15:45] Not gonna get a motion to approve the three.

[15:53] A motion to approve.

[15:55] Thank you, Siv, is there a second?

[15:59] That's like it, Jackie.

[16:01] Jackie, thanks.

[16:03] Okay, all in favor, say aye.

[16:05] Aye.

[16:09] Cool.

[16:10] I think that ends the event section of our meeting.

[16:16] And I before you go, oh Patrick has his hand raised. Go ahead Patrick.

[16:26] Sorry, that was my vote in favor. Everyone take it down.

[16:29] I'm very cool. I was wondering if Troy Davis had communicated with you if he was planning to be here. I kept him on from last month's meeting.

[16:45] I mean, or I guess the wise meeting, but I never heard anything from him.

[16:51] I have not had any correspondence with him since he went for the board in months before

[16:58] last year.

[17:00] Yeah.

[17:01] So, unfortunately no, I can reach out to him so he would like to get on the agenda for September.

[17:08] Unless Dale, are you here for that?

[17:10] You raised your hand?

[17:12] I don't know.

[17:12] No, I'm not a special event, but I submitted my stuff a little late for you guys to all

[17:17] be aware of the document.

[17:19] I had reached out in July, but I didn't send the proper documents very recently, so you

[17:26] guys may not have that right now, but it's something I want to talk about for September

[17:32] 22nd.

[17:35] So his event would be an application only.

[17:38] I just haven't received the application yet to put them on the agenda.

[17:44] Right, so it's a great case that it's just very recent that in a sense you should have in your

[17:49] inbox now if you if you check but um

[17:54] so because Dale um this is a open public meeting we do

[18:01] post the agenda have to post the agenda 24 hours before and if it's not on there

[18:07] we don't vote on it. Being September, we can still see you then in our September meeting.

[18:16] I'm sure, I mean, what kind of event? It's always the second, third day.

[18:25] So it'd be September 10th.

[18:30] But again, he wouldn't be required to attend because the Challenger School has done their events

[18:36] more than three years.

[18:38] Oh, okay.

[18:42] Is there anything different this year, Dale, from previous years?

[18:46] No, well, I know that we've just shifted down to Sugar Bee Vivalience.

[18:50] So the location is a bit different, but it's in the field, the Southeast field.

[18:55] But the, yeah, it's the same event we do every year.

[18:58] Okay.

[18:59] So I guess, die is the date available?

[19:04] Was it just waiting for the application?

[19:08] but the dates and the pavilions available?

[19:14] I would have to check our email correspondence,

[19:17] but I do believe the date was available.

[19:19] I was just waiting for the application to put them on the agenda.

[19:23] Is that correct, Dale?

[19:25] Sorry.

[19:26] I have so many events.

[19:26] That's right.

[19:27] No, you're right.

[19:28] And I sent it late.

[19:29] So we're looking at September 22nd.

[19:30] I just looked up if your online base is current,

[19:36] and it shows as available between 4 and 10

[19:39] that evening. We're looking to do a 6 to 8 p.m. event, which looks like it's available.

[19:47] Okay, I'll get it blocked and then I will bring it before the board is an application only for

[19:51] next month. Is that work for everyone? Yes, that works and then, Dale, I think you plan on it because

[19:58] you've done it before. It was like those last three we did. You're coming back. There's been no

[20:05] issues previously, the date's available. We can approve it on the 10th, but I think you can move

[20:09] forward with that date knowing that we're not going to deny you in September. It's just a

[20:15] formalities. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks for being here.

[20:22] And then,

[20:23] if you hear from Troy, or yeah, if you want to have him reach out to me or something,

[20:32] If he wants to come back, if he would like to move forward and then I will let you all

[20:40] know.

[20:42] Okay.

[20:43] Thanks.

[20:48] So agenda item two would have been if, again, Troy Davis, he presented in June on that

[20:54] mountain bike proposal.

[20:57] Again, we haven't heard an update on that, so we'll see if he has anything for September.

[21:06] I don't remember three on the agenda is the Zap Recreation Bond and we also have this

[21:17] under the county updates Patrick but I don't know if you or someone else from the county

[21:25] is here to update the board.

[21:27] I can give you a brief update, the bond itself is not part of the parcel of my daily job.

[21:39] So as you know, the county mayor and the county council are moving forward with a bond proposal on the November ballot for the electorate to weigh in on the recreation bond right now.

[21:56] So it's a, I believe, to be $100 million bond with the number of different projects

[22:12] for the electorate to vote on.

[22:15] So the budget was broken into three tranches, the tranche, maybe not the right word, but

[22:20] three areas, capital maintenance for our recreation facilities and parks, finish what we started,

[22:29] meaning there are a lot of parks that we started building many years ago and we just have never

[22:35] finished the next pieces to them or ever finished them at all. And the third area was for new

[22:41] applications from eligible parties. And so that bond will be moving forward to the ballot in November

[22:50] and the voters will get to decide whether or not they're in favor of the county borrowing money

[22:55] to pay for these projects. As you know, because Roxy's kept you informed, the part of authority

[23:03] put in an application for a project and was deemed ineligible. And I apologize, I don't have any

[23:14] information as to that piece of it, because that is sort of not in an area where I work with.

[23:23] I don't know if Chris can speak to it more, but I don't know that we have the information tonight

[23:28] to talk about that piece of it.

[23:32] Thanks, Patrick. Yeah, I'm not that pretty much sums it up. It's

[23:37] there will be some additional movement on it next Tuesday, I believe, as well.

[23:40] some changes that they're going to try to make were anticipating we feel like it'll likely be successful.

[23:52] So we're hopeful that that moves forward on the Sugar House Park Authority eligibility piece.

[24:00] The lawyers are looking at that now and there's a conversation going on to understand a little bit more.

[24:07] kind of what happened, when did the the trust split, who owns what, what Salt Lake

[24:16] City's role, what's the county's role in the ownership? But I mean, if anything, it

[24:22] was kind of fortunate that we found this out when the attorneys went to review the

[24:27] applications to say, oh wait, technically Sugar House Park is not eligible. And you know

[24:33] like you, we were surprised. We were like, well what do you mean they're not eligible?

[24:35] like we work with this with the county and the city works on this part of it. We've been doing

[24:40] this for years but it was really the district attorney's office that identified the problem

[24:46] and we are, you know, now examining what a chair could look like for that.

[24:56] Yes, Richard.

[24:59] As

[25:02] much as I'd like to discuss that, a few guys don't have more information. I don't know how much

[25:10] it's worth discussing, I will say, this is the second time where we were told to expend

[25:18] lots of effort in preparing and submitting applications the first time for track when

[25:27] we were denied.

[25:29] Well, just because you prepare an application doesn't necessarily mean you're successful, right?

[25:35] I understand that.

[25:37] I've done millions of dollars of grants.

[25:39] I understand that. The point is, I will say, when the county

[25:47] corporate games came to us two years ago, I said, oh, we should give them free.

[25:54] Don't charge them event because they're part of the county. The counties are

[25:59] partner blah blah blah. I didn't do that this year because I don't feel like even if

[26:06] work just collateral damage that there's good faith. And my only question, I mean, I'm

[26:14] not going to get into that any more than what I just said, is apparently $10 million of

[26:22] the recreation bond is unprogrammed. Does that mean there's an opportunity to revisit

[26:32] the eligibility or is that just for projects that go over?

[26:38] So, that is a buffer that we build in for inflation.

[26:41] There's an assumption that a project we try to build tomorrow

[26:44] will cost more 10 years in the future.

[26:48] So we build that into the bond.

[26:51] And then the bond.

[26:51] The bond, yeah.

[26:53] And then the bond does not,

[26:56] you know, they are authorized to bond up to an amount.

[27:00] It doesn't mean that they necessarily have to.

[27:03] With regard to the good faith effort, I do apologize for the effort that was put in,

[27:11] and if you were encouraged to apply for the current rec bond, and then we weren't able to

[27:18] honor that application, I want to be really clear. This was not Parks and Rec's idea.

[27:23] This was not the county's idea. This was something that got caught by the district attorney,

[27:28] And when it did, I was like, that doesn't seem right.

[27:31] Like, I agree that there's something not quite right with this, and we are trying to

[27:36] better understand what happened.

[27:39] I'm assuming there's going to be some legal remedy to be able to fix this in the future.

[27:45] But I will also say, for the purposes of the bond, it was a pretty competitive process.

[27:50] There were a lot of applicants that got in there, and there was a really limited amount

[27:54] of money that we were able to distribute.

[27:56] you. So if you look at where the projects went, we are, we have the whole county to try

[28:04] to put funding out to and, you know, Sugar House Park is one of 42 regional parks.

[28:11] All right. I will nothing one more quick comment. And that's just CS, the community services

[28:22] department, not your department. Well, I'm under committed in services. So yeah, I kind of

[28:27] is important. Okay. Okay. Did everybody a disservice by telescoping what had previously been an

[28:36] eight month application and review development and review process into one month? So I thought we

[28:44] submitted a strong application. There's no question it would have been much stronger with seven

[28:52] in more months worth of effort.

[28:53] So, yeah, following this, same.

[28:56] And Jackie raised her hand.

[28:58] I just wanted to clarify first, Jackie, Chris,

[29:02] I appreciate you being here

[29:03] to answer some of our questions.

[29:05] And when Richard mentioned that we submitted for track,

[29:10] we understand the competitive process

[29:13] and all the different communities

[29:17] and the region that you serve.

[29:19] And that process, what issue we've run into on both of these instances is that we don't even get into that creative

[29:27] prop like that analysis portion with track.

[29:31] The same issue came up where, sorry, you're disqualified from the beginning because our money for operation and maintenance of the park comes from track.

[29:43] So they said, oh no, you're already getting money, therefore you're just qualified from getting

[29:48] money for projects, capital projects. So what I'd love is not to be solved in this meeting,

[29:56] but just to continue the conversation with you is kind of the timeline.

[30:00] Like, you know, with this determination, not letting it run too long, right? Because we can't just keep waiting for this decision from attorneys on that. And then making the plan so we know where efforts are best positioned. So, um,

[30:31] but for me personally the issue has been that we originally we were told we

[30:38] were told about Zap years ago we've had discussions again and again with

[30:42] the county we've had regular presentations we've met with them we were told oh

[30:47] the county will submit on your behalf and then we're told no the county won't

[30:50] submit on your behalf you have to submit on your own then we adjust we submit on

[30:55] our own and then we're found a lot ineligible after this time and the same

[31:00] Like Roxie said, the same issue with track is we were told to submit to track and then we did

[31:05] submit to track and then oh after the fact after you've gone through and submitted and gone through

[31:10] this whole process, you're ineligible even to be considered by the committee. And the rationale for

[31:17] ineligible ability for track in my view directly competes with the rationale for ineligible ability

[31:23] for zap. And so the reasons we've been given are not the same and they seem to change. And so I know

[31:30] that that's not your responsibility, but as a representative of the county, that is the frustration

[31:38] I would like to pass along. I'm very sympathetic to that and I do want to apologize on any confusion

[31:44] that we put out. I am less familiar with the track application process. I know that a percentage

[31:50] of all track funds do go to parks and recreation to help pay for ongoing maintenance and I'm sure

[31:58] that inadvertently one way or another that it has gone to help support projects at Shudderhouse Park.

[32:05] I know that we have our normal annual capital projects that we go in and submit for and I've been

[32:12] told that the Shudderhouse Park has been pretty successful over the years and being able to get money

[32:19] in that process when we have the match coming in from Salt Lake City. But again, I do apologize,

[32:27] Jackie thank you and we haven't met but it's nice to meet you all and happy to discuss that more

[32:33] I was not aware that it was a conflicting message on the zap versus the track but honestly I was

[32:39] as surprised as as you guys for with the with the zap application rejection that just categorically did

[32:49] not make sense to me. However I will say I would be surprised if you would have been successful it

[32:57] It was, it was a lot of good projects were not successful because of the limited bucket

[33:02] of money we had.

[33:03] So, not to say that that's any comfort, but I do think that we will get the lawyers

[33:12] to come together and come up with a plan to address this.

[33:16] I say the lawyers.

[33:17] Jackie, I think you're a lawyer.

[33:18] So it's not like the lawyers, but the-

[33:20] I'm not the part's lawyer on this.

[33:23] I got it, got it, got it.

[33:24] But our representatives from the district attorney's office are working with representatives

[33:29] from Salt Lake City to really unpackage kind of what happened when and how we fix it.

[33:38] Just to follow up, I do understand the legal reasoning that district attorney's office

[33:45] made and it might call for a new structure in general for the park.

[33:53] Patrick years ago mentioned how the sugar house park relationship was created before

[34:04] the present laws on intergovernmental and related agencies.

[34:11] So we understand the point though I'm going to reiterate about track is the person who

[34:20] told us to apply in our November 2023 meeting was Martin Jensen. So if we're

[34:31] getting this recommendation from the park leader at the time and then we're

[34:39] told you need to also understand the track relationship. As far as I'm

[34:45] concerned the county uses track to match their obligations with the city or

[34:54] capital improvements. That's between the county and the city.

[34:59] We're facilitators

[35:02] so to speak but that's your legal obligation. We're saying that legal

[35:09] obligation in how the county chooses to fund our

[35:16] corporations, not our park. I mean, for the entire

[35:19] park system, that's not our issue. You could use

[35:23] general fund monies, you could use whatever monies, you

[35:26] choose to use trap. That's fine. As a theoretically, legal

[35:32] intergovernmental entity, if we ever get this straightened

[35:35] out, we argue we should still be able to apply independently of the county's choice of

[35:47] how it funds parks and independently of its choice of how it funds, capital improvement,

[35:54] obligations, it co holds with the city.

[36:01] That's my piece.

[36:03] There are tricky intricate issues.

[36:13] I'm just going to add one thing to this that has nothing to do with funding, but it's important about safety and effectiveness.

[36:21] There's still confusion whether Sugar House Park falls outside the city.

[36:25] Salt Lake City is jurisdiction of enforcement matters.

[36:29] And this is something that I had brought up a year ago with Sarah Young.

[36:34] Where do we live? And they're like, oh, I don't know, you're counting your city. The city doesn't, doesn't, you know, when I talk to our liaison with the city police department, they're like, well, park is outside the city jurisdiction.

[36:45] Yeah, that's not accurate. I don't think I don't think I don't think so either, but there's that he has an obligation.

[36:51] So while you're fixing this, this little part of understanding who we are and what we're about and who has the enforcement jurisdiction.

[37:00] action. I would lie for that to be addressed to because there is still confusion.

[37:05] What are this about? Yeah, so as an incident happens and you call the police,

[37:10] Salt Lake City PD is going to come, or they should come. I don't, you know,

[37:13] how many sheriff is a different role? I would not imagine that they would. So,

[37:17] Salt Lake City said that it's not in their jurisdiction. So, so to be clear, it's in

[37:25] their jurisdiction. If there's a fire in the park, the fire department shows up,

[37:28] There's a crime in the park, the police department shows up.

[37:33] The issue is not on the criminal or emergency response.

[37:37] The issue is on the civil enforcement of civil rules.

[37:42] And the reason for that, and I'll let Kim speak to this.

[37:45] As I understand it, is that the park is incorporated as a non-profit organization.

[37:53] It's not incorporated as a public facility, and that's the distinction.

[37:57] Even though we know it's incorporated for the purpose of a public facility, the distinction is a legal one.

[38:05] And so when they look it up in the city recorder side, it says that's not a city property.

[38:10] And that's not a county property.

[38:11] It's a property held by a private entity.

[38:15] So Kim, am I getting that close to right?

[38:18] Absolutely, thanks for clarifying that, Patrick.

[38:21] And I think that's something that we could take and have our attorneys do a deeper dive and really kind of formalize that.

[38:26] that. So everybody has clarity on it as well.

[38:30] And or if we can change it to the point you're trying to get to, can we have.

[38:35] Like they enforce in Liberty Park, I mean that, you know, that kind of.

[38:39] So yeah.

[38:39] It was something really trivial like we wanted a speed trailer to be put in.

[38:46] And Cindy came and goes, oh, this is a counting thing.

[38:50] We don't use our speed trailers.

[38:52] I'm like, okay, you know, just to understand what the traffic flow and speeds are, little

[38:59] things like that that we just get caught up, we like to have that result, yeah.

[39:05] And this is a very much a collaborative solution.

[39:11] I think while we're solving this landowner relationship coordination with the three entities,

[39:19] I think it goes down to even all of these little details where, again, reporting things

[39:28] through my SLC app, they say, oh, well, this is the county, we'll let the county know,

[39:33] even if it's a city responsibility.

[39:36] So this does trickle down everywhere in the management, but maybe this comes down to a legal

[39:45] realignment that solves this or not, and I will just throw it out there. I don't know

[39:49] what anyone's thinking if it makes sense to still be a try ownership or if one or

[39:57] either entity wants to take it. Or, you know, it's been 69 years, and maybe things

[40:03] need a change, so I'll just throw that out there. I don't know what this means, but

[40:08] thank you for bringing that out. Go ahead.

[40:10] Yeah, I mean, I think that that is sort of an issue that we're sort of asking some questions about, you know, we have relationships with South Jordan at Bingham Creek. It's kind of an interesting arrangement similar to Sugar House Park.

[40:22] They try or Sugar House Park Authority and they've tried to run it that way and I think they've sort of have indicated that maybe it would make more sense to just have an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake County and South Jordan.

[40:36] and I think that there's probably an opportunity

[40:40] to do that with Salt Lake City as well.

[40:42] I did have the opportunity to listen

[40:44] into your last board meeting,

[40:46] and there was a lot of discussion

[40:48] about the number of lawsuits you guys have been involved in

[40:51] and things like that.

[40:53] And, you know, is that,

[40:54] I think Roxy asked the question,

[40:55] whose attorneys are gonna pay for our attorneys

[40:59] the city or the county,

[41:00] and we're all kind of looking at each other,

[41:02] like I don't think it's either of us.

[41:04] So there was some question on that as well, um, but but now I appreciate you bringing that up.

[41:10] So just one, well, two more points. Just, um, along the lines of what Raxi said about alignment and I think alignment's a good word on another form as a conservancy, which is something I've thought about and I've talked about, but getting back to track for one moment.

[41:33] We need a determination because if we're planning on applying in March in order to have a strong application that can compete with everybody else, starting the process in February won't work for us, we need to start that process in the fall.

[41:56] So we need that determination and how do we go about getting it?

[42:05] So I would say that coming up with that legal cure is in process currently.

[42:11] I would expect we would have something that's different from Trent.

[42:17] Well, I think they Richard need that legal determination possibly to help decide.

[42:24] Yeah, I think it's more complicated than

[42:32] we're getting into right now, but I think it's

[42:35] very complicated situation we're in, and I think that does need to be decided.

[42:42] I think on the other side, Chris, I guess, you know, maybe you can't know right now until

[42:48] that determination, but would be, you know, I guess talking through the financial side

[42:55] and saying, you know, does the, it didn't seem like our legal status was the reason we

[43:02] couldn't get track, but just that we're already pulling, they use the term like two bites

[43:06] from the same apple. And as Richard said, well, we didn't just decide where you pull your

[43:13] operations money from it just happens to be track and so should that penalize us from getting

[43:19] capital money from it um and I think that's maybe a different conversation I don't know that

[43:26] our legal standing has to do with that but could we still be considered for that and you know

[43:33] I'm trying to do it okay because I agree I don't I don't know the track I don't know the

[43:39] Nexus between where Sugar House Park Authority is able to draw from track or how outside of the

[43:46] normal operations and maintenance that we put into all the parks including Sugar House Park,

[43:50] I don't know exactly where that lands, but I will add that to the list to have our attorneys look

[43:55] at. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. Yeah, thank you.

[44:05] Yes, and I think the legal

[44:08] will help us, hopefully, with federal and state grants that will open up that door, but

[44:14] I think right now we're kind of at this standstill because we've tried every avenue.

[44:20] Capital is kind of the only thing available currently, but we know that that is stressed

[44:27] with how much need there is.

[44:29] So we're happy to continue to look elsewhere for funds and different buckets of money,

[44:36] but I appreciate everyone working on spending time to figure this current situation out.

[44:49] Anything else related to that funding or overall?

[44:59] Okay.

[45:01] We do have a county update section. I don't know, Chris, if you want, we're saying for the whole time, or if we wanted to get kind of other county updates now and we can. Yeah, happy to address that. Patrick, and I spoke a little bit about the situation going on at Sugar House Park with the duck pond. And I think we have our team has been managing that and trying to come up with solution.

[45:31] this week, I think we've copied, I believe, the Salt Lake Public Lands and

[45:37] Sugar House Park Authority representatives and probably some of the folks on this call were part of that email chain that we've put out there.

[45:46] That same memo was kind of put out to our county council today to let them know what we're doing because they're getting calls about this as well.

[45:53] As we indicated in the memo, we are going to attempt to drain the pond as much as possible.

[46:04] We are having some higher capacity pumps brought in tomorrow to pump water from the low area near the culvert into the creek.

[46:19] We have spoken with public, Salt Lake Public Utilities and our partners in flood control

[46:29] and everyone seems okay with that plan so far.

[46:35] Our hope is that this is just going to be a temporary thing.

[46:38] Six, eight weeks until hopefully the weather cools a little bit and normalizes

[46:43] and then we'll close the culvert again and then fill the pond back up. But we have

[46:52] animal control on the county side coming in and doing sweeps every morning to pick up any

[46:59] carcasses. We're getting some better equipment for our staff to be able to get it some of the

[47:05] the dead waterfall in kind of the center.

[47:12] So we are actively working to try to address it.

[47:15] We, you know, this is kind of an unfortunate situation

[47:18] with the drought, but we also completely understand

[47:21] and respect Salt Lake City public utilities

[47:23] and their desire to, you know,

[47:27] hold back as much water as possible.

[47:29] I think everyone we've spoken to

[47:32] kind of is predicting that this year will be tough, but that next year might be worse.

[47:39] And so there's a little bit of a reluctance to let any more out than we have to.

[47:44] So we'll see what happens. We're monitoring it daily. And I feel like we've come up with a solution

[47:51] that should mitigate some of the problems that we've been seeing the past few weeks.

[47:55] Thank

[47:59] you. Yeah, I was going to I don't think most people have seen that update, but I appreciate you sharing those. I am wondering, again, people got lots of comments and feedback about this.

[48:17] And so I appreciate you guys doing further steps to mitigate and assist with that.

[48:26] I'm interested, again, this is just the start of the conversation, knowing water needs

[48:34] and drought being more and more likely.

[48:39] We heard from flood control that the pond itself, what we see as the pond, isn't necessarily

[48:47] really required as is for the retention necessary for flood control.

[48:54] And I'm wondering if either entity, county, city, your, your code departments are think

[49:02] that we should change how it is so that it can fluctuate with the drought and we don't

[49:08] have these issues and it doesn't make sense because the conversation is happening and the

[49:14] conversation. I'll just give you a brief breakdown of what we discussed today with flood control.

[49:23] So, the pond itself does not serve any water quality. There's no improvement. There's

[49:32] no recreational use. There's no, it doesn't do anything for drinking water. You can't swim

[49:37] in it. There's all the reasons that we want to have bodies of water that this particular

[49:42] basin does not really serve. We're essentially holding back water that could be going to the

[49:47] great salt lake and we are allowing that to evaporate. So there's probably some things

[49:53] in that we shouldn't be doing anyways and as we understand, you know, we're likely

[49:56] to see more droughts, this will be a perennial problem that we have to deal with.

[50:02] The suggestion for a solution was a commitment from the federal government to put a billion

[50:09] dollars into restoring the great salt like our flood control folks believe that the salt

[50:15] I'm sorry the sugar house park pond would be an eligible candidate to be reformed into the

[50:23] natural creek kind of just reconnecting Parley's and letting the water pass through without holding it

[50:28] in that retention basin there. So although this is you know years away probably and we don't know

[50:35] all the details. This is a conversation we're having, and I think we would be, see that as a favorable

[50:43] outcome. I don't know what everybody else thinks about. I was there today, and I'm like,

[50:48] that's going to be a lot of concrete around the edges. We're going to have to take out. This has been

[50:52] upon for a long time. This is really the best way to do it, and I think we'd have to look at some

[51:00] design ideas. We probably need to get a handful of contractors in there to bid out some concepts,

[51:07] but I'm a big fan of trying to restore it to its natural flow as much as we can.

[51:14] So we will be looking at our friends in flood control to let us know when that funding

[51:20] becomes available and how best we can try to take advantage of it. And of course,

[51:24] we would involve, you know, the park authority and its board in any selection of any project

[51:31] that we could potentially do, but hopefully it could be something that could be paid

[51:34] for by the federal government, which we would like to see.

[51:40] In Roxy, I think you took the laboring or with the University of Utah last year, or maybe

[51:46] a year and a half ago, to have those masters students do some concept around those ideas

[51:52] is to your restoration of the creek anyway.

[51:55] So

[51:57] for clarification, there's a detention on,

[52:01] not only detention, correct?

[52:03] Patrick, as you have educated us,

[52:06] it's a detention, not a retention.

[52:08] Detention, not retention.

[52:10] Did I get that wrong, Patrick?

[52:12] Yeah, I think you did.

[52:15] I've already forgotten the definition, but I think

[52:18] the transition is to permanently hold water

[52:21] in detention, I think, temporary.

[52:24] But yeah, I always forget as well. I don't know. I look at up every spring. It's like control.

[52:29] Detention is a dry pond low-line basin built to temporarily hold stormwater.

[52:37] The only issue Chris and everyone is um

[52:44] Fortunately or unfortunately

[52:48] The pond is the second most distinctive cultural landscape feature of the park

[52:53] And

[52:57] they'll

[53:02] have to be a massive public engagement process to consider changing it.

[53:08] I mean, I understand the environmental reasons and responding to mega drought conditions.

[53:17] I think we can come out with an outcome that where the creek is there.

[53:26] it's touchable, it's accessible, the three creeks, confluence park, and salt lake on 900

[53:36] west. If you haven't been to it, you should. They do a nice job of letting people look

[53:43] at water and sometimes touching it. And they do some creative things like with the way they

[53:51] do plantings to keep people off the banks. They don't want them to be on. And I'm sure there are other

[53:57] examples in county parks. I'm just not familiar with them, but this is a really sensitive issue

[54:07] and going forward to change it, to change that feature so significantly will require

[54:18] public engagement on a scale, you're not. We all aren't even. I have never worked with.

[54:27] I've done plenty of public products. This is, that's a big deal. That's all I'm saying.

[54:33] But I'm not going to say that we shouldn't be looking at these kinds of alternatives because like Roxy said,

[54:41] like you said, I could drought is reality.

[54:47] And we can close our eyes to that reality where

[54:52] we can try and get in front of it. And you've already said there's an opportunity with the alleged

[55:00] federal commitment, the great Salt Lake, where we can address it, without worrying about our legal

[55:08] status.

[55:11] I wonder, too, just for clarity, you know, we understand that the creek is technically not,

[55:20] you know, Sugar Health Park Authority. That's public utilities and then flood control has

[55:26] its jurisdiction. I'm interested is the pond even really ours, or is that a flood control,

[55:33] public utilities decision you know like not to say we would stop it but that and I'm not I would be in

[55:43] favor or something but for our clarity and this isn't like about I'm just wondering does anyone

[55:51] when no is the pond flight control jurisdiction?

[55:55] Is it ours?

[55:57] I can't answer that question, Roxy,

[56:00] other than to answer that there would still need

[56:05] to be some mechanism to hold water back

[56:08] for public utility purposes,

[56:09] as we all observed back in 2023 when they filled the pond.

[56:14] So there would have to be that mechanic

[56:17] to serve that purpose.

[56:18] but I don't know, you know, who ownership lives.

[56:26] I think we have to the legalist as well, Roxy.

[56:29] I think that would be important.

[56:31] Yeah, thank you.

[56:33] So that, yeah, I think that's another area of kind of confusion.

[56:38] And Richard, to your point, I think it wouldn't never be a lake or a pond.

[56:44] I mean, with high water, this thing would be, right?

[56:48] but when it is low, it would actually form a natural creek with plants and stuff like that.

[56:53] So it would adapt with the year we're having. Versus right now, it's dry. It's just empty,

[57:00] but to have something that does both in the eye. God knows. I mean, there's so much of the history

[57:08] of the park that we don't know because, well, that's where we need a grant to pull together all the

[57:17] records between the city and county, but given that in some past documents, it's referred

[57:27] to as the Fabian Pond, I think that feature has been there for a long, long time.

[57:34] I mean, certainly, I don't know if before the 1980s floods, I wasn't here then, if there

[57:48] contractors are for to figure that stuff out. It's a sensitive issue, but I think the

[57:57] positioning or such a sensitive issue is we're in mega drought. We have to deal with it.

[58:06] The health of the Great Salt Lake in part is dependent on it, and I think that's a positioning

[58:13] people can understand and respect even if they lose some of the visual elements of the

[58:20] par. That's just showing that out there. If I were on the consultant team, that's how

[58:26] I would lay it out.

[58:30] Yeah, I think a lot of education about the

[58:33] many benefits. Yeah. So, Christie, let us know, and Kim or whoever's involved, if this

[58:43] This is getting to, you know, yes, we're going to pursue the grant or the, you know, I think

[58:49] I don't know again if you need, if a board vote would be helpful, just that yes, we want

[58:55] to, you know, pursue this change or not, but yeah,

[59:06] keep us updated.

[59:08] I don't know if you want to like do a straw poll in no in general, if the board currently

[59:12] supports it, but if it's years down the road, it could be completely different, so.

[59:16] So,

[59:24] Roxy, do you want me to give you a couple more updates while we're doing county stuff?

[59:28] Yeah, go ahead.

[59:32] So, independent of the ownership issue and the track funding and the ZAP application, the only request that we were moving forward for capital funding was for the next pavilion project

[59:49] because the city had funded that money in their last cycle, and so we were just

[59:54] trying to match that. Again, you know the lay of the land right now, I don't know

[1:00:00] We're going to be successful at all until some of these other underlying issues are resolved. But that's what we're moving forward. We're not moving forward with the water line.

[1:00:12] With the request to put some money aside for the water line at this point in time.

[1:00:20] Oh, and go ahead. Sorry. Can I ask a question or Patrick? So is it money just for the pavilion?

[1:00:29] because the city had allocated all the money for all requested projects.

[1:00:35] So I just want to make sure that are you matching the amount of city?

[1:00:40] No, we're just matching the Pavilion project.

[1:00:43] Only the Pavilion project.

[1:00:45] Yep.

[1:00:53] You don't happen to have a and take your number.

[1:00:56] Do you like where are you guys at at the budgeting for capital process?

[1:01:00] is it 90% finished, when's it go for approval?

[1:01:07] I was submitting our budget pretty soon.

[1:01:09] We're in that process right now.

[1:01:11] We're reviewing all capital projects and getting them prioritized.

[1:01:15] The bond gets in the way a little bit because if the bond gets approved in November,

[1:01:20] then some of the capital projects we've submitted for may

[1:01:25] will get funded through that and then it will open up other opportunities

[1:01:30] of the bond doesn't pass. We'll have to go back and pick the top projects that were prioritized

[1:01:36] in that process. So it's a little bit of a double submitting from now until November.

[1:01:46] Jackie and then Shahat.

[1:01:50] Is the county's determination about whether sugar health park counts as

[1:01:57] county property eligible for ZAP also going to harm us in the normal funding process?

[1:02:05] No, part of our capital projects that we're going to put forward are going to be consistent with our sort of long range plan of all the different parks that we need to invest in.

[1:02:17] And so we have developed this prioritization schedule to kind of see who gets what win.

[1:02:23] And so Sugar House Park would compete with everybody else the same.

[1:02:32] And then there's a competition, though, as you know, all ready.

[1:02:38] Can you explain the process then?

[1:02:41] Because another thing that's difficult on the county side is,

[1:02:47] is understand the process things go through and who sees it and then where does it go next?

[1:02:52] And how is it determined?

[1:02:53] So could you talk about that?

[1:02:55] Well, that kind of plays into what I'm asking as well.

[1:02:58] So, if the city were to approve certain amount of funds of certain projects, and the county

[1:03:08] refuses to match, how does that work between the agreement between county and the city?

[1:03:17] And how does it work for us?

[1:03:19] Do we just send the money back to the city, do the city need to know so that they can read

[1:03:24] budget? What does that look? So Sean I'll take a stab at that and then let him talk about it.

[1:03:32] So it goes it depends on which year you are. The end different the county or the city

[1:03:41] sometimes is ahead and sometimes behind, right? So in some cases when the county is some of the

[1:03:47] projects of the city is not managed then when he is sent in our coffers hoping for a city

[1:03:55] match in the coming years and in some cases we've been criticized for holding it for too long

[1:04:00] a period of time and vice versa I think probably from the city's point of view that I don't know

[1:04:07] if they just write you a check to the park authority or if it's just sitting in their

[1:04:11] bank account until it's ready to be transferred. I suspect the latter but the

[1:04:18] obligation to match 50-50 is what the obligation is and if the county doesn't

[1:04:25] have funding to match the city's 50% then they're not going to be able to

[1:04:30] match that. The obligation is to come up with that 50% and so the city would wait

[1:04:36] for us to match it. And if that doesn't look like it's worth coming, then they may re-appropriate

[1:04:43] to do something else. Same thing on the county side. If we fund something safe for $100,000

[1:04:49] in the city isn't going to come up with a match on it, then that will give it a period of time.

[1:04:57] And then that point either reappropriate it or re-purpose it. I don't know what that helps.

[1:05:10] It's not a obligatory obligation that we have to match. It's, we match it when funds are available.

[1:05:22] Okay.

[1:05:23] And so from the city's perspective, I just want to add that we are holding those funds.

[1:05:27] It is in the public lands budget.

[1:05:30] However, city council ultimately holds the purse strings.

[1:05:34] And so if they want to reallocate that funding, they certainly could.

[1:05:37] That's not a department decision. It's a city council decision.

[1:05:41] So I just, I have a question for the county on prioritization.

[1:05:45] You mentioned you prioritize the pavilion, but not the water line.

[1:05:50] I'm wondering how you prioritized those and what getting to the question around process,

[1:05:59] how a water line fits into that.

[1:06:02] So I can answer that, Kim, that we're not quite done with the study yet.

[1:06:06] There's a little bit more to do, but we're 90% of the way.

[1:06:10] And in our rationale, the project, as it stands today, is north of $4.5 million in today's

[1:06:19] dollars. So our rationale is putting a million dollars aside from the city and putting a

[1:06:28] million dollars aside from the county. We would still need a couple more years to catch

[1:06:34] up to where we can afford it with inflation and that kind of thing. So we think we need

[1:06:39] to huddle with you and your staff and see if there's another way to take a bite at that project

[1:06:44] in particular because of the expense to it.

[1:06:51] And I will add that I've been listening to the, I've been attending the design meetings

[1:06:56] and that we have asked the consultant to look at phasing and what could be done if we

[1:07:04] had some money.

[1:07:06] There's obviously kind of a threshold, right?

[1:07:09] Like certain requirements from public utilities for the fire veterans, like once we start

[1:07:15] that, we have to do the whole thing, right?

[1:07:16] so we can't kind of he smell it, but there might be some elements that could be phased,

[1:07:23] and so I hope that we have an option that's not, we have to wait for the fall bucket of money.

[1:07:32] But it would be great. I know a consultant's been talking with public utilities,

[1:07:40] but I don't know if there's any, similarly, any grants, public utilities,

[1:07:45] He's knows of federal dollars, Richard even shared something in the about a legislator

[1:07:52] who got money for, I think it was culinary upgrades, like if that's any resource you

[1:08:02] guys have to help with some of that budget amount would be great.

[1:08:06] What about what I mentioned to Roxy is it was a congressional landmark up in Northern Idaho and I don't know how our relationships with Congress might be better after this all in our specific congressional district.

[1:08:30] Um, then it has been here to four, but, you know, they're, they're touting their, their earmarks and their earmarks include for parks.

[1:08:44] Um, the one thing about prioritization in this gets into something that has concerned me almost since the beginning I've been on the park is the county.

[1:09:00] Well, I argue that sugar house park has different level of service needs because it's a 12 month park.

[1:09:08] It's used every month of the year and it's used a lot.

[1:09:14] Like I've been in roughly the same time periods at a playground in sugar house park and then at the new one at Cottonwood.

[1:09:24] and we probably had 20 times the number of patrons, so not just the 12-month

[1:09:35] a year but the load and being urban, I don't think the county always,

[1:09:44] I don't

[1:09:44] think the county's willing to acknowledge there should be an

[1:09:48] the Midwest difference and, you know, just like business improvement districts are created

[1:09:55] to provide an extra level of service beyond what a city can normally provide. That's

[1:10:02] why you have park Conservancies. But I wonder if the prioritization process takes into account

[1:10:11] some of those things. I mean, one of the things we discovered in our unsuccessful process

[1:10:17] of application is 35% of the county's population lies within five miles of Sugar House Park and because of Sugar House Park unique location that's

[1:10:36] crime by a lot of transportation assets, especially I-80, it's used as a meeting point

[1:10:44] for people throughout the county because it's easier for them to reach Sherhouse Park

[1:10:51] from different parts of the area than it is said to go to Big Cottonwood or definitely

[1:10:58] a parking magna. And those kinds of factors ought to be considered when thinking about Sugar House

[1:11:07] Park. We're sort of being told, you know, county-wise, you're kind of a pig. You get lots of money.

[1:11:14] Yeah, I'm sorry, Richard. I want to take exception to that. No one has ever accused the Sugar House

[1:11:20] Park. They haven't used the word. The Sugar House Park has received a considerable amount funding

[1:11:24] from the county and we are in the process of getting geofencing put together so that we can answer some of those questions because I would like to know the amount of visitors that we have in all these parks.

[1:11:40] One of the things we don't have a good sense of is actual visitation in parks.

[1:11:45] We used to use some counters or historically pretty unreliable.

[1:11:51] We know how many people are coming to a rec center.

[1:11:53] We know where they're going, where they come from, how far they're willing to travel.

[1:11:59] And I would like to be able to have that data.

[1:12:01] And maybe that data does make an argument for a higher level of service.

[1:12:05] But I would take great exception to the idea that the county thinks Sugar House Park is the pig.

[1:12:13] I think you haven't used that word.

[1:12:17] I wonder if they use similar words.

[1:12:19] I think level of service is definitely operations.

[1:12:22] I think that's where we've talked about it Richard

[1:12:24] and we're on the capital side.

[1:12:26] So I want to go back to the process and.

[1:12:30] It actually matters for both, but.

[1:12:33] Well, what what is the process as Kim asked that.

[1:12:39] You know, for prioritizing and the review and.

[1:12:42] And what is, I guess, what's the county thinking for the culinary water line?

[1:12:47] Is it next year?

[1:12:49] Is it still, I don't know what's going to determine when that goes forward?

[1:12:58] I think it's an, I don't know at this point in time.

[1:13:01] I mean, the price tag on this is very significant.

[1:13:07] And it's more than, you know, a new pavilion or a playground, that kind of thing.

[1:13:13] So I think we've got to be thoughtful about how we're going to come up with that funding to do it.

[1:13:19] And if it can be phased, that's awesome.

[1:13:24] And in the meantime, we continue to hatch it when it breaks and keep things working and, you know, that kind of thing.

[1:13:32] So, and if as Shafan is asked before, if it broke tomorrow and wasn't usable, what would the county do if the park does not act culinary in a, you know, someday?

[1:13:50] We would probably try to work with our folks and facilities and see about tapping into

[1:13:58] some ex-chimp funds for emergencies.

[1:14:03] We've done this before in these types of situations.

[1:14:06] Ideally, we try to replace things before they fall apart, but as we've learned this week

[1:14:11] with our ice center out in West Valley, which the cooling tower died on Monday,

[1:14:22] that facility will probably have to be shut down for six to nine months,

[1:14:25] while we design a new cooling tower and get it manufactured.

[1:14:29] So we try to stay ahead of these things before they break, but we're not always successful.

[1:14:34] I think to answer the question about how we do the prioritization,

[1:14:37] So, we submit a capital budget to the department, the department evaluates that capital budget within community services against we're in the same group as the planetarium and arts and culture.

[1:14:53] So, they look at all of the needs through that and then they go through and prioritize what they're going to submit up to the mayor's office.

[1:15:00] It's a big bucket. I think this is really, really useful information, and thank you, Chris. Because two things really enlightened me today is that, hey, the city of the county can have deferring prioritization lists, right? Which is why the city can approve. The county can't approve. As 100% I agree with.

[1:15:28] And honestly,

[1:15:30] One of the things that I think we need to do as a

[1:15:34] Parkatorium, as a board, is to understand how we

[1:15:37] prioritize of a budgeting for capital projects

[1:15:41] going forward, right?

[1:15:43] Because stuff like the water line, stuff like irrigation

[1:15:47] systems, those are infrastructure projects that, hey,

[1:15:52] ultimately there's an ultimate owner or ultimate remedy

[1:15:56] if something breaks there, right? And so do we, do we put in number budgeting, hey,

[1:16:04] we need to fix this, so let's just pass this to the county and city,

[1:16:09] knowing that these might not be prioritized by the county and the city in the same way,

[1:16:15] or do we allow it to fail and let it mitigate at that point? Those are the things that we need to

[1:16:23] I think about an on-its budget cycle, I think, which I will remind the group of when we do it.

[1:16:34] Well, and Sean, I would say we

[1:16:40] do not start the budgeting process.

[1:16:42] I think mostly how it's been occurring is the county is saying, hey, here's what's needing replacement, right?

[1:16:49] So they were the ones that said the water line is failing.

[1:16:52] the county can absolutely recommend, but ultimately it's us that puts a budget forward for the

[1:17:02] park authority. Unless the county wants to do it on our behalf. So for capital projects,

[1:17:15] The county, yes, we talked about projects, I believe in the meeting and said, here's all the needs.

[1:17:23] And we said, let's submit these.

[1:17:25] But they very much came from the county.

[1:17:27] I mean, the pavilions are kind of a big effort that was before us, a lot of us joined with that initiative to get the pavilions replaced.

[1:17:37] but I would say a lot of it is saying the county saying this is what the data they manage right

[1:17:42] they're saying here's the needs so we ask for studying design because the county set the water

[1:17:47] lines feeling right so I don't know that you know I would very I'd like to think that the park

[1:17:57] authority can say hey Patrick no we don't want the pavilion we want the water line but if the county

[1:18:04] says they're not going to find it, you know, but the county told us to budget for a water line,

[1:18:15] and then the county said, no, we're not going to fund the water line. Yes, that's what happened.

[1:18:21] No, that's not what happened. We put forward the, pushed forward the design of the water line,

[1:18:28] so we knew what it would cost to do the replacement of the woman.

[1:18:33] How it's north of $4.5 million right now, and the study is not complete.

[1:18:40] And so the city, I don't know if it was new money or reappropriated some money,

[1:18:46] but sort of redirected money toward beginning to build up a bank account

[1:18:53] for the water line replacement.

[1:18:56] We're just not in a position to redirect money or ask for money to do that at this point

[1:19:00] in time and think that there's a different solution that we need to have a conversation

[1:19:05] about.

[1:19:07] So Patrick, what you're saying is you guys said, hey, let's do a study to see how bad

[1:19:14] our water system water line is.

[1:19:16] And then at some point, one of our budgets that we passed said, hey, let's change the water

[1:19:23] line up and then the county goes no no that's not what we want to do right now so at some point

[1:19:29] there was a disconnect between the budget between county and our budget so it's just 100% informed by

[1:19:37] the county is what you said I guess what I would say Shahan is this Patrick said with regard to the

[1:19:45] pavilion. They don't always work in the same timeframe. And I think in the end we'll

[1:19:53] get what this this the county respects the cities going first saying these are the projects

[1:20:04] we'll fund that helps them make their decisions. But Patrick saying for saying there's a lot

[1:20:12] need and not all the projects can always be funded right in the same time cycle. But getting back to

[1:20:20] what Patrick said about the water line, what Roxy said, what I said, we need to include in those

[1:20:29] planning, even with the consultants, identifying other funding sources. And that might be a way

[1:20:36] either, you know, through watershed, which probably is not, but through public utilities,

[1:20:44] through perhaps a congressional earmark.

[1:20:49] In order to move that forward, because like everyone said,

[1:20:53] it is critical, and we don't want to get into the point where we have to, you know, have a water

[1:21:02] bringing in water for these needs, but that's what I'm going to say, right?

[1:21:09] I will say too with that, sorry, Jeffy, and you'll go, that I did ask the consultants for that.

[1:21:18] And as we kind of circling back to the beginning conversation, it's all the things we know,

[1:21:24] Landwater Conservation Fund, Utah Division of Hazard Medication, Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation,

[1:21:33] County Zap and Track, or the regional thing. So I think what happens unfortunately,

[1:21:39] this goes back to the same original thing we have to solve, which is, what is the legal definition?

[1:21:46] Where can we get funds from? And all of us working to get our legal standing with the federal

[1:21:56] entity fixed or resolved so that we can find other funds sources of funding.

[1:22:01] Now, if we can go through public utilities or someone else that has some assistance

[1:22:07] that might not require us and this was my question is going back to again, is the county

[1:22:15] and city going to help find the sources of funds if it can't come from capital?

[1:22:21] You know, is that something we'll let you guys figure out or are you saying the park authority needs to find a solution and we need to go find some additional money and then Jackie.

[1:22:33] You can go after that answer.

[1:22:38] So I can't speak for Kim or Chris on this, but I can point.

[1:22:43] So with respect to the water line, I don't know what the answer is and I don't know what source of funding we're going to find to replace a very expensive project.

[1:22:51] But I will say that the county has leveraged other sources of funding that have been instrumental

[1:23:00] in the park over the years to a very significant amount that have not been matched by the city.

[1:23:06] We've not asked for a match.

[1:23:08] And the most reason one was the dredging of the pond to the tune of a half million dollars

[1:23:13] from money that came from a different source that the county sourced through a county flood

[1:23:18] control.

[1:23:18] So we do that all the time to the benefit of the park and that's not fair that's not fair to the county

[1:23:25] I know we should be

[1:23:27] asking the city to match those funds

[1:23:30] But these to be the agreement between the two there's an agreement between the two

[1:23:35] So well

[1:23:38] That's a that's a long discussion later I'm not I'm not worried about asking for them to match county flood control

[1:23:46] because they benefit from county flood control as well.

[1:23:50] That's why it's county water.

[1:23:53] And I'm not interested in asking the city taxpayer

[1:23:57] to pay up just because there's an 50-50 obligation

[1:24:00] when we have a different source of funding

[1:24:02] that can cover these things.

[1:24:04] So having said that, there are other funds

[1:24:07] that come into the park and we are always looking

[1:24:12] for opportunities to leverage those funds.

[1:24:14] Jackie?

[1:24:19] Yeah, I think just to clarify Shahan on the budget process versus appropriations

[1:24:24] request process. On a normal schedule, the city allocates funding roughly a year and

[1:24:33] a half before the county process because they're on different budget cycles. And so when

[1:24:39] we decide to prioritize our request with the city for a waterline, it's not in our budget

[1:24:45] until in our park budget, until we actually get that funding, so it's sort of a different process.

[1:24:51] So we go out there, it can be frustrating, and it's been frustrating to me,

[1:24:56] of like we go out there and we use sort of our political capital to talk to our city council member

[1:25:01] about the funding we want them to prioritize, and then when they do, and the county doesn't get

[1:25:06] on board or fund something different, then the cities kind of annoyed with us that we're not

[1:25:12] moving forward with the project they funded.

[1:25:15] I think particularly the legislative branch because they are the ones that do the budget and their shorter election cycles, and then the money sits there and that sort of where we ended up with the pavilion when we all started on the board is that some of the pavilion money had been sitting there for years.

[1:25:34] There had been a plan in 2009 to replace the pavilions things hadn't happened.

[1:25:38] And so it can be, I know, probably to everyone on the sport very frustrating to do the

[1:25:46] sort of dual cycle with two different legislative bodies and two different mayors and trying

[1:25:52] to get everyone aligned because even though we may get put something in the mayor's budget

[1:25:57] that doesn't mean the legislative branch is going to fund it and it's kind of a mess.

[1:26:02] So I didn't know it was an ear. I thought the timing difference was the accounting

[1:26:09] clause, your fiscal year difference. I was assuming that June and September were your

[1:26:15] fiscal year closes. I didn't realize that we had to submit capital requests years ahead

[1:26:25] of each other.

[1:26:28] Yes.

[1:26:29] So for example, Shahan, the money right now, the city has, we did, yeah, over a year ago,

[1:26:39] we submitted it to the city for their budgeting, then we submitted it to the council, we submitted

[1:26:45] it in September, we submitted it to the county in December, but the city approves before the

[1:26:51] county does in this incident.

[1:26:54] That's the fiscal year, right?

[1:26:56] So that's the September and December

[1:26:58] of the two fiscal year closes, which is the normal.

[1:27:02] So yeah, depending on when the project's submitted

[1:27:04] and when their money becomes available,

[1:27:07] it can be 18 months between when one, right, the city said,

[1:27:12] yes, we agree to this.

[1:27:13] It was almost 12 months by the time the city said,

[1:27:17] the county said no.

[1:27:18] So now the city has money.

[1:27:20] And this is what has happened in previous years

[1:27:22] is one's always kind of carrying until the other can match.

[1:27:26] So we, this is another thing for the big attorneys to decide and for this to be organized

[1:27:33] is Patrick's idea.

[1:27:35] And I think Kim, you've been informed of it is like, maybe there's just an annual amount

[1:27:42] for capital given to the park and so we don't have to do this catching and running after

[1:27:47] each other but an annual amount from both entities that can be expended or saved for a larger project

[1:27:57] and this doesn't exclude us from pursuing zap or track or other stuff but it's just this

[1:28:02] keeping the annual needs of the park going like repaving or replacing things you know so that's

[1:28:12] It's not an idea for me, but for Patrick, he's told us about it.

[1:28:17] Yeah, and I think the challenge that will run into at least on the county side is, again,

[1:28:22] we have more than just Sugar House Park.

[1:28:26] In the same we saw like City does, they have other parks that they're investing in as well.

[1:28:30] So when you talk about having a dedicated stream of capital for Sugar House Park, I've got

[1:28:39] those same problems in 41 other parks. So it would be, we try to rotate it in where the

[1:28:46] parks get something as we go through different budget cycles and, you know, trying to spread

[1:28:55] that around as evenly as we can is something we struggle with every year.

[1:29:00] And then, Chris, do you have other parks? Again, we always feel like an anomaly that you are

[1:29:06] combatching though and I think that's what's different here is this inflation by the time

[1:29:14] a whole year passes and this trying to get both branches and both councils to agree on

[1:29:20] prioritization.

[1:29:22] I just wonder if do you have this exact, you know, instant somewhere else or like other

[1:29:29] things could this, if this situation stays the same, does that make sense just to ease

[1:29:35] These challenges and make it easier for everybody and solve problems.

[1:29:43] Yeah, I know that we have a similar situation, not exactly the same with South Jordan and Bingham Creek.

[1:29:52] But I'm not actually for sure what our funding relationship is with them anymore.

[1:29:58] I know there was something that they put in in the...

[1:30:00] Beginning, I'd need to look that up unless Patrick, you know the answer. Yeah, the challenge with Bingham Creek is that there was a 10-year window where we were treating it differently than we are with Sugar House Park. After the 10-year window, then it was going to be the council chasing the county and the county chasing the council. We're still in, I don't know, year four of that 10-year window. Bingham Creek did frontload some money, though.

[1:30:29] into the bank account. So the competing needs and the county balancing multiple paths is 100%

[1:30:46] a defensible argument that the county can always have because we are not the baby here, right?

[1:30:54] we're one of 47. It's up to us as a community, as a board, to prioritize asks from both the county and the city because the county and the city would have different, sorry, Richard, I'm going to finish on the

[1:31:14] The county and the city can have different priorities.

[1:31:17] It means we need to limit our asks so that if a county,

[1:31:23] if the county doesn't prioritize one of the asks,

[1:31:26] and the city does on the other hand prioritize the county

[1:31:30] who doesn't prioritize the county does,

[1:31:33] then, you know, we are left with, hey,

[1:31:36] we have missed out on both of these projects.

[1:31:39] We need to limit the asks from

[1:31:42] we're already limiting. We're already limiting and then I guess the one thing I want to say

[1:31:49] to Chris you have 42 parks. This one's the second oldest in your system because technically

[1:31:59] evergreen park was the first county park. So an older park has more capital needs than a newer one.

[1:32:09] Well, not true.

[1:32:10] Newer ones have tremendous capital needs

[1:32:12] because that's when they're being outfitted

[1:32:14] with other facilities.

[1:32:16] But that's another factor.

[1:32:18] And, you know, Sahan, we do kick around

[1:32:21] when we're talking in capital improvements committee,

[1:32:26] we kick around a lot of things

[1:32:29] and we do slim them down to what we think is reasonable.

[1:32:33] well, you know, we're sort of like, um, self-added in any way, so we are doing that.

[1:32:41] Well, and the board, it was brought to the board.

[1:32:44] It wasn't just our decision, and we prioritized on the board.

[1:32:49] So yeah, I agree the, the processes happening, Chihon, I think it's the difference of what

[1:32:54] we tell the city or the county, you know, 12 months before the other entities looking at

[1:32:59] it.

[1:32:59] So I mean, city and county, you tell us if we're doing it wrong, but I feel like we've been trying to communicate between both of you and again, trying to put forward what's recommended.

[1:33:15] So that was a culinary waterline. I just want to make sure Kim, did you have your answers, your questions answered.

[1:33:23] I did. Thank you. Okay. And then I was aware that the city was allocator budgeting or discussing a million dollar earmark for the culinary water line. I know you can't speak on that. But right now that's in the budget.

[1:33:39] Correct for the county to know that that million dollars is in there.

[1:33:44] It's recommended from the mayor's budget and CAP is currently be considered by city council right now.

[1:33:52] and we are aware of that.

[1:33:56] I say we let it fail and let whoever fix it fix it.

[1:34:01] Use emergency

[1:34:02] funds. Okay. That's a tried and true government tactic actually. What's this?

[1:34:08] I'm letting something to. It might be shahan answer some of your questions on the budget.

[1:34:15] Patrick, do you have an update on the water meters and our water bill from public utilities?

[1:34:25] Yes, we are we are we are this close to getting the permit issued from public utilities

[1:34:31] They are waiting on one thing from our contract or to submit to them an actual design of the how the meter is going to go in

[1:34:42] So we're very very close

[1:34:44] And think hopefully

[1:34:48] We'll get that permit issued within a within a week or two and can get those meters installed

[1:34:59] The question you had to Amy on the budget and the water bill and all that kind of stuff

[1:35:06] is all related to what public utilities told us a year ago when they changed their sewer

[1:35:14] calculation and we were expecting a $1.2 million.

[1:35:20] Okay.

[1:35:20] This is what I emailed last night.

[1:35:22] Yeah, hit to the sewer. Yeah, yeah. I was just wondering if that was a formal

[1:35:27] re-budgeting that happened and how how does the county do it? Does it do that?

[1:35:32] It was re-budgeted downward once we got close once we were approved by public

[1:35:37] utilities on a much more rational number and so hopefully we'll get those

[1:35:47] meters in and public utilities will have what they need and this issue will be put to that.

[1:35:55] Where does that million dollars go that was for this deal?

[1:36:04] It went back to once it came from

[1:36:08] to not us. Yes.

[1:36:12] Well technically it goes back to the taxpayer so all of us, well all of you,

[1:36:36] and the last kind of thing we had on the county and this is, again, could be part of this bigger discussion is the park authorities contract with Salt Lake County for operation and maintenance is ending December 20, 27, so we're, you know,

[1:36:55] over a year away. This was something that the park authority had looked at as far as neither

[1:37:07] party could really follow the contract and abide by some of the requirements of when

[1:37:14] we pay how we pay, you know, what's the level of service is noted before, it seems kind of vague

[1:37:22] and there was lots of questions about it. So, as you guys are talking, again, this is something

[1:37:28] to discuss is a new contract. What needs, what each party needs, you know, a park authority would

[1:37:36] be like to be involved in that discussion of a new operation and maintenance contract.

[1:37:43] And so, as again, the conversations are happening, I think that's something

[1:37:48] I mean, does the city have to agree to the terms of that contract as well since cities

[1:37:55] beg off of that bill?

[1:37:57] Well, they were on previous contracts, like I don't think there was a county signature

[1:38:03] in a park authority signature because it was kind of from the park authority, so that could

[1:38:08] change.

[1:38:10] Well, my question is, do we have the authority to encumber the city to a certain amount of

[1:38:17] money without their review. No, no, I would encourage the county to loop us in. I can't

[1:38:27] speak to what the past negotiations were, but I would like to make sure we're at the

[1:38:32] table.

[1:38:35] And I would say something again that has been elusive to us is the O&M amount annually.

[1:38:46] And we have been sort of, you know, this is the amount last year and all the county will approve is 3% even if needs are different or we want to higher level of service.

[1:39:00] And so there's another conversation is what is the discussion on the community services or the financial side that says we will not increase this more than 3% and say we talk about.

[1:39:13] So when we talk about this contract and the city is involved and we say this is kind of what's expected, what is the process to ask for more operations if needed.

[1:39:25] We know, for example, that some of the things the county does provide for us aren't paid through that.

[1:39:30] O&M, right? We have Jen here, we have Diane, we have other assets you guys are contributing

[1:39:35] that aren't necessarily covered.

[1:39:39] So any thoughts on that? I know we would like to talk about

[1:39:44] what the actual O&M for the park is because it's probably too low. So I think there's two points

[1:39:50] that I'll like Chris weigh in on it. I think the 3% is a number that we know there's just an inflationary

[1:39:57] increase and we just plug that number. It's not set in stone. It's not scientific. It's not

[1:40:01] anything like that. The challenge to answer your question, Roxie, I think that's a great question.

[1:40:08] What is the actual cost to operate the park? Is it really good question? The flip side to that is

[1:40:15] to the extent that's a larger number than what we're billing today.

[1:40:20] It simply means that the city and the county taxpayer are going to be paying more money

[1:40:26] for sure grass part so it's a it's a bit of a double-edged sword for us but Chris.

[1:40:33] I'm just gonna add that I think my hope is to get the legal questions settled and then work

[1:40:38] from that prior to being able to have that conversation about a new O&M budget.

[1:40:48] We're happy to work with our partners in the city to come up with a good solution.

[1:40:56] That's awesome to get the legal side sorted, but for the financial side, I think a great

[1:41:04] starting area would be historical information and historical records that can stand up

[1:41:13] to due diligence scrutiny.

[1:41:17] So we can try to understand over the years how much effort has gone into this park, how much

[1:41:23] money you guys have put into it and the records can back the the ask of the need going forward.

[1:41:40] Okay. Any other items on

[1:41:45] county or city?

[1:41:51] Okay.

[1:41:51] Hamson's were in the county city update. Is there anything from the city side that we should be aware of?

[1:41:58] No, they've already been addressed. So thank you.

[1:42:03] Okay. All right. We'll go circle back to the top.

[1:42:07] make sure we get our, you know, meeting agenda items done. So I'm going back to meeting

[1:42:17] agenda number four, which is our past meeting minutes. So since we did not have a formal meeting

[1:42:25] in July, we have our meeting minutes from, well, sorry, we did have a meeting in July. So we do have

[1:42:33] our meeting minutes from June and July. If there are punctuation, that sort of edits you can

[1:42:40] send them straight to Jen. This is more just kind of the content material. And yes, Jackie.

[1:42:55] So it looks like on our agenda, we only have for about the April minutes. So I think maybe we need to

[1:43:02] the way to approve our minutes for June and July until our September meeting when it's

[1:43:07] noticed of us, those minutes.

[1:43:09] Unless I have a burden of the agenda, that's wrong.

[1:43:12] Yeah, we have a agenda that doesn't have that, but I did notice on the public note, especially

[1:43:17] to vote for June and July.

[1:43:20] So it's legal.

[1:43:22] Cool.

[1:43:25] And I can.

[1:43:27] Thanks.

[1:43:28] I wasn't at the June meeting, it has me, both attending and not attending, so I just wanted

[1:43:34] clarify that I was not able to attend due to the City Council meeting for June.

[1:43:39] For June. Okay. Thanks.

[1:44:00] Oh okay. Yes. I see.

[1:44:07] So I'll take Kim off board members present for June.

[1:44:11] 11th meeting.

[1:44:16] Okay does anyone want

[1:44:20] to move to approve?

[1:44:26] So I move to approve both the June and

[1:44:29] July meeting minutes.

[1:44:33] Kenya, first by a sieve. Do I have a second?

[1:44:44] Max will second. Thanks Max. All in favor say aye.

[1:44:48] Or raise your hand.

[1:44:50] I think I have to say that wasn't in July.

[1:44:56] We should maybe do separate then since there.

[1:45:00] There's some people weren't the one or the other, so- That's fine, and it probably wasn't there in July either, wasn't there was. Patrick, you were not. Yeah, okay, so so can you read it for June? So I moved to a group of June minutes.

[1:45:21] I said, second, by max, all in favor, aye, aye, aye, aye.

[1:45:30] those who abstain.

[1:45:34] This is June Patrick.

[1:45:39] So Richard abstains and Kim abstains for June.

[1:45:46] Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the July minutes?

[1:45:55] Richard moves to accept.

[1:45:57] Okay, a motion by Richard, a second by...

[1:46:02] A second.

[1:46:03] Did all in favor say aye?

[1:46:07] Aye.

[1:46:10] And those that abstain that we're not at the July meeting,

[1:46:16] Max, or I'm sorry Eric, abstains and Patrick abstains.

[1:46:25] All right, Chihon.

[1:46:27] What's happening in our financials?

[1:46:32] Awesome, I'll let you guys read the three financials there. I can run through the highlights. I've made a little note here of it.

[1:46:40] Where are those? I'm sorry, did we get the financials?

[1:46:46] Did not come in email.

[1:46:51] They are in the website now.

[1:46:53] I can forward them as well from shahan.

[1:46:56] do you mind just putting them up on the screen? Yeah, we can see them. Yeah, it can do that as well.

[1:47:03] Jen, you got them low, right? I think I forwarded them to you for the public website.

[1:47:14] Jen,

[1:47:18] sorry, I missed that.

[1:47:20] I think I did forward though the the financials to you, right, for the public notice website.

[1:47:27] Yes, you did.

[1:47:28] I got it.

[1:47:29] Yeah.

[1:47:31] All right.

[1:47:32] I've got me.

[1:47:34] Shahan.

[1:47:35] All right.

[1:47:37] So in May, you can see the highlight of May is that we had a net revenue of positive amount

[1:47:44] of 388,000.

[1:47:47] And a lot of that is because we had revenue of almost $400,000.

[1:47:52] If you look at the revenue that we booked in May, $272,000 of that were capital contributions,

[1:48:04] invoices, $142,000 to Salt Lake City, $167,000 to Salt Lake City as well, I believe.

[1:48:12] We also had other income of 114, I'm sorry, 114,000.

[1:48:20] Those were the four MOU invoices to Salt Lake City School District, I believe.

[1:48:28] And then we had a small reservation fee amount from Garden Centre administrative fee.

[1:48:37] Expenditures were light, in May, the biggest expenditure was professional services, $15,000,

[1:48:49] almost $16,000, and the biggest part of that, 50% of that were legal expenses to curtain

[1:48:56] and mokanki for drafting the school districts ever used. We also did have $4,000 in accounting

[1:49:06] fees, $3,500 of that were to square and company for the 2025 audit.

[1:49:15] $3,000 in professional fees was the May Salt Lake City Patrol.

[1:49:22] One thing that was unusual in May in the expense fields is that we did have three

[1:49:31] invoices the Curtin and Maconkey build back to the Salt Lake School District and that

[1:49:39] total about 9,500. So it actually brought down other expenses. It's called in as a contra expense.

[1:49:49] May we had a cash balance of about 208,000 now operating account. I believe our PTIF accounts were

[1:50:01] in total $740,000, about $610,000 in the operating reserve PTIF balance and 129,000 in the capital reserve PTIF balance.

[1:50:22] Yeah, that's may want to move to June.

[1:50:33] June, much lighter in revenue. If you notice, we actually had an operating loss or a net loss of $1,500 in June.

[1:50:43] Overall, June will cause an interest income from the PTIF accounts about $2,300.

[1:50:50] dollars. Reservation fees was down considerably or $300 of reservation fees was recorded in

[1:50:58] June and no other invoicing occurred in June. On the expenditure side, we have a light on

[1:51:07] expenditures as well. One of the biggest drops in expenditure and I think maybe save you can comment

[1:51:15] on this solid security or solid police invoice was only $1500. So did we decide to cut down on

[1:51:25] expenditure for security? Standing June, I can't remember. I think part of the issue is like

[1:51:35] security expenditures from the month before because I don't think we've approved the June payment yet.

[1:51:41] That's not the payment.

[1:51:48] These are not based.

[1:51:50] We are accrual accounting in government.

[1:51:53] We are accrual accounting in most places,

[1:51:56] not cash basis accounting.

[1:51:58] So it's it's recorded on in the period of performance.

[1:52:02] So what you're seeing here is June's period of performance.

[1:52:05] So yes, I was going to say yes.

[1:52:09] They were doing two times a week through May, but I told them to just do one, and so that

[1:52:16] took effect in the June financials, and that's why it's half the amount.

[1:52:22] And that's what we see here, the 50% drop in security is a direct correlation to that

[1:52:31] administrative position we made.

[1:52:34] If we look at our assets in the balance sheet, you can see cash rose by about 120,000.

[1:52:42] That is because we collected on a couple of those invoices that we build last month.

[1:52:50] So cash balance was 330,000.

[1:52:53] PTIF actually grew marginally because of interest.

[1:52:57] So PTI have stayed at 612 and 129,000.

[1:53:05] If we move to July, July is preliminary.

[1:53:09] They're still closing July, which is why you will see basically next to no revenue and reservation fee.

[1:53:21] We had some revenue and reservation fees, but I'm waiting for them to, I'm waiting for

[1:53:26] accountants to finish up July. Interesting come from PDAF, remain steady and strong,

[1:53:34] no other invoicing occurred as of yet in July. We did have a second audit invoice

[1:53:42] recorded in July, so another $3,500 invoice to Squire and Company, total of $7,000

[1:53:50] for the 2025 audit. That was the biggest cost packet in this month so far. I have not seen

[1:54:03] a security invoice for July hit our account yet, so we might be waiting for a invoice from

[1:54:13] Salt Lake Police still. It is in the bill.com. I wait for

[1:54:18] said to say he's received the reports and then you'll see it

[1:54:24] after. Okay, so when this finalized we should be we shouldn't see this.

[1:54:29] Yep.

[1:54:32] Cash rose a little bit more in July by about seven

[1:54:36] grand. So cash is sitting at about three hundred and

[1:54:39] 8,000 now. We did have accounts payable, and that's one of the things that I think we still

[1:54:48] have some invoices that we need to pay on, didn't clear by the end of July.

[1:54:53] PDF reserves stayed, well, pretty much tied in under just, it only increased by the

[1:55:03] interest that it both. So it's it's at 614 and 120 almost 130,000. That's it. That's my

[1:55:15] update. Any questions?

[1:55:22] Should we be approving that July budget or should we wait for next

[1:55:26] month? No, it's not the proof. Okay, we're just getting a heads up on that, understood?

[1:55:32] Yeah, and the reason we did that, the reason I wanted to do that is because we always have

[1:55:37] to have visibility. We are going to approve the the prior or the the financials from two months ago

[1:55:48] at every meeting, but we don't ever want to not have visibility to other especially our cash

[1:55:56] balance every month or at the end of the month. Okay. So we would have approved May's in July,

[1:56:04] But we don't have a full meeting so we'll approve May and June today.

[1:56:19] What was the reservation for July?

[1:56:22] What?

[1:56:24] I think 1500.

[1:56:26] Let me, let me look at my notes here real quick.

[1:56:30] Resovations for May?

[1:56:32] No.

[1:56:34] You wanted July, sorry.

[1:56:35] All right.

[1:56:36] Reservation fees was $1,540 altogether.

[1:56:42] Okay.

[1:56:47] Historically, those are from the garden center, correct?

[1:56:51] Yes, those are from the garden center.

[1:56:53] Historically, July, the summer months

[1:56:55] have been our best months for the garden center.

[1:56:58] Is that in part or am I mistaken?

[1:57:01] No, it's not.

[1:57:02] I think July was roughly historically, I think,

[1:57:07] Between three and five thousand a month. I don't need to lie there best month. What I've seen is it's more like the shoulder, so like the bad weather time, so like February March were better and then like September October.

[1:57:28] I have a godsendern analysis on revenue, I can look it up.

[1:57:33] And I also take it right now, the current center has that kids camp, and they pretty much

[1:57:39] take up Monday through Friday.

[1:57:42] So there's no option to rent it to others, and they kind of paid up front, so we may not

[1:57:47] see that.

[1:57:49] Ah, that's probably...

[1:57:52] I think in March or May. So we've got high revenue then, but that's been

[1:58:02] just to edify everyone on approval accounting. The accountant should have looked at the period of performance across that revenue amount that was made up front and accrued it across the months that it hit.

[1:58:20] So we wouldn't see the lump in us in revenue that we are seeing today because I think you

[1:58:28] were on the email shahan about how to justification on why they won't do that.

[1:58:38] So certainly reservations the money in our website for the garden center and then there's

[1:58:46] only a payout every month.

[1:58:48] And so really, they only see kind of one lump sum coming in and the actual tracking

[1:58:55] of individual payments is in Wix, but they really just get a lump sum of reservations

[1:59:01] from the Guardian Center.

[1:59:04] Yeah, and I don't blame them.

[1:59:06] It's a lack of information on their side.

[1:59:09] We could have done a better job at communicating and saying, hey, this lump sum is accompanied

[1:59:15] by this contract that spans three months or divide the amount of money by those three months,

[1:59:22] if they don't know to do that, they can't accrue across that.

[1:59:29] In an ideal world, we wouldn't see

[1:59:32] this lumpiness. Again, I thought because of the camp July was always a good month because it was

[1:59:39] booked five years a week it was but they but they paid all the money in so we

[1:59:48] don't see it appear in July because we don't do a lot of it as well but we can

[1:59:58] look at the up.

[2:00:00] And we've only only have information from like last April. So we would say we only have one year of record. Yes.

[2:00:17] So do I have a motion on our financials?

[2:00:28] I'll move to approve the May and June financials. Okay. Motion by Jackie. Do I have a second? Second. Thanks Eric. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you.

[2:00:41] and Patrick raised his hand. Thanks, Patrick. Again, for just informational Salt Lake County,

[2:00:52] similarly, prepares budgets of their expenditures. They are all showing preliminary,

[2:01:01] we don't vote on these anyways. This is just for us to be tracking, but

[2:01:05] and for some transparency. So we are able to see this is July's.

[2:01:16] You know, what's what their

[2:01:19] expenditures are. So not exactly the same as ours, but there is the all that you do,

[2:01:25] Shahana. I don't know why I'm talking. You could go.

[2:01:33] You're on mute, Shahana.

[2:01:36] My apologies. I was talking

[2:01:38] all this time. I was wondering why Jackie was not why I was not being asked to speak.

[2:01:48] But basically the county provides us reporting on their actuals.

[2:01:55] These upper-liminary numbers, their subject to change, which is why Patrick, I sent Amy,

[2:02:02] a pretty big list of questions. Last night, I was going to take a time, I understand

[2:02:09] its preliminary, and I just wanted to understand some of the fluctuations that I could see

[2:02:16] from the reports. But it's basically what the county is spending on service in the city,

[2:02:23] in the back every month. Some of the things that I noticed, the county was accruing

[2:02:37] at certain expenses, and I wondered at what point we drew up those expenses. I also noticed

[2:02:44] is that some of the labor costs were burning higher than the amount of pay periods that

[2:02:52] that wouldn't have gone through through this through the through July, I believe. Those

[2:03:00] are questions that I have out to the county and expect to hear back when they have answers.

[2:03:13] Sure, the county holds the Pavilion Rantles revenue.

[2:03:20] When did they revenue is not included in this list?

[2:03:24] Okay, understood.

[2:03:26] When did they hand out the revenue to us?

[2:03:28] Is it at the end of the year or the twice a year?

[2:03:31] No, no, no. It's one lump payment at the end of the start of next year, I believe.

[2:03:39] We get the key one of next year, we will get the money, we get the money, okay.

[2:03:50] It could be helpful, I don't know, we see what revenues earned, you know, after the end of the season.

[2:03:59] but I think Chris has gone now. I wanted to and Diane, but I know that they changed to a new

[2:04:10] booking system and Diane sent me, you know, things to change on our website to get people to the

[2:04:16] right spot and we've worked on their website. For instance, adding Sugar House Park to the name of

[2:04:23] the pavilions because they are all the county. And so people have to know the pavilion name

[2:04:29] to rent one of our pavilions, right? So they have to know, oh, I want Fabian. You know,

[2:04:36] you can search Sugar House Park and find the pavilion. So I will anticipate that we will

[2:04:44] have lower rentals this year, even with all of our pavilions online. I heard that it

[2:04:53] seemed to be less than usual, and it could be the times, it could be financial strain

[2:04:58] as well. I mean there's lots of reasons, maybe people just, you know, we'll find a free

[2:05:04] space instead of renting the pavilion, but we are working on the reservation system.

[2:05:13] If it is the heat and the fire smoke and the you know there's tons of reasons.

[2:05:22] Yeah.

[2:05:23] That barbecue and two that's going on.

[2:05:26] The killing is an attraction.

[2:05:29] From the barbecue is definitely wearing off.

[2:05:33] I would go I would if I see a barbecue in the park I would go say hi.

[2:05:38] with the hope of a rib. But that said, Patrick, if there is a report

[2:05:45] the county can run for us for every month, what is happening with the

[2:05:52] pavilions, that will be fantastic. I mean, a pavilion rentals.

[2:05:57] Yeah, or even poorly be nice too, just to know how we're doing per quarter.

[2:06:00] Just what's going on? Are we?

[2:06:03] Yeah. Yeah, we can't if it's not too much of an administrative but. Well, we can

[2:06:10] just run a report. That sounds easy, but it is. We need the information because we can't

[2:06:20] plan. We can't plan if we don't know how it's going. We can't respond until six months later.

[2:06:30] not that it's easy to respond in real time, but we need that information and just for

[2:06:40] a point of reference, Shahan, I have crashed two barbecues, made of friends, when I was

[2:06:48] doing research for the playground, let me tell you the Turks do some gray grilling, but

[2:06:56] But so the people from the Middle East in general, wow, it's like they're so hospitable.

[2:07:05] I just said, oh, I want to ask you some questions, you know, we're looking at what we're

[2:07:10] doing, blah, blah, blah, people are so generous.

[2:07:14] And I think they like to be acknowledged that, you know, that we're concerned about the

[2:07:20] quality of their experience, too.

[2:07:24] Absolutely. I will take your lead, Richard.

[2:07:29] Go for it.

[2:07:29] I'm going to buy the path.

[2:07:31] Have you?

[2:07:33] Very recipe.

[2:07:35] Sorry, I'm just trying.

[2:07:36] I know we.

[2:07:38] How's the reservation system going for the whole.

[2:07:42] Counties.

[2:07:44] Oh, I don't know.

[2:07:46] Oh, okay.

[2:07:47] It's super sophisticated and really cool and much better than what it used to be.

[2:07:51] It sounds like it's harder in some ways, though.

[2:07:54] So yeah, I will say getting reports has been harder.

[2:07:58] So yeah, we'll figure out a way to get the report that we'll, we can figure that

[2:08:05] out.

[2:08:05] So we're on item seven, the Sugar House Park Authority budget.

[2:08:14] So this is this calendar year, 2026.

[2:08:26] Yeah, so

[2:08:32] we had a number of what the operations and maintenance for this calendar year was and our budget that was approved was $532,000.

[2:08:46] The city had appropriated a slightly smaller amount by $31 less, which overall is $62

[2:09:00] between both entities.

[2:09:02] So this budget item is just to update that amount to show what is actually going to be

[2:09:13] requested from the city for what they approved and then we'll ask for the 50% match from the county,

[2:09:23] which means overall the county will in our payment to Salt Lake County will have an updated

[2:09:30] budget amount.

[2:09:34] So I put it here because I don't know if we if we have to approve a change like

[2:09:41] this and vote on it. It was also to make you guys all aware and have an informal meeting.

[2:09:49] This is, this is diminimous. It's $61 of 1.7 million total budget, right? Even higher

[2:10:00] with CIT. I think it's important for Patrick to know so that he knows his county is going to have to

[2:10:06] absolves $61 worth of costs. You're okay with that, Patrick.

[2:10:16] I think we just think he might have

[2:10:19] painted. I think we just observed it. Okay, sounds good. Just instantly. My only thing is since we're

[2:10:29] talking about it, we haven't really had to pay that $5.33 to public utilities because you're negotiating

[2:10:42] in. Is that true?

[2:10:47] This isn't about the water. We never paid any money for the water bill.

[2:10:53] Okay. I just in one of the ones, one of the documents, like maybe two before that was listed.

[2:11:02] That's just why I mentioned that. I think it's in the county budgets, right?

[2:11:13] Because they

[2:11:17] from the city for 50% because they knew or had an agreement to work it out so

[2:11:29] this adjustment is only for operations and maintenance, which is what we would, the services were paying the county to provide.

[2:11:40] Yeah, my opinion is no budget adjustment for $31 or $62. We'll treat it as a variance.

[2:11:50] Okay, so that's what's below on on here is just the invoice that adjusted. So again, it was

[2:12:01] is originally like 500 or sorry, 266,000 per entity which we took down to 265, 969.

[2:12:12] The invoice has been sent to the county and the city.

[2:12:16] Both of them will pay us and then we pay the county at the end of the calendar year.

[2:12:23] What

[2:12:28] I will note, Shahan especially and the account answer where when we sent the invoice

[2:12:37] to Salt Lake City, we did identify that credit from last year of $20,000, which was sitting

[2:12:45] on our statements for a long time, and Kim, this is what Greg recommended as the best way

[2:12:52] to account for that. It was that the city in the ONN from 2025 had paid 20,000 more than the county.

[2:13:03] And so we held that and we're actually giving you a credit on this year's operations and maintenance.

[2:13:11] Thank you. I appreciate you putting that in the formal record too. That helps us. Thanks.

[2:13:16] Yes. Yeah. I appreciate that even more because that 20,000 has been sitting in our

[2:13:21] books for an year, more than a year, ridiculous.

[2:13:26] So here it is, it's going to be cleared off this year.

[2:13:33] And then another great piece with the budget.

[2:13:39] There was the county, did a budget amendment in June.

[2:13:46] It was just a technical error that a capital project

[2:13:51] from 2025,

[2:14:01] 2026, this year's budget. It was a technical error that they fixed.

[2:14:07] And so now that it's formally adjusted in the budget, and I'll show you here, page 45,

[2:14:15] it was the Sugar House Park hidden Grove pedestrian railing.

[2:14:21] So again, this was money when we're talking about money being held forever.

[2:14:26] I don't know how long the counties had this money Patrick that's been just going forward.

[2:14:31] We asked for additional money.

[2:14:34] The city allocated it, but the budget didn't quite match.

[2:14:38] The county did this amendment adjustment in June.

[2:14:42] I've provided this to the city now as record that the county allocated the funds.

[2:14:48] sent the invoice to the Salt Lake City, so we will have this year the funds to replace

[2:14:55] the railing and part of the project was

[2:15:00] It's adding a sidewalk from the parking lot. So this is by the basketball court, from the parking lot by the basketball court, a sidewalk that takes you to the pedestrian bridge, and then will replace the railing.

[2:15:19] Awesome.

[2:15:24] I told Dan about the money was coming so that we can move forward with getting selected the railing.

[2:15:32] and contractor. All of that. So these are here. Again, the invoice, the remittance letter,

[2:15:40] and the county's adjusted budget.

[2:15:45] I don't think it's about voting item just because this is

[2:15:49] previously approved information. Okay agenda item eight. I was probably going to put something

[2:15:58] there. There's nothing there, according to my agenda. So I just put error. I don't think we have

[2:16:04] anything for eight.

[2:16:08] Is that what everyone else sees right? Okay. Okay. So we're getting down to

[2:16:17] just general updates. So we

[2:16:24] heard about the pond. That was one thing here. General updates is

[2:16:27] the pond. I added in here this link and I think I shared it with you. It's just a record on our

[2:16:36] website of the information the county prepared as far as where the water from the stream comes from.

[2:16:41] and what does it mean to drain?

[2:16:44] And this was reviewed, thanks Kim,

[2:16:47] by public utilities,

[2:16:50] to make sure it was accurate.

[2:16:53] New signage was made to be more accurate.

[2:16:56] And I appreciate both the city and the county

[2:17:00] on the font and the, you know,

[2:17:03] many eyes on it.

[2:17:04] So we've gotten a lot of,

[2:17:06] a lot of stuff about the products.

[2:17:08] So, thankful for additional efforts being made to help them.

[2:17:18] Natural selection.

[2:17:24] Sugarhouse Garden Center management.

[2:17:26] So, they've done several things already in the building just as far as fixing things as they break,

[2:17:35] coordinating with, you know, the Wasatch Kids Camp and just general inquiries.

[2:17:43] They've also had at no cost specialties come in to evaluate the building.

[2:17:52] So in September, especially meeting in the building, it will be really good to compare

[2:17:57] where these cost estimates as far as, you know, the heating, cooling, the water heater,

[2:18:07] and then other stuff like replacing.

[2:18:10] I know we get spent money on plumbing, and those are for the toilets, but the men's

[2:18:14] urinal is an issue, and the general, like, the ceiling tiles, fixing those walls that are

[2:18:22] melting and stuff like that.

[2:18:25] So they've been working to have a review of the building so that we have a lot of

[2:18:32] cost to determine and prioritize. So plan on that. I did put or I can share those so that you

[2:18:41] guys have time to look over on, especially if you want to ask any questions that could be addressed

[2:18:48] before September.

[2:18:51] My request to them will be to help us prioritize and say like, for example,

[2:18:58] I know they said that the water heater like is pretty urgent. So like, you know, what would they

[2:19:03] say is at the top of the list is first critical. And then also, you know, maybe some on the aesthetic

[2:19:10] excited that's like this would really, you know, help the appeal of the building.

[2:19:15] Are questions from Richard? Do you expect them? Are you going to ask them to present

[2:19:22] or we're just going to deal?

[2:19:26] We could if you want or they're not doing the work so I don't know if

[2:19:35] will be able to answer specific questions, but they would be overseeing the work we decide,

[2:19:40] but we could have them there if you want to

[2:19:46] ask if they're available.

[2:19:51] Or if you don't think that's necessary, it's fine.

[2:20:01] With this as a reminder, and this is maybe an adjustment in the budget shahan of 2026, but

[2:20:10] But you may recall that we approved some money and we talked and we have the budget of

[2:20:18] like, here's what we could spend and so keep our reserves.

[2:20:21] I think it was $80,000, so that's kind of, I guess, remembering that that's the amount

[2:20:30] we said was safe to expend being very conservative.

[2:20:40] Yes.

[2:20:40] Study, right?

[2:20:40] Is that study?

[2:20:43] So as a reminder, we put that in the ZAP application, we've now been not, you know, we're

[2:20:51] not going forward with consideration, so that money now is open to our read budgeting.

[2:21:00] Yeah, so I think what we can do is we can, as a board, we probably should have a process

[2:21:09] where the board members can put in what they'd like to see, the discretionary funds being utilized for and then we should take those into account and redo the worksheet that I put to understand.

[2:21:30] and basically poke off the way our cash balance is going to be

[2:21:36] and then get comfortable with it as a board.

[2:21:42] And so how do you foresee that, Shahan?

[2:21:45] Is it, are we doing it in a meeting?

[2:21:48] Like next time I can prepare with that?

[2:21:50] Or are we?

[2:21:51] Correct.

[2:21:52] I think we do it in a meeting.

[2:21:53] Same way we did it last time.

[2:21:54] I think we just, last time we just had one item

[2:21:59] that was being input there.

[2:22:00] I think now we have a tool that we can utilize.

[2:22:06] We open it up to the rest of the board.

[2:22:09] It's the board's discretionary funds,

[2:22:10] it's this authority's discretionary funds,

[2:22:13] everyone needs to be able to get a say

[2:22:15] in what to use those for.

[2:22:21] So Richard may have a request

[2:22:25] and if anyone else has something they want to present

[2:22:30] to the board for discretionary funds,

[2:22:33] that prepare for December.

[2:22:37] Much funding that we have available with discretionary.

[2:22:41] We don't know.

[2:22:42] We don't know we have to do the math.

[2:22:45] It's it's a it's a.

[2:22:46] It was with our bank balance.

[2:22:50] So what's our.

[2:22:54] Technically we are at.

[2:22:58] 130 plus 740, but that's our total.

[2:23:04] Are you based off July or June or July, July's bank balance cash balance?

[2:23:12] So remember that I just she I think we'll bring that up right Shahan and say here's the

[2:23:19] current balance and then you have the percentages of like savings and and then we'll have a

[2:23:26] new figure which we said we'd look at this quarterly.

[2:23:29] So September is a good time to look at it.

[2:23:34] We'll do the worksheet in September to understand where we want to want our budget or our cash balance to be at the end of the year.

[2:23:48] And then understand how much we can utilize for discretionary funding.

[2:23:57] I think that was on the budget summary.

[2:24:00] No, it was a completely separate vote sheet.

[2:24:03] Oh, okay.

[2:24:09] All right.

[2:24:11] Anything else on that one?

[2:24:17] Okay.

[2:24:20] Land water conservation fund.

[2:24:22] So this, this is tied and wrapped into the conversation

[2:24:29] happening with attorneys.

[2:24:31] So we have land in our fast board member lawyer.

[2:24:39] lawyer working on our behalf just staying up to speed with what the city and the county are working

[2:24:52] on researching, they're doing a, you know, we kind of have several things they're looking at and part of that is the Landwater Conservation Fund.

[2:25:03] And so

[2:25:07] there will be future expenses from him for his time.

[2:25:10] He's not taking an active role.

[2:25:12] He's just staying current with what the city and the county discussions are on our behalf.

[2:25:20] And so we're very much waiting for a consensus from them.

[2:25:28] And I'm sure we'll have an update on a few things in the future.

[2:25:34] What are we talking about?

[2:25:35] What's the conversation?

[2:25:36] What is the top there?

[2:25:40] Well, it's partial about

[2:25:45] land water conservation and

[2:25:49] addressing the parcels of South Salt Lake

[2:25:53] and about the legal

[2:25:56] definitions of the park authority

[2:26:01] and the city and the counties involvement.

[2:26:04] So it's pretty broad.

[2:26:05] I think they're talking about all of that.

[2:26:08] Okay,

[2:26:16] they're all intertwined so similarly land is there just to help with these discussions

[2:26:26] as they figure out this this three way agreement and the responsibility and the historical

[2:26:33] records that sitting in the county have and so

[2:26:44] we'll hear more about it as again as decision

[2:26:49] are made or progress is made.

[2:26:57] I know we also have you down on the security

[2:27:02] civ anything you want to update on security or any events in the park. No major

[2:27:09] events in the park other than just a lot of people at nighttime when the cops

[2:27:13] come around nine o'clock at night there's just a lot of people let out cars so

[2:27:18] they're queuing away because I assume they just come after the week when they

[2:27:24] start screwing off. So they're not kicking people out at nine. No, they're not,

[2:27:30] but they're coming around doing for a couple hours. So I don't think they're

[2:27:38] kicking around. They just drive around the park around nine o'clock. And they

[2:27:42] if they just check out where the people are,

[2:27:44] there's no issues that that warrants.

[2:27:49] Yeah.

[2:27:53] Any other, because now we've cut back

[2:27:57] on the proxy security to, I believe, once a week.

[2:28:03] If I'm not mistaken, have we heard from residents?

[2:28:07] Have we heard from anyone that says there's more homeless?

[2:28:09] There's more, you know, I have been online.

[2:28:15] More things happening.

[2:28:16] You know, like social or website.

[2:28:22] The conversation, mostly what I'm hearing is water issues.

[2:28:27] And the ducks and the sick and dying ducks.

[2:28:31] So the speeding and the, you know,

[2:28:37] drug use or anything like that has not been taken to us to our accounts reported.

[2:28:45] That's a patch of question for incidents. What are if there's any increase in

[2:28:51] incidents of people calling and police departments and whatnot. So I know that's

[2:28:55] that was one of the things we're counting to address because you guys come at

[2:29:00] night time and just try to get people out out of the park. No, they were now

[2:29:07] reported incidents of tomato? How did the holiday go, Patrick? Did you guys have any fireworks

[2:29:18] or fires?

[2:29:22] Nothing was reported to me, so no.

[2:29:33] So 1700 east, a little update on that is that I've

[2:29:41] But I've been talking with them in relation to our culinary water line, so that we can make sure one of the elements of the culinary water line is it making a new pipe that goes all the way to 17th East and

[2:29:54] connecting to the water line up there.

[2:30:00] I was told that the 1700 E3 construction is more likely 2028 now, and that there is going to be some public utilities work. And can maybe you know any anticipated work, but that public utilities will be doing some update in 1700?

[2:30:26] Yeah, I can look into that. I'm not aware of a timeline for that work.

[2:30:30] So I'm happy to be back to the board next month.

[2:30:34] Okay, great. So yeah, I think, um, and again, I know that the consultant was the culinary

[2:30:41] water lines talking to public utilities, but it was just coordinating where this T junction

[2:30:46] was and then it wanted to affect, you know, public utilities future work or the road reconstruction

[2:30:53] on this placement, you know, if they picked the wrong spot and then it turns out it has to

[2:30:59] be moved or something later.

[2:31:04] So everyone's aware of it and I just make making sure they

[2:31:08] all know and plan accordingly.

[2:31:16] For ongoing business I think we're having a tree planting

[2:31:20] event in the park in October. I think it's going to be October 3rd but you'll get an invite.

[2:31:28] It isn't multi-sive. It's going to be actual tree planting if you guys want to come.

[2:31:38] So that is one event and then also tree Utah has wants to do a tree planting on the West

[2:31:51] Hill engaging students from Highland High School and others.

[2:31:59] I don't have a timeline on the Hill.

[2:32:03] I haven't asked about the progress on that.

[2:32:05] I'm sure everyone's seeing it.

[2:32:06] but I'll have that in September. We'll all ask about what they expect for completion of that.

[2:32:15] I know the contract gave them up to two years. So, you know, we're only, we're four months into that.

[2:32:22] So it could be a while longer.

[2:32:27] But the West Hill is another one of the things I'm hearing from people

[2:32:35] is upset about the loss of the trees and and

[2:32:43] we all were and I think we all know

[2:32:47] what the why a decision was made to prevent you know a large retaining wall. But

[2:32:55] that West Hill replanting or the trees there I'd like to really extend to the

[2:33:00] public too and hope that people see that we're bringing back more trees there

[2:33:04] in the future.

[2:33:07] So that's one thing. Website, you can look for them here.

[2:33:16] I thought it was

[2:33:17] interesting to see this is our July website. So the sugarhousepark.org website,

[2:33:25] traffic in July and specifically I wanted to point out that we had a spike of

[2:33:34] visitors on July 4th. We had 271 sessions on that day and emailed me because

[2:33:45] it was such an unusual rise in website traffic and I say this because I think

[2:33:53] it's and I heard from people as you know people ask me if the park is doing fireworks this year

[2:34:02] and people comment about it and we get tagged is like hey you gotta go see the fireworks in Sugar

[2:34:08] House Park that I think we have an opportunity to bring back an event at Sugar House Park in the

[2:34:17] future and I think this speaks to people wanting a spot for some of these bigger holidays

[2:34:27] and like people to think about that and this just shows that people are they still have

[2:34:35] a memory of it or they think that there's something happening there and traffic proves

[2:34:41] it that they were looking for what was happening on July 4th at Sugar House Park.

[2:34:49] I don't have the Garn Center statistics here.

[2:34:54] They definitely don't get as much traffic there as the Park website itself, but I will

[2:35:02] put things there in the future.

[2:35:03] All

[2:35:06] right, any other board business at all items?

[2:35:16] I was surprised to see the baseball field, how the construction is big.

[2:35:24] It's pretty impressive and I know they overtook the parking lot for the availability next to it for staging and stuff like that.

[2:35:32] But it's pretty massive. What's going on? The polls that are up there.

[2:35:43] I don't know if they're going to cut it down or something or but they got a big fencing that's going to be built around.

[2:35:51] So there's just a lot of construction that and the high school, they're just we're under a lot of constructions these days.

[2:35:56] Yeah,

[2:36:01] and they, you know, as some sort of comp, as compensation, we did charge them a fee for the

[2:36:09] disturbance to Mount Olympus and hidden growth. So that, I guess, that will also affect the

[2:36:19] reservation amount because we, those aren't open. And so when we, our reservation fees next year

[2:36:26] come in lower, that'll contribute. On the other side, we've put that into the

[2:36:33] amount from the school district. I don't know how that looks. Shahan and

[2:36:39] you know, it wasn't applied to reservations.

[2:36:46] I don't know if we want to change

[2:36:47] that, but we're going to see a hit from... I know Hidden Grove is a very popular

[2:36:52] one. It's like second I think is like after it's like big field then hit and

[2:36:58] grove and so it's a big. It was one of our better pavilions.

[2:37:06] You know how long the anticipate is going to take for them to build that? How many how much longer the construction is going to go on?

[2:37:14] For the hill? No, for the for the baseball, baseball

[2:37:18] that one they want they're supposed to get sought in this fall because it has to

[2:37:23] take and they want to start on it in February. Okay, so I should be on

[2:37:29] hopefully in a month or so. Good. Yeah. Yep.

[2:37:37] On the other side, Patrick, you know,

[2:37:41] talked with DAI and Jenna. How much are you involved? I don't think you are with the

[2:37:45] booking system, but getting... We'll have to adjust. Currently our multi-use

[2:37:52] fields that the open line areas are through the special events and I don't know if that's how we

[2:37:57] want to do the softball field or Patrick if this goes into the softball field booking system

[2:38:06] with your other other locations and then how you guys figure out the earnings for the park but

[2:38:17] I would like to get that set up so that we could start, you know, renting that since

[2:38:23] it's shared use with the school district.

[2:38:28] Well, but softball, I think, starts earlier.

[2:38:30] So maybe people that the 12 month reservation and people use

[2:38:38] it earlier.

[2:38:40] It could be.

[2:38:41] Yep.

[2:38:41] So

[2:38:46] hopefully, you know, during our discussions on if we would replace it with a softball field,

[2:38:54] I did ask Beehive Sports who does the kickball in the park.

[2:38:59] They have a softball league and so they'd be interested.

[2:39:04] So that may be a renter.

[2:39:07] If you guys know other softball, I don't know if it has to be softball,

[2:39:11] that want a dedicated field to reserve that will have one starting next year.

[2:39:24] You also had on the agenda the parking for the garden set that is going to start getting rented out.

[2:39:32] So they said that they would are deciding in September.

[2:39:41] I think it's August something next Tuesday, the 19th, the 18th, huh.

[2:39:59] So they still have not decided, um,

[2:40:07] okay.

[2:40:12] But thanks. Yes. I did ask about that. I knew we'd want, we'd want to know. So they said September, they decide.

[2:40:20] stay

[2:40:26] parking August, can we have them told? Well, I was going to say at least four or five that

[2:40:33] are parking there. No, no. We'll build them retractively.

[2:40:47] Anything else at all? Anyone wants to

[2:40:49] bring forward?

[2:40:54] Just come for me. So we are in person in September, right?

[2:41:04] No, no way.

[2:41:10] I'm going to tell you right now. I know that the kids camp is done in August

[2:41:16] this month, so that was the conflict previously. And I was just going to go in and reserve

[2:41:23] it to make sure that it was available to us.

[2:41:29] So this would be Thursday, August 10th, and

[2:41:32] it is available, and I think it'd be a good time if we're talking about funds, you know,

[2:41:39] improvements and such. Does anyone not hear on the 10th of September?

[2:41:49] So far so good. Okay.

[2:41:51] Okay. I think we'll still, does anyone want to make it only in person and not do hybrid?

[2:42:03] Sorry, we can't be there in September.

[2:42:08] Okay, you're out of talent, Richard.

[2:42:10] I mean, I am, but I'll try like hell to participate online.

[2:42:18] Okay.

[2:42:19] We keep it hybrid just to justify the styling of purchase.

[2:42:25] Of course.

[2:42:27] Yes.

[2:42:27] We want to justify.

[2:42:29] Okay.

[2:42:29] But I regret not being able to meet all you.

[2:42:33] Eating interact always with all you great people.

[2:42:38] We'll miss you, Richard.

[2:42:42] Yeah.

[2:42:43] And with the hybrid, if you're able to participate,

[2:42:45] participate. We'll have that. I should be able to.

[2:42:50] Okay. Um, so just for September's agenda, we'll still try.

[2:42:57] We'll check in with Troy Davis at the bike proposal. Um,

[2:43:02] we'll have, we'll ask for a timeline on the West Hill, just, you know,

[2:43:09] construction and then we'll discuss projects for our funds if

[2:43:25] that part can

[2:43:27] be definitely including virtual I'd appreciate it and this just reminds me that

[2:43:37] did you meeting that I didn't attend? I was really impressed how you guys wanted to

[2:43:45] protect a sanctity of the number one cultural landscape feature in the park. Big

[2:43:51] fields in that whole area and so I thought your suggestion of where the

[2:43:58] bike park could be was very inspired.

[2:44:04] Thank you.

[2:44:13] If there's no it's going to

[2:44:15] the update or nothing for the agenda next month will meet in person on the

[2:44:20] 10th and

[2:44:25] thanks for the discussion today Patrick. I I didn't know Chris we're

[2:44:30] gonna jump right away or I would have thanked him for attending and having you

[2:44:34] both here and Kim and answering our questions and working on the future with us so

[2:44:44] So thank you and Patrick, please tell Chris, thank you for coming to you.

[2:44:50] Yeah, we'll do.

[2:44:51] Thanks.

[2:44:55] Can I do everyone?

[2:44:56] Yeah, we'll do a journey.

[2:44:58] Thanks, Jackie.

[2:45:00] Good night. Have a great day. Thank you,

[2:45:08] Jan.

[2:45:10] Thanks. Thanks for watching. See you later. Yep. Bye.

Sugar House Park Authority 8.13.26

Transcript