Meeting Notes from Town Council’s December 4 meeting

Notes from December 4 Town Council meeting

This is a “rush transcript” – the notes our staff took during the meeting. That means there may be errors or gaps. If you are interested in any of the topics, you can watch the meeting video here to get exact and full quotes.

Also, learn more about our Snow King work here.

Blue – key points

Orange – areas left open to return to

Begin

Council: all present

• Pete: no public comment. We read your emails.
• Tyler: so far have gone through chapter-by-chapter, ID’ed amendments. We made it through all chapters once. 1-10 substantially. Didn’t conclude on 11-12 – SKRMA, phasing, community services.
• Tyler: breaking into 3 parts
  • Affirm or modify conditions 1-27 (ch 1-10)
  • Discuss conditions 28-32
  • Comment to USFS
• Don: did you already integrate SK response into staff report?
  • No – but in slides

Conditions 1-27

• Tyler: applicant wants to address 5, 7, 8, 20
• 1 – leave convention center in
  • Jim: any proposal for subarea 2 would need more amendment to masterplan – and subarea 1. Hotel ownership is in flux. Subarea 1 – leaving in vision of convention center – was supposed to connect hotel and rink. Will proposals for subarea 1 also require amendment to masterplan? Should we talk about it now?
  • Tyler: if owners want to build what’s shown on site plan, as currently proposed, for area 1 or 2, they can. With these footprints, they can do it.
  • Jim: the hotel in the masterplan is quite different from the hotel you see today. The whole point of the hotel was this was supposed to connect to the premier conference center in the valley. Concerned about subarea 1.
  • Tyler: if you leave it as-is, still subject to current site plan. Leaving it status quo. Meaning both subareas have to be consistent with chapter 1 vision – conference center
• 2 – add 2012 comp plan in (administrative change)
• 3 – LDRs
• 4 – clarify subarea 1-3 building footprint (one potential hotel offshoot building)
• 5 – include subarea 7 with SF and APOs, clarify whether owners have to be part of SKRMA (understand the answer is no)
  • Applicant: exclude these properties from SKRMA
  • Jim: agree with applicant, accurately stating what’s in the masterplan. Vague language – limited, voluntary participation. Don’t see subarea 7 as a commitment. Would consider expanding it – they have the benefits of short-term rental etc, from being in the district
  • Hailey: agree, don’t include
  • Pete: current language says they should be encouraged.
  • Tyler: OK with applicant
  • Don: let’s just say I’m perplexed. If I were tasked to create revenue sources, I’d probably seek participation of everybody who has a resort-type property. I’m not disagreeing that masterplan excluded this. But if I were in the applicant’s shoes I’d be trying to shake as many trees as I could. Just sayin’.
• 6 – require CUP for outdoor/commercial amusement uses. Zipline landing may be proposed for CUP in subarea 4 only.
  • Applicant accepted
  • Jim: ‘yes’ is different from ‘may be proposed’
  • Tyler: right. They can ask. If they can meet the conditions, (noise, impact, lighting, etc), can be approved. As opposed to on West side where it’s not allowed even to be applied for
• 7- basic use permits for temporary amusement uses (under 180 days). Limit of 2 per use, then go for CUP
  • Applicant: allow anything under 6 months and under 2000 sf – no permit required
  • Don: must be a reason for 6 months vs 180 days. 2000 sf temporary structure is the size of a house. Not a small thing. Does anyone else have concern?
  • Pete: what is it about 2000 sf that tells us there won’t be impacts.
  • Jim: we’ve heard a lot of feedback from residents about creeping nuisances. What are talking about? Bungee jumping trampoline? Bouncy castle? The impacts have certainly been spilling off the resort property, sometimes blocks away. Basic check-in doesn’t mean it’s going to be denied, just allows public to ensure incremental amusement use doesn’t become a constant headache
  • Hailey: agree
  • Leave it as written (ignore applicant)
• 8 – temporary outdoor events need basic use permit if amplified sound and >200 people
  • Applicant: “gatherings and events are a standard within a resort area and necessary for the successful operation of SK resort”. Only require permit if sound over noise level (Tyler: 55 dB)
  • Don: I agree that gatherings are necessary. But first sentence perplexes me. We wont know if there’s a noise problem until it occurs. Not sure how to skin that cat
  • Pete: I’m OK with the spirit, but if you talk to the county – it’s virtually impossible to enforce that. Open to another way to skin this cat. In my background as a sound engineer, not really enforceable or reasonable
  • Don: how about time constraints on amplified sound?
  • Jim: Lenz has observed about Center lawn – perception is different on property line vs at your house. Mountain acoustics. Drum kit at the base of the mountain – you can hear it all the way out
  • Bob: don’t we already have an ordinance for sound outside the resort district? And time ordinance? Not inside.
  • Tyler: yes, this is sound past the property line. Police Dept grants exemption from noise requirements. Chief issues it and can revoke it.
  • Bob: wedding tent outside Grandview – reasonable
  • Pete: benefit to applicant – settle it up front.
  • Tyler: leave as-is
  • Don, with caveat that – we’re all airing concerns we have – communicate to applicant and public that we’re trying to balance these interests, and put this project on the success path
• 9 – leave daycare in as allowed basic use in all buildings
• 10 – revise example development chart with new proposed subareas, show what has been built / is anticipated
• 11 – all buildings must go through DRC review
• 12 – include language for lots 53/58 – compatibility with neighborhood, stepdown, etc
  • Jim: heard public feedback about traffic in vicinity of existing homes. Does this address that concern? Or just talking about buildings?
  • Tyler: there is a 70′ buffer that can’t be built on. Road will have increased traffic.
• 13 – language for lot 57 – compatibility with rec area to the west – shift building to east, reduce footprint, break up into multiple. Step down, 2 stories, etc.
  • Bob: I like the way it’s written
  • Jim: what is the intended use?
  • Tyler: short-term rentals, condos, residential
  • Jim: all 3 lots are envisioned for condos?
  • Tyler: Any use is allowed in any building envelope. But I think you’ll see condos and/or residential
  • Jim: there was talk in stakeholder process about workforce housing
  • Tyler: all uses will be allowed. Not sure what will come. Affordable housing has been discussed on lot 57. But could be anything.
• 14 – (ch 7) – alternative transportation improvement to connect to Cache Creek Dr – at time of development of 53/57/58
  • Bob: can’t we have it before? Kind of like the billy goat path
  • Tyler: when those get built. They’ve suggested that’s their first phase.
  • Jim: in masterplan, all kinds of nonmotorized ways for people to move around. Very little has been built as envisioned. Finally a sidewalk, not always maintained, from hotel to rink – at town’s insistence. What about all the other connections?
  • Tyler: other connections come with those parcels
  • Jim: sidewalks to nowhere. All those connections should be built. SKRMA should take care of it
  • Don: don’t disagree with Jim’s longterm vision. Both applicant and public want to see it realized over time. But compare our own complete streets program – we do them one at a time. After review by planning commission / DRC / Pathways / Fire, etc. Not reasonable to ask applicant to build out entire infrastructure at one time. Important to make sure they meet our standards as they develop
  • Tyler: similar to how we’ve looked at things. Possibly some consideration in masterplan for offsite construction. For onsite and offsite connections
  • Bob: how does that fit in? Safe routes to schools? We’ll need a sidewalk plan. Resort plan, SKRMA responsible over however many years.
  • Pete: agree with Jim that these need to be built, agree with Don tough to require before development. Break it up?
    • Love Ridge sidewalk – any subarea 2 or 53/57/58 development
  • Jim: 18 years and nothing. Because incremental?
    • PC chair asked for connection through – Vandenburg – wants formal pathway connector
    • Tyler: that’s addressed here
  • Pete: can we phase all of this, tie it all to specific development plans – hotel, KM6?
    • Tyler: you could. Turn it back to applicant to propose appropriate sequencing. SKRMA or individual lot requirement?
    • New Condition 33: connectivity on all parcels, to all locations
  • 15 – revise area 4 – reduce building envelope. 39′.
    • Jim: Bob observed – hard to get from Vine to Grandview, to get onto resort property and up hill. Old service road goes that way. With any proposal, smart to address connectivity. Can we have that discussion now?
    • Don: didn’t we just agree we’d ask applicant to deal with this as each area develops? Doesn’t that cover it?
    • Tyler: you could be more specific about that road. Complete Street on Vine
    • Jim: I thought previous was about 53/57/58. If it encompassed all, that’s fine
  • 16 – allow light industrial in subarea 4/5 as CUP – specific to Vine St and Mtn Maint Facility – need to come back for CUPs
  • 17 – need to obey Hillside LDRs at time of Dev Plan
  • 18 – add potential 2nd ice sheet to subarea 5
    • Jim: talked to current ice rink folks. Preferred location is to the north. All TBD later?
    • Tyler: yes. Options to be considered later
  • 19 – CUP for final design of PBP. Gondola does not divide the park. Transpo circulation. Cluster buildings to maximize open space. Waiting area for gondola lines. Generally at street level.
    • Tyler: point is what we’re going to look at when you come back
    • Don: I remain concerned. Parks & Rec group doesn’t want PBP bifurcated or bisected. You can tell me the gondola is going to move X people per hour, yet I’ve stood at the Village on 2 hour wait for a tram box. I am concerned that level play space, sports activity space, is going to become a holding zone for 3-4-5 busloads of visitors waiting their turn. I would have asked that language be strengthened to “assurance” to not impact other users
    • Pete: agree
    • Jim: agree. One location discussed – thought agreed – near Cougar. Maybe 6′ above street level.
    • Tyler: this will have to come back. Also – lease agreements or land swaps? Another level of review.
  • 20 – housing regs in place at time of application
    • Applicant – allow housing seasonals, and allow dorms
    • Tyler – that’s different from rest of town LDRs
    • Pete – we were very clear in recent discussion about housing mitigation that we were going to focus on year-round workforce. Purpose to support the community. We made that decision. Based our rates on assumption that market would provide dorm-style housing. I’m not interested in this. That kind of housing does need to be provided, shouldn’t be able to substitute for required housing.
    • Pete – concern brought up – should be tying mitigation rates – have alternative minimum – don’t know if someone go to Cheyenne and ask state to pass law to throw out our mitigation. Tie this to alternative requirement in case we lose LDRs
    • Don – parse this sentence. Any ‘additional’ affordable housing. Throughout my tenure working on our formidable housing challenges, I’ve heard many people say we need to have as many tools as possible. We are currently building dorm housing at Parks & Rec. It’s a tool we’re using. I don’t disagree with the mayor, but wholeheartedly support idea that seasonal employees can be safely housed in dorms. Should be tool resort has as its disposal
    • Pete – I don’t propose removing that tool. I think that tool is contemplated in subarea 4.
    • Don – your concern that dorms instead of full-time housing? Is that the intent?
    • Ryan Stanley – intent is to house employees that are created within the resort district, instead of at some other location offsite. So if a wing of the hotel is developed, need for employees is not year-round team, we want to house the additional seasonal employees needed for that facility. If you couldn’t lodge them on the facility, would have to house them somewhere else in town. Discussed in stakeholder. Should be some mechanism to house seasonal employees in resort district. Vast majority of employees created are seasonal. We want to be able to house them effectively. We’re more than willing to build to the new required rate, new housing, but to have the ability to house seasonal employees.
    • Pete – you’re not asking for the ability to house them. You could house them on Vine, 53/57/58. You’re asking to build them in lieu of your year-round housing.
    • Ryan – yes. If we have to build 20 units, then some could be used for seasonal housing
    • Pete – your new requirement for year-round would be 0?
    • Ryan – not at all. You’d have the rate for X# people. And if some are seasonal, and some are year-round.
    • Pete – and if that mix was 100% seasonal, that would be OK?
    • Ryan – yes. Concept is how are people incentivized to build housing for their employees? IF forced to build employee housing, why can they not house their employees?
    • Pete – requirement to build year-round housing was the commitment throughout. Anyone who needs to build seasonal housing – there’s fair amount of land. You’re taking out the requirement to build year-round housing at all
    • Ryan – we just want flexibility to house seasonal, not forced to build that
    • Pete – given that whole intent of housing mitigation is to house year-round employees, you’re asking for a different program. We wouldn’t allow it for anyone else
    • Ryan – yes. Vast # of employees are seasonal. How do we ensure housing them onsite?
    • Pete – much discussion. Responsibility of employers to house seasonal employees. We talked about this for months in update to housing requirements. This is a substantial change. Not a bit of flexibility. Instead of us requiring you, like every other employer, to house your own employees… you can do that in lieu of housing the year-round employees generated by your development. Essentially saying you do not have a housing requirement. You can build housing you have to build anyway
    • Ryan: I wouldn’t interpret it that way. You might not be able to house employees from growing your business on-site. Want flexibility to ensure you can. It is indeed a change, critical er very important one for SKRMA. We want to build affordable housing, we’ll take the higher rate, and build that # of units
    • Pete: current req’s – not only build year-round housing, but they apply through housing dept – community at large. That’s another change. You’re saying you can build seasonal housing you have to build anyway, we’ll allow you to use that to satisfy the mitigation requirements that have been contemplated throughout the discussion. I’m not trying to say right or wrong, but be clear – that’s a big change to me
    • Don: why isn’t word ‘workforce’ instead of ‘affordable’? Didn’t think we make employer build housing and put it in the pool for non-employees. Mr Mayor you lost me there. If you strike ‘seasonal’, we’re talking about housing employees, which was the goal
    • Tyler: to clarify… ‘affordable’ probably should say ‘workforce’. Around the issue the mayor brought up: you build housing for year-round, if you retain it as rental, you can put your employees in. If for sale, they go into the weighted drawing.
    • Jim: the housing required as part of mitigation – that is required to offset impacts of further commercial development. So condos on 53/57/58, we have a formula for employee generation. Completely different than seasonal employee housing. Mayor’s correct. This is muddling the two types of housing. What would be required through mitigation is to offset the impacts of future commercial development. They want to build additional AH, there’s a great mechanism in place. Lot 57. Contemplated throughout stakeholder discussions. You wanna build dorms, I think it allows for that. But you can’t pass that off as meeting housing mitigations and claim it’s some sort of community benefit.
    • Pete – in some cases, generation went down because we stopped requiring mitigation of seasonal?
    • Tyler – yes. Current masterplan requires largely seasonal. Unique to the masterplan. Proposing to shift to meet new requirements – full-time year-round – surveys of like uses to see how many full-time year-round were generated for every SF. Applicant is required to provide housing for 73% of those employees who can’t afford market-rate housing.
    • Pete – that 73% is of year-round, not seasonal. We excluded seasonal. No requirement anywhere to mitigate for seasonal
    • Tyler – correct
    • Bob – subject to housing req’s in town LDRs. House full-time employees. They’re saying for seasonals, the dorms could be acceptable. That’s OK with me. We have dorms for JHMR. I read they have the right
    • Ryan – we have XX fulltime and YY seasonal at the ski area. It would be nice to be incentivized to house them in resort district, as part of the regs. Maybe there’s a % that could be housed. Because this is a ski resort – larger seasonal situation than maybe some other commercial operation. Year-round employees are not necessarily generated by a lot of what we do.
    • Pete – nothing special about ski resorts. We have seasonals in all of the operations around the county. We require they follow the rules. You asked for ability to build seasonal dorm-style housing. That ability is there. Vine, 53/57/58. When we talk about housing mitigation, we’re trying to mitigate the burden of additional year-round full-time employees that development generates. Not housing for your seasonal employees. That’s your responsibility and we’ve given you the ability to do that wihtin the district. Important don’t conflate them. Not trying to provide housing for employers. Additional development on 53/57/58, KM6, light industrial – that’s gonna generate full-time year-round workers. That’s what we’re intending to mitigate. Not at 100% rate. We should be focusing on that. Certainly you can voluntarily create seasonal housing.
    • Tyler: allow dorm-style units to be used to meet mitigation requirement?
      • Zero in support – REJECTED
      • Don: very serious reasons why I voted against new mitigation rates – this is textbook example. Decided to use averages. Didn’t create a system where we can be creative and proactive. Here we should ask how many full-time and seasonal employees will be generated, then negotiate best result. Instead we have law of averages. That said, council is right – we adopted the rates, meant to mitigate full-time housing, not disputing the conclusion. Just going on record – I think we could have done a better job
      • Jim: that opportunity still exists. We’re in a masterplan. There were rough calcs in 2000. In this instance, applicant is saying ‘we’ll adhere to the regs’ – that’s what was proposed. That’s being portrayed as some kind of generous thing
      • Don – not disputing it
      • Jim – we could take the flexible approach, might be better
      • Don – let’s hold them to the new mitigation rates
      • Pete – I’d be open to anything that serves public better than the rates, but throughout, we’ve been saying – the applicant is going to agree to adhere to the new regs. It changed from that – substantial change – to the entire application. Not saying I’m opposed
      • Hailey – changes how we balance everything else
      • Bob – they say they’ll provide so many housing units. I’m not going to ask who’s full-time or part-time. They’ll use the units to house their employees. And they’re saying they’ll provide more. I don’t care if seasonal people live in basic units. Over time, priority goes to employees most important to their business
    • Tyler: can they put seasonal employees in required units?
      • Bob: yes. Doubt there will be many due to hierarchy
      • Hailey: how do we check this, for anyone?
        • Tyler: you must live and work in TC for 9 or 10 months
      • Hailey: they can house a seasonal employee if that person works in TC for the rest of the year?
        • Tyler: yes. You’re not tied to any employer for ‘year-round’, just in TC
      • Jim: we’re still conflating two things. Employee housing for your employees, mitigation is broad – set of calcs, legal finding that X type of commercial development need Y # FT employees. That’s separate. Housing Dept administers those. Mitigation impacts of further commercial development. Not tied to needs of your business.
      • Tyler: you can control who goes in the units in a rental situation. Sale units go to housing department. Rental they control, if they meet the deed restriction
      • Tyler: request is to put seasonal employees in year-round?
      • Hailey – keep it as is (no)
      • Pete – made decision to focus on year-round, so no
      • Jim – no
      • Don – support condition 20 as written – But don’t like the mitigation regs you passed.
      • REJECTED
      • Tyler: they can try again with percentages, but for now, reject amendment
      • Bob: so if a business wants to build required housing and maintain ownership for their own employees –
        • Tyler – they can
      • Bob – what difference does it make?
      • Tyler – you understand. Rest of council didn’t agree with you
    • 21 – remove language about banking/credits – that’s in LDRs
    • 22 – revise TDM to include additional measures
    • 23 – TDM data
    • 24 – surface parking on KM6 paved, temporarily
    • 25 – TDM
    • 26 – parking counts

Concludes first section

2. Entity requirements & phasing (conditions 28-32)

• Three Qs for each
  • Finalize list of req’s
  • Phase req’s
  • What happens upon post-development failure?
• See table in staff report
• Agree – go through all
• Topics
• 1- Definition of SKRMA membership including shares – before masterplan approval
  • Jim: we got bylaws, some info. I’m still unclear on who’s in SKRMA. One key commercial property – Town Hill Lofts – the condos – still needs town approval for platting. Still Q about whether it’s part of SKRMA. If I were part of resort district, I would want to read bylaws carefully. How are board members chosen? According to masterplan, all property owners and everyone doing business in the district can be subject to dues & fees. 2012 bylaws – if I were in there, I might be concerned about not having representation. When are we gonna get clarity?
  • Jeff: SKMR board member, member of SKRMA. Earlier today we sent a list with SKRMA members as of today. We excluded subarea 7, but rest of properties are in. Former owner of mountain resort who was chairman of SKRMA did exclude one property, prior to our involvement.
  • Jim: regarding the one commercial property. Everybody doing business is subject to any dues, fees, assessments that SKRMA imposes. If this property owner is saying “well I’m not part of SKRMA” – aren’t they still subject to the dues, fees?
  • Jeff: SKRMA does not have an attorney present. We’d have to go back to SKRMA to discuss that. We wanted to make sure we ID’ed who’s in it, and checked assessments have been made the last 4 years as required. I’m not prepared to answer a legal ruling on that question
  • Jim: no fault of your own. My question for council & staff – at a certain point we have to iron it out. If somebody gets a note saying “I’m not participating” – that was not contemplated anywhere in the masterplan, or bylaws. We’re working on law. You can’t get a note from somebody to say you’re exempt from it. Would council direction help clarify? Or to get landowner into compliance?
• 2 – Define minimum resources required to cover SKRMA commitments
• 3 – maintain minimum resources required to cover SKRMA
  • Applicant: will endeavor to propose to SKRMA a .5-1% fee on lodging and ticket sales. Reserve up to $500K.
    • “not to be construed as a funding mechanism for the ski area”
  • Pete: this is where the rubber meets the road. Who has to pay the fees?
  • Pete: would council be interested in split fee, larger, where part would go to the ski area? That seems to be the sticking point for a lot of us.
  • Jim: I read existing paragraph verbatim. Includes recreation as allowed purpose. It’s great to have a funding mechanism and fee. Exact language from SKRMA chapter is broad enough. Allows that possibility. SKRMA could say “we don’t want to support a private business” and put it into the rink, say. This is going in the wrong direction.
  • Hailey: is $500K a minimum? As I read this it’s a maximum. NTE.
  • Ryan: if you read between the lines, go to additional requirements – minimum hours of operation for the ski area. That is a SKRMA requirement that the ski area operate. This reserve could indeed be used, should SKRMA choose to deal with noncompliance issue at ski area, could be one use of the funds. What we’re saying, important to 1 member of SKRMA – we purchased a business and we’re not gonna pay for your business. But should they choose to, they could use this reserve to become in compliance.
    • Not creating massive fund that spirals out of control. Put a cap there.
  • Jim: I have the paragraph – pg 171 – chapter 11 – is this applicant proposal supposed to change that? Or complement?
  • Ryan: complement or clarification. We’re saying if the ski area doesn’t operate, we’d add that in. Not in the current masterplan. We’re trying to clarify that. Seems to be a big request. An addition.
  • Jim: here we’ve got it. Pg 171: “recreation”. This is somewhat of a crux issue here. I prefer the broad language as stated here. I don’t believe precluding one specific form of recreation is a smart move at this point. Allowing the flexibility. This is the crux of the masterplan that we’ve been talking about for 6 years.
  • Ryan: clearly the intent was not to preclude funding recreation. Make clear for constituents of SKRMA that the pot is not there to fund ski area as its sole purpose.
  • Jim: that’s not what the language you submitted states. Says plainly – “not to be construed as a funding mechanism for the ski area”
  • Ryan: I apologize for the language. Intent is to allow funding for recreation, and make it clear this is not specifically for that, but can be used
  • Jeff: create a reserve, if we’re out of compliance we can fund whatever’s inside of there. … We didn’t want it to – the SKMR business didn’t want to encumber the other businesses and say hand it to us to spin the lifts. But if we go out of compliance we can do that
  • Pete: add “solely” after “construed”.
  • Pete: I’m curious about not allowing funds to exceed that balance
    • Ryan: amount is arbitrary, could be more, could be less. Not need for millions and millions of dollars to pile up in this account. That could occur. Setting a cap on it – what is reasonable. You’d build a reserve, spend it, re-fill it
  • Bob: you establish a reserve fund, maintain it at $500K Up to you to spend.
  • Ryan: without a doubt it will fluctuate. Helps prevent one-time assessments. On random condo owner. Fees I contribute from rental of my condo will go into this fund.
  • Don: we all agree this is a fairly mature conversation. First sentence tripped me up. “Will endeavor to propose.” SKRMA has not agreed to this?
  • Ryan: SKRMA agreed to original proposal – the amendment. Planning Dept, Commission, you today are making changes. Whenever it’s concluded, SKRMA will review.
  • Jim: Q for Jeff. Appreciate you’re specifying the fee. This is where it gets messy and complicated in legalese. Going from masterplan, written for people like us to understand. Bylaws tougher to parse. Supposed to be regular assessment every year, and special assessments for certain projects. Reserve fund – great – but you gotta have revenue stream to cover all things SKRMA is supposed to be doing – things that haven’t been done, and any new things. Where does the reserve fund fit into that framework?
  • Jeff: reserve fund – balance we could use to plow roads, pathways; keep an amount that could be used for compliance
  • Jim: so above and beyond annual requirements?
  • Jeff: determining what is the minimum balance of that
  • Pete: less concerned about minimum. You just have to do it or you can’t build more
  • Pete: village?
  • Jeff: not on lift ops. We want to broaden it. Include fee on lift tickets
  • Pete: what is this likely to bring in?
  • Jeff: enough
  • Jim: lack of compliance. Can we say – Lot 53 – you have to improve connectivity all the way to SK Ave. SKRMA is responsible for that. This seems reasonable year-to-year, but given backlog of things that never got done – shouldn’t we raise the bar higher? Or is this enough?
  • Jeff: good Q. Rewind back to lot 53/57/58 discussion. Connectivity would be responsibility of whoever develops that property. SKRMA becomes a mechanism to where if anybody gets out of compliance, there’s a mechanism to pay for it.
  • …
  • Ryan: SKRMA can figure out how much to cover, since SKRMA has to approve all developments
  • Bob: OK maintaining reserve fund of $500K. I’m used to reserve funds in associations. Minimum $500K
  • Hailey: more as the mayor says. We’ll have the requirements, whatever you need to make them happen
  • Pete: I’d like to see 1% or more to deal with backlog, don’t need to worry about reserve fund. If we do our job, you’ll do yours
  • Jim: I like reserve fund, good backstop for compliance. $500K should be minimum
  • Pete: when can it be spent? Language for “keeping the ski area operational”
  • Don: you can bond for 10% of the amount. You could bond 1/2M, have letter of credit for 1/2M. I’m not blasé about having a spare 1/2M in my life. High-risk business.
    • Remember that the gentlemen, members of SKRMA today, are not the same people who did or did not fulfill the obligations. Manuel Lopez is dead. Every time I hear us flogging SKRMA for past deficiencies, I feel we’re blaming the wrong guy. Not all those players are the original players. This group is working in good faith. They are our friends and neighbors. They employ 120 of our fellow citizens. The agenda is to cure, not to flog
  • Jim: for clarity – many members are in fact the same players
  • Don: my comments fall on deaf ears
  • Jim: Mr Lopez was a managing partner. Many entities are the same. The development rights retained today by the members – doesn’t matter if one person is different. That entity is reaping the benefits.
  • Jeff: as relates to guaranteed minimum – we’ll need to use funds. That’s the point of having it. Heard if we’re out of compliance we lose rights, vs. guaranteed amount in the bank – we’d appreciate that approach.
  • Bob: I’m OK if you take out the NTE. You’re collecting 1% fee. All these people are sending you money. You have the minimum. Looks like it operates like a HOA
  • Ryan: we’re OK either way. Nobody in SKRMA is interested in this, it’s a “give,” but we’ll get there
  • Tyler: legal staff will need to work on this, bring back detailed language.
  • Tyler: who supports minimum – starting at $500K?
    • Bob – yes
    • Don – average $250K, max $500K, over 12-month period
    • Hailey – I understand intent as they need enough funds to do the requirements, yet they don’t want to exceed $500K because they want to use them to do the req’s, but $500K is arbitrary # to cure out of compliance issues. I don’t need any # there, I just need the intent. Take out the $500K, or the NTE
    • Audrey: SKRMA is bound by bylaws. They do require annual budget of revenues to carry out requirements for ensuing year. Regular assessments to certain members. Does not apply to all properties. Special assessments. Difficult to make it work. I can talk with their attorney.
    • Jim: agree with Hailey – don’t need dollar figure on annual operations, but I do think it’s good to have minimum for backstop in case of noncompliance. I’m not trying to set #s excessively. This is only 1 requirement: snow removal, lighting, signing, roads, shuttles, marketing, security, events – of many requirements. It may be they need $1M / year to meet requirements.
    • Hailey: if they don’t have enough, they wont be able to come into compliance.
    • Pete: agree. Our goal is to ensure funding is available. .5%, 1% may not be enough. If we need a reserve fund to ensure compliance, we screwed up. I’m comfortable with SKRMA figuring how to do it
    • Bob: agree with how applicant wrote it. For responsibilities of SKRMA, $500K is peanuts
    • Ryan: we are in the camp of the mayor. We’re responsible for the requirements and we’ll embrace it
    • Don: agree with Hailey’s wisdom
    • Jim: still undecided. Appreciate Jeff’s point about finally will collect – that’s what’s been lacking.
  • 4 – annual report for compliance
    • Applicant – every 2 years
    • Hailey – keep it yearly
    • Bob – yearly
  • Maintain current hours of lift operation
    • Applicant – unable to guarantee this
      • Especially after removal of zipline from West side
      • Willing to “strive for” 49 hours, “endeavor to maintain”
    • Hailey – if they go under 49, we say they’re out of compliance? Even with that language?
    • Tyler: I’d recommend the language needs to be much stronger. Needs to be measurable. When is there not compliance? Otherwise shouldn’t be a commitment. Striving is not a commitment. No requirement on endeavor.
    • Jeff: currently operating at roughly 49 hours?
      • Ryan: currently substantially more
    • Jim: having sat through stakeholder meetings. I understand spirit of “maintain current level of operations” – should be an allowance for some flexibility. But no reference to “consultation with stakeholders” – Ski Club, DCF. If there’s any changes, it should be consultation
    • Jeff: what if we open early for lower # of hours? Or avy conditions late-season? 49 hours is what JHMR does. That gives us flexibility for weather, conditions.
    • Bob: we should set season with required daytime hours – Dec – Mar.
    • Ryan: the bulk of use is actually at nighttime after kids get out of school at 3:30. We’ve increased operating hours substantially, open Mondays now. We’re willing to commit to 49 hours on average. Partners will want a say in which hours. Our intent is to be open for business
    • Tyler: bring it back as hard commitment? YES
  • Private shuttle service downtown / Teton Village or contribution to START
    • Applicant – wants alternatives to funding START, like eliminating bus stop at the hotel.
      • Already agreeing to add 3 TDM requirements
    • Hailey: private shuttles allowed in the language already right?
    • Ryan: implied requirement for private shuttle to the Village?
    • Jim: explicitly stated in the masterplan
    • Ryan: we were looking at it differently. We’re downtown, we’re just like any other stop downtown wrt START. We’ll continue to do shuttle. Singling us out differently from other businesses downtown wrt START was the challenging point. There’s one business downtown, there’s many businesses downtown. Why should we have to contribute to START?
    • Pete: unlike every other business in town, you’re in a resort district. Not a fair comparison
    • Jim: not a business. A district. It was agreed to. It’s required. Operating of airport, TV, downtown shuttles. SKRMA is required. You’re mixing up your business with SKRMA. It’s required. It’s fallen by the wayside. You’re trying to wiggle out of the requirement agreed to 18 years ago
    • Bob: the 1% is gonna help em. Those were in there because of how the hotel was involved. Those are services to the hotel guests. Don’t make sense for the mountain part. Hotel should be able to afford on the 1%.
    • Ryan: hotel does have a shuttle service
    • Jim: airport
    • Ryan: we can come back with specifics. But no need to have START stop on hotel property
    • Bob: I heard conversation about stopping at SK with START. Kind thing to do for hotel guests.
    • Tyler: applicant will come back with alternative ideas
    • Pete: it is a concession (from us) if we remove shuttle to TV – OK if we make it up somewhere else
    • Don: I can understand private shuttle downtown, and airport. I don’t understand why SKRMA is shuttling people to Teton Village. Can someone help me? It doesn’t make sense to me 18 years ago, or today. Why would we ask SKRMA to shuttle people to their competitors’ destination?
    • Jim: 18 years ago there were very few runs town to TV. We send more buses today. Part of the masterplan was that SK was helping with overall transportation needs of resort and community. Higher level of service for guests. Shuttle to Village, and downtown. That’s been done away with over 18 years. I’ve had family & friends stay at resort – only shuttle is airport. Burden of helping with transportation was shifted just to town. Instead of SK helping with transportation system. I’m not saying they should have to restart. But if not, how about reasonable contribution to START?
    • Don: today we do have multiple daily START shuttles to Village. Drop Village and have them pay into START – replace that obsolete service.
    • Jim: I think we’re in agreement.
    • Jim: TV resort district has similar mechanisms. Transfer fees on properties for capital costs, and START can provide info about how things are done there. We might be able to take similar approach. Fee is reasonable alternative. They seem to not want the fee.
    • Don: when we talked about revisting JHMR – we were whacking a mole. Soon we’ll be able to know who gets on and off where. … Concerned about using blunt instruments. GPS. … Bill the real beneficiary for real use.
    • Pete: agree with reasonable fee
    • Hailey: fine with either
    • Tyler: a year buffer – OK?
      • Yes
    • Jeff: if there is going to be a fee, instead of just saying ‘determined by START board’ – how about say come back with proposal based on some metric?
    • Don: negotiate it like everything else. Fairness. Not more, not less.
    • Let the negotiations begin
      • Shuttle
      • Fee
      • Etc
    • Define hours of lift operation – sorted
    • Procedural agreement with TOJ about how/when to close for conditions (safety, health, acts of god [sic])
      • Applicant – unwilling to agree to either
      • Tyler – covered hours
      • Pete – OK letting them when to decide to close for conditions
      • Jim: we’ve had serious avalanche danger and they did operate. Massive bombs have shook windows of every house in town and no notification. Procedural agreement is just about the procedure
      • Don: seems everybody announces lifts, avy control, on social media
      • Ryan: we’ll endeavor to communicate
      • Tyler: a commitment?
        • Yes
      • Maintain reasonable ski rates for locals as compared to other resorts (SKM)
      • Define reasonable ski rates for locals
        • Applicant – unwilling to define rates or guarantee specific rates
        • Don: fair statement
        • Bob: agree
        • Hailey: agree
        • Pete: for-profit enterprise, lift rates will be set at what makes the most money
        • Jim: then we will set lease rates to achieve maximum amount for citizens in town. Last time I suggested ways to make skiing affordable to locals – lunch hour – resort has done away with popular 1-2 hour tickets. We’re not saying rate, or discount – that was the kind of community benefit listed at length. That’s gone away. That was always at the heart of having our Town Hill.
        • Ryan: magic carpet – $10 / day for whole family. $150K to put that infrastructure in. Investing in preschool programs, 30 signed up. Our goal is to have community skiing the mountain. Part of what we do. We’re just saying that things can change. Vail dropped season pass to $300. Could happen at JHMR. We have free ski days. We’re trying.
        • Tyler: 4 agree to delete
      • Second sheet of ice
        • Applicant: no commitment (council agrees)
      • Mountain sports center
        • Staff: prior to develop subarea 1-2
        • Applicant: can’t guarantee
        • Tyler: Is it a commitment? Or just something they’re allowed to do. Not part of gives & gets
        • Jim: it was a big part of the SK stakeholder discussion. This gives us zero assurance. Kind of like the way things were written in the old masterplan – no phasing or specificity.
        • Don: I can be helpful. Stakeholder group, bless their hearts, came up with gondolas landing in the middle of my beloved baseball field. Nobody authorized them to make such a suggestion. When people start spitballing about what the world might be, they can come up with all sorts of wondrous Kubla Khan architectures. We backed out.
          • More to the point – idea of an ice sheet is wonderful, but you have to figure out how to pay for it. Mountain sports wonderful, but you have to figure out how to pay for it. No climbing gym because nobody can make it pay. We can come up with combined community contribution. We can’t ask these guys to pay for an ice sheet. That’s not even reasonable. Or to add $5M mountain training facility at their expense, just because folks want one. We can’t fund the rec center expansion, $33M, because we don’t have the money. We don’t have $25M to but the Broadway block, or the $100-150M to buy SK and make it a town-owned hill. We don’t have the $2M per wildlife crossing we’d like to spend on the crossings I support. And we don’t have the $1.2B to close our housing gap. We have to live in the real world. Agreement to have a place to land this thing – that’s a lot. We cant ask applicant to guarantee these.
        • Tyler: one option – provide land, but no commitment to construct
        • Don: if they’ll accommodate the land and be open to working with partners, that’s a great result
        • Ryan: I’m not sure that’s where the intent was – guarantee providing land for unknown use.
        • Don: when I look at masterplan, it shows placeholder of ice sheet and training facility. What’s the point?
        • Ryan: similar to old masterplan – conference center, condos. “They achieved some things, and some things they didn’t get there.” We’d like to build it ourselves.
        • Don: you’d be open to partners?
        • Ryan: yes
        • Jeff: we want to build it. Condition – if it doesn’t get built, no subarea 1/2. Say we can’t do it, work with partners – could be 5-8 years. We wanna build it. But to tell the ownership group of hotel and KM6 that they can do nothing with their property until they figure it out – that’s not ok
        • Bob: sheet of ice?
        • Ryan: no guarantee of donating land. We’d like to endeavor to try to strive to make it happen. Gondola investment – that’s the focus of this plan
        • Hailey: re: ice – placeholder for either location – do we think mountain sports center required more than that? Applicant wants placeholder
        • Pete: public thought it was required. Not sure how we can require that. Community just needs to understand that is not required
        • Jim: resort proposed it. Was promised as part of package that stakeholders worked on – this was a key part. PBP discussion was a lot more nuanced. “Commit to working with” is what got us into this quandary. Predictability / phasing is what we need. They may just build the forprofit things. No community benefit. Phasing is important. Like staff version
        • Don: everything has a value. During times of duress we entered into very generous lease agreements. Now is the time to set market rates for land that is leased. How every many SF of gondola landing is values at market rates. Future landing pad for mountain sports facility is offered at same market-indexed lease rate. I agree gondola is cornerstone of community benefit. Entirely rational that we hope for a partnership to build these other facilities – but they might be built on town land, in which case there’s not an exchange of value.
        • Hailey: don’t agree with how we wrote it
        • Tyler: do we want to require that the applicant build a mountain sports center?
          • Don: no
          • Pete: no
          • Hailey: no, because what if we think Town would do it better
          • Jim: I owe it to the stakeholders – there has to be some trigger. Build, or land.
          • FAILED
        • Tyler: they commit to provide land necessary to build, at market rate
          • Don: or other people do it
          • Pete: or put it in the use for the building envelope
          • Tyler: should they be committed to provide the land?
          • Don: they should be able to talk to the people they represent. I heard them say they’re not willing to commit the land.
          • Ryan: we can’t answer that today. It’s a goal, we’d like to have it on the map, we’d like to consider options. At this state, of masterplan approval, we can’t guarantee that piece.
          • Pete: would you commit to showing it on the map, as the use for that site, unless you get an amendment? So nothing else is going there
          • Ryan: yes
          • Hailey – yes
          • Bob – yes
          • Pete – need a definition of mountain sports facility
          • Don – dimensions would help
          • Show mountain sports center, maybe with 2nd sheet, as only allowed building envelope in subarea 5, other than mountain ops
          • Jim – that’s already been done. This is about do you give the community something up front, or just do the things that will be profitable. That’s nothing.
          • Bob: do you want to leave the trigger?
          • Hailey: let’s move on to the next one
        • Gondola
          • Staff: prior to subarea 1/2
          • Applicant: “unacceptable to restrict the owners of other property from pursuing potential masterplan updates and potential development based on SKMR’s ability to construct this improvement”
          • Hailey: I agree with what we have. The whole point of this is the gondola.
          • Don: agree
          • Jim: agree
          • Bob: agree
          • Pete: agree
          • Later
          • Ryan – this is important to the hotel. Tie to subarea 2, or the lots, but not to the hotel. Makes things extremely uncomfortable for getting this approved.
            • Pete – OK
            • Bob – OK
            • Jim – no. You’re speaking for SKRMA. Hotel is part of it.
            • Ryan: if SKRMA says no, this won’t go anywhere. “Then we didn’t accomplish anything as part of this process.” You’re achieving the same goal – maybe better with these Lots here, that could happen sooner
            • Tyler: prior to subarea 2 and Lots 53-58
            • Bob, Hailey, Don – OK

• PBP improvements
  • Staff: prior to 53/57/58
  • Applicant: “avoid overly burdening ski area operations with unsustainable lease rates and in turn make an upfront capital contribution to the park”
    • Willing to bond
    • Not willing to wait on it
  • Jim: we don’t know what it’ll look like, how do we decide on a bond?
  • Ryan: we don’t want to be open to unknown costs. Can bond.
    • Jumps back to gondola
  • Don: Park Board has vision, but not reviewed by us yet. Nobody knows if/when it’ll be approved or funded. Bond – but how much?
  • Bob: seems like ancillary to when you negotiate the gondola landing. By the time you get there you might have some idea of what they’re thinking for the park, and the dollars.
  • Don: putting my fiduciary hat on – when someone offers us money, we should say yes we’ll take it
  • Larry Pardee – we’ll try to work on this
  • Pete: we’ll sort this out during CUP process, we can require bonding as part of the process.
  • Tyler – yes, that’s when we’ll get to certainty. Do they have to wait for that?
  • Jeff …
  • Ryan: we want to move this forward
  • Jeff: gondola is one of the primary reasons we’re here, but if we did have to wait for a plan to be finalized – that could put this back – 6 months? 4 years? We’d rather have the ability to bond.
    • This is the community’s piece of land. Let’s us give money to the community. Makes it cleaner.
  • Ryan: if economics become untenable – put gondola on private property
  • Jeff: if we propose $100K bond for the park?
  • Bob: I like taking it all up during gondola negotiation
  • Don: agree
  • Pete: not opposed to a bond. Think we’ll know better later. Unless you want clarity now
  • Jeff: Tyler, can this be voted on without having it settled?
  • Bob: “I’m dead for today”
• Revise lease agreements and/or land transfers
  • Pete: this is a good place to stop for now. Time to chew on it.
  • Jim: like the concept

Next steps

• 1 – amend plan subject to conditions
• 2 – make other necessary edits
• 3 – SKRMA review
• 4 – “bring this item back for final consideration at the ___ 2018 Town Council Meeting”

• Tyler: absent all the details, I don’t know that anyone’s comfortable
• Need a motion to continue to date certain
• Don: I do have comments to make on FS recommendations. 7 items.
  • Gondola – yes
  • Zipline town – no
  • Zipline private – yes
  • Summit multi-use – yes
  • Summit beginner – yes
  • Backside – yes
  • Boundary expansion / road – I’ve tried to be helpful setting expectations. Location and expansion is a national-level FS decision. We should make our wishes known, but not obstruct that process.
• Next meeting
  • 12th?
  • Hailey – suggest next week
  • Don: shoulder surgery Weds
  • 9am Thursday 12/13
  • Jim: Thursday 12/20?
    • Don: sure. Time for all parties to respond
    • Hailey: have to end by 5
    • Jim: 3pm?
  • Ryan: sooner is better
  • Audrey: I think part of your decisionmaking is about whether you’re doing ordinance readings.
  • Hailey: let’s continue this, we haven’t gotten to that point
  • Audrey: if you wait for the 20th – no time
  • Jim: what we’ve been doing is extraordinary. Pace, hours. No other application would be expedited in such a manner. Patient approach is in everyone’s interest.
  • Don: can do 13 or 20
  • 2:30-5pm on the 20th

10:16pm