Town Council meeting notes: Dec 20 re: Snow King

Town Council meeting notes: Dec 20 re: Snow King

Notes from December 20 Town Council meeting

Summary: The council wouldn’t approve a zipline landing (meaning the zipline is a “maybe,” not a “yes” on the east side by Rafferty – and a “no” on the Phil Baux side). They’re open to a new housing mitigation idea, but only if it’s actually better than the normal rules. They want the SKRMA fee to actually exist, and fund ski operations. And they are not sending the Forest Service a letter of support for expansion in wildlife habitat – or anything else other than a gondola, really.

Note: 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. And see the agenda / staff report here.

Also, learn more about our Snow King work here.

 

Key speakers: Mayor Pete Muldoon, Councilors Don Frank, Jim Stanford, Hailey Morton-Levinson, Bob Lenz. Snow King developers: Ryan Stanley and Jeff Golightly. Town planning director: Tyler Sinclair.

 

Presentation – Tyler – 3pm start

  • Agenda
    • Conditions 1-27 (28) – chap 1-10
    • Conditions 28-32 – requirements
    • USFS comments

 

Conditions 1-28

  • No discussion

 

Conditions 28-32 – Tyler’s table

  • SKRMA membership – no additional info
    • Jim: I want to make sure we’re getting a very detailed picture. Came up on Monday [re: Town Hill Lofts] – town attorney should be able to vouch for there being a successor to those requirements.
    • Pete: need to be clear about the basis for assessment here
    • Tyler: these are more general conditions, they’ll come back to you in the revised masterplan
  • Resort fee
    • Tyler: revised based on your discussion
    • Jim: want to be clear that recreation is included
    • Tyler: this in addition to the current language
    • Jim: should say how much fee we expect this fee to generate, so the community has a sense of what’s the commitment. Know there’s a long list of what needs funding – maintenance
    • Tyler: you want to add that now?
    • Jim: yes – projections of what we could expect. $50K or $500K? Two different things entirely for the community, this is a crux issue. We wanna know we’re in the right ballpark
    • Tyler: possible additional condition – provide estimate of projected revenue to be collected based on 1%
    • Hailey: I’m comfortable with the wording, I don’t need the numbers up front
    • Don: red pen day. Eminently clear & fair that we the community understand who is obligated as a member of SKRMA, and that each of those entities have made the commitment to contribute. We know in some economic cycles those will be higher or lower. Who’s in, and commitment – that’s what I want.
    • Pete: if we’re going to come up with a %, we ought to have some basis to evaluate if it’s the correct #. Without that information, it feels like we picked the first number we could come up with, which is “1”. It could be 2, or 1/2. I’d like to have the information.
    • Bob: I have some thoughts. Left it at 1/2%, 1%, but it says the applicant shall assess… … goin in the right direction, but I don’t quite understand. Seems ambiguous. For the mountain? I don’t know where the money’s gonna go.
    • Tyler: absolutely, they would be required to do it. Some discretion as to – SKRMA would control what the funds would be used for, the broad list of what’s in the masterplan. But if and when any requirements are not being met, those funds are to be used to make those commitments happen. Mountain is an example. Not limited to that. It could be used to keep the lifts running – SKRMA could allocate them for that. At the discretion of SKRMA.
    • Jim: we need some figures. We’re talking a minimum of 1%. Hotel charges a $30-35/night fee “resort fee” – that’s like 12-15%, we’re only talking 1%. That fee gets collected by hotel and Grandview condos, is not shared with SKRMA as far as I know.
    • Tyler: restates new condition
  • Minimum balance – council was OK without
  • Annual report – based upon SKRMA fiscal year
    • Bob: at my condo association I can tell you who owns the properties, who rents them, who’s responsible. I have a list of who’s in SKRMA, that’s nice.
    • Tyler: include current membership and contact info
    • Bob: membership if it’s LLC you just got a representative, but somewhere you gotta know how you contact them
    • Hailey: …
    • Pete: if we’re going to require an assessment, we’ll need to know who’s being assessed
    • Bob: at the moment it’s just a nebulous bunch of names on a page to me, other than Max
    • Jim: Bob FYI we said they need to clarify who covers for Crystal Creek condos
  • TDM plan has not changed
  • Parking has not changed
  • Responsibility for infrastructure – hasn’t changed
  • Table of commitments – will go into masterplan
  • Hours of operation – no changes
  • START contribution
    • Applicant wants to clarify – shuttle or START?
    • Tyler: figure it out later
    • Pete: what if we can’t arrive at a resolution?
    • Tyler: suspend all development in the masterplan until reach agreement
    • Jeff G: we thought we heard the option was still there to provide our own shuttle, instead of just a contribution. Hope we can still operate that way
    • Jim: OK with that
    • Don: I’m feeling strident today. So how do we measure that? I think we should be flexible – either a private shuttle or contribution. In contribution language we have a metric. Shuttle for 50 a day? 100 a day? Shuttle could be a 2-seat bicycle. I’m trying to be lighthearted here. We need to quantify what a shuttle means. A Gillig or a Fiat 500?
    • Jim: good point. Framework of those 3 parties negotiating based on a metric, deadline of end of 2019 – could incorporate Don’s point in. Is shuttle significant?
    • Pete: if we’re talking about suspending development rights, we need to be really clear. Shouldn’t be requiring something unreasonable to stall development.
    • Bob: when it comes to shuttles between Village and here, that’s already provided for by START and the Village. Contribution to START makes sense.
    • Tyler: SKRMA fees could come into play. A START fee, is that’s how SKRMA wants to pay that fee. Take a year to sort it out.
    • Bob: 1% fee to public transportation makes a lot of sense
    • Jim: let’s be careful – 1% may not go very far. Until we get the projection – hotel & condos are assessing 12-16% per night, calling it a resort fee, not sharing it with the resort, using it to operate their airport shuttle. 1% is a really small amount when you’re talking about resort fees
    • Hailey: “next”
  • Avalanche control
    • Applicant wants to say “do its best”
    • Bob: notify who? Public works? Radio? I just expect when you have snow you have avalanche control, boom boom boom, then it stops. Why should it be in here, other than for exceptional situations closing roads, have hazards?
    • Hailey: issue was town citizens were surprised by noise level or whatnot. We put it in here to disseminate information
    • Bob: if you have people skinning or hiking up the hills off hours
    • Jim: ski patrol usually puts signage to intercept them. Not talking about usual boom boom boom, but rattling windows – people wondering if there’s another AmeriGas. Reasonable. Do a better job before we freak everybody out with something extraordinary
    • Bob: ah ok
  • Ice area – “commit to work with the town & other partners” – not required, but they’ll cooperate & work with
  • Mountain sports facility – same
    • Jim: stakeholder group – to the extent they had any support for gondola landing and other things, it was predicated on MSC being the centerpiece – that guided discussions and support. We’ve received public comment. A lot of people have been caught by surprise. We’re getting “we’re gonna try.” In the interest of efficiency, I’ll say – Bob has brought this up – perhaps the applicant should deed the land immediately west of the rink, for the purpose of that facility. Gives us time to work out the deal, partnerships can be pursued. Commitment to “try” is not much, not a foundation everybody else can rest on.
    • Bob: when we talk about lease costs, those things will cream up and be possibilities. Cost of using our part of the mountain and PBP, I’m just guessing that will be part of it, we’ll come up with an answer that satisfies the town and the mountain
    • Don: I’ve spoken to quite a few stakeholders. But when I saw 4 scenarios I was gobsmacked that anyone thought they could offer up the center of PBP for a gondola landing. I’ve tried to respond to P&R board who wanted to move the landing uphill, now we’re saying it’ll generally be adjacent to the existing lift. Scenario in which community would be giving the heart of PBP, and we’re not doing that.
      • If applicant is legally obligated to dedicate that piece of land, that would be very similar – when we committed to $1.6M for Redmond St Rentals – we agreed that was the only use that could have. Once we encumbered it, it’s no longer a merchantable item. If we require that physical area can only house a MSC, that’s a significant value. Has a dollar value – very significant contribution.
    • Jim: I might concur with Lenz. We’re here to sort through remaining items on MP amendment. Subsequent, after we bake that, we would have lease negotiation. Is that the time we can talk about a quid pro quo, I’m comfortable with that. “Shall commit to work with” isn’t much of a commitment
    • Don: if the land is committed, indelibly, we’ll receive something of value. Any transfers of public and private land should be done fairly
    • Tyler: leases – applicant has made a proposal for gondola landing
  • Gondola
    • You agreed: gondola built before Lot 53, 57, 58
    • Applicant wants that tied to the zipline, not lots 53-58
    • Jim: In concept I’m OK with the change. But that’s saying ‘the zipline’ as if it’s going to be built. We said no to the west side, at best maybe on the east side. This seems to be assuming this is a yes. I’m still not comfortable with that, period. At what point do we have to revisit that item?
    • Applicant has requested you to revisit that today
    • Don: should we discuss Audrey’s memo from today?
    • Don: cliff notes – when we ask someone who owns land to say ‘mother may I’ before they can use their land, we’re constraining them. I want to make sure we’re not walking on some thin ice here. Completely agree we should have strong input on what is or is not build on public land. Lighter influence on what’s built on private land and Forest Service. Our purview is public land.
    • Tyler: good comment. We’ve structured this more direct of this before that, public benefit before private development. Does phasing plan need to change to be packages of improvements – may be one way to address that. This table’s going to go away. Bundles.
    • Jim: original 2000 masterplan had constraints, mentioned phasing, didn’t have much specificity, that’s why staff has ID’ed this as weak spot, attempt to put in more specificity & accountability. I’m comfortable with staff’s suggestion. Not as concerned about going out on thin ice. Applicant went there 18 years ago
    • Pete: to be clear – 53/57/58, then gondola, then zipline and/or subarea 2?
    • Tyler: applicant: delete 53/57/58 in this phase
    • Bob: I’m OK with KM6 before zipline. Gondola is heart of the project
    • Jim: yes, but “a” zipline. Not presuming a zipline.
    • Don: let’s all keep in mind that FS has a guiding document that lists the things that are acceptable in these resort zones, which inc downhill MTB, ziplines, mountain coasters. If it’s contemplated on private land and FS approves it, it’s outside our charter to stop it
    • Jim: [shakes his head]
    • Tyler: if zipline lands on private property, there’s dual approvals – FS and town
  • PBP improvements as defined by CUP
  • Zipline
    • Tyler: they can propose it. No indication in sketch plan where it would be located. Applicant is asking to sketch out the landing
    • Hailey: have to be CUP?
    • Tyler: yes.
    • Tyler: applicant wants landing in the sketch plan, as part of your approval. Still need CUP to define operational characteristics – noise, lighting – but they’d know this is the landing site
    • Bob: “landing area may be proposed in subarea 4 only, with CUP”

 

Forest Service discussion

  • Applicant wants town council recommendation, subject to further environmental or socio-economic information coming out after completion of Town review
  • Tyler: chart…

 

Recommendation Comments
Gondola on town property Yes Exact location subject to Town CUP
Zipline on town No
Zipline in subarea 4 Maybe Exact location subject to town CUP
Boundary expansion / road No Comment
Summit multi-use building / observatory Maybe Pending EIS
Summit beginner terrain Maybe Pending EIS
Back side of the mountain improvements Maybe Pending EIS (Critical wildlife habitat?)
Lift on south side of the mountain

 

  • Jim: can you think of any other instance when a private entity has asked the town to endorse its projects? Like asking BCC to endorse something on behalf of JHMR. Strikes me as extraordinary request. We made our comments during scoping. BT NF is embarked on a process, we signed on to that, we’re working at staff level to help it, we’ve said we would wait and join that process at the appropriate time. Seems strange to be weighing in and trying to lobby in the middle of that process in a manner that I’ve never seen for any other development in Teton County
  • Bob: I don’t know about TC, but I’d think Mt Crested Butte would have the support of that county, Mt Village next to Telluride, probably would. Beaver Creek and Vail I’ll bet these developments, I’d think the govts would support them. They don’t say you have to do it. If you don’t have consensus just put it down. …
  • Don: we don’t have to be adamant, we can just say we’re neutral. Need to be sensitive to needs of our friends and neighbors trying to plan for the longterm vitality of the resort. I’m going to remind everybody about something Tyler said. Town as heart, Cache St beam of barbell, resort is other economic engine of our town. Don’t have to encourage a boundary expansion, and don’t have to discourage it. We can just be neutral and see what the FS says about it. Much more fair than for this body to use its weight to say ‘thou shalt not’. We can say ‘thou shalt not’ on town property
  • Pete: I tend to agree with Don. When you look at say backside, a lot of the feedback is this is wildlife habitat, mule deer, valid concerns perhaps. I met with consultant doing EIS and FS, they went through it, explained how they’re collecting data, collaring deer. To me – there’s a concern about wildlife. I don’t have the info, they’re out gathering it. Seems premature to weigh in on some or all of these, in the context of the environmental impacts which seem paramount – without knowing anything about them. That is the basis we’d be using. At a loss to proceed.
  • Tyler: you can be neutral, let the scoping letter you sent speak for itself
  • Jim: …
  • Tyler: the motion is whether you’re interested in writing a letter?
  • Don: as always we’re dedicated to a process includes everybody’s wishes and concerns. We could say TOJ views resort area as a resort area. And activities appropriate in FS view are acceptable to us. Not this this and that, but we have committed in comp plan – this is where resort is, what it does, what we want it to be. I don’t know why we wouldn’t state the obvious – this is where resort activities are supposed to live
  • Bob: wise to state the obvious. You just said zipline is allowed put it wherever, but we don’t want it on the west side. It’s proper we tell the FS no we don’t agree with that. Proper we say we would like a gondola. It’s the game-changed for Jackson. Yes, we’re interested. You can do what you want with zipline in area 4, but looks like probably we would do that. Boundary expansion road, I don’t think we have consensus on that. Guy feeling – summit building, we could live with that. If you don’t agree with beginner terrain or backside, no comment
  • Don: I’d like to handle it right now
  • Jim: SKR masterplan is rooted in comp plan of 1994, zoning was vested in 94. Div 2500: encourage rec activities that rely on indigenous natural attributes, .. Have had longstanding beneficial role – skiing, skating, tubing, hiking, horseback riding, summer chairlift and alpine slide. This was agreed to a long time ago. While FS may allow types of amenities Don said, does not mean SHALL. Resort district was created – adheres to a higher standard. Mountain coaster was not in FS directive, is only on private land. You could say coaster is just an alpine slide. Zipline does not meet comp plan that this masterplan is rooted in.
  • TOJ adopted comp plan by resolution not ordinance. We did not know what we knew in 2000, we didn’t know in 2000 what we knew in 2012. I’m a little soft on tablets chiseled into stone.
  • Tyler: OK with it as I highlighted?
  • Zipline in area 4 – yes
    • Hailey – “if at all” instead of a blatant yes. “Maybe?”
    • Don: “maybe” is a good word
    • Pete: we’ll talk about sketch plan vs CUP
    • Tyler: “maybe” for now
  • Boundary / road
    • Hailey: undecided
    • Bob: undecided
    • Jim: no
    • Don: maybe
    • Hailey: undecided is different than maybe
    • Tyler: no comment
    • Hailey: we’ve at least discussed the ziplines, but we haven’t discussed this
    • Tyler: you commented generally in your scoping letter
  • Summit building
    • Bob: yes
    • Don: absolutely
    • Hailey: generally yes, have heard public comment in the majority saying yes we’d like to see something better than Pano house, or an upgrade to it
    • Jim: maybe. Premature, havent seen FS analysis
    • Pete: pending EIS
    • Tyler: maybe, pending review of the exact location, bulk & scale, uses and the USFS EIS
  • Summit beginner terrain
    • Don: yes
    • Jim: maybe. On some days gloriously sunny and tranquil, others worst place in the valley. Maybe – process w/ FS
    • Bob: no comment
    • Hailey: maybe
    • Pete: maybe
    • Tyler: maybe, pending EIS
  • Backside
    • Tyler: no addl comment
    • Don: I’m not averse, think it’s appropriate to see if the FS thinks that habitat is critical, or reasonable to allow multi-uses
    • Jim: I’ll keep an open mind. Strikes me as impractical. Maybe, sure. Within permit boundary, so I’m a maybe
  • Lift on south side
    • Don: if they approve one they’ll approve the other
    • Tyler: maybe, pending EIS
    • Don: conceivable, if FS allows summit, beginner terrain, lift, conceivable that a person skiing SK could be warm?
      • Maybe

 

Tyler – proposals from applicant

  • Lease, zipline landing, housing
  • Pete: let’s dig into housing while we have time and April’s here
  • BREAK
  • Bob: lease, that’s down the line

 

 

HOUSING

  • Jeff – we met internally with SKRMA. Jim brought up potential transition with the hotel. We’ve had to relook housing to get buyin from the entire group, and frankly, it’s put us in an awkward position, I’ll just throw it out there. We’ve tried to develop a program re housing where we’re trying to add some more community benefit, vs current LDRs – current of the day [?]. Few things we’re asking, few things are gives back.
    • Rewinding to stakeholder. Discussion – ‘should we do a seasonal and a year-round type mitigation rate’? And SG came back to – just stick to current regs. At one point there was a strong discussion about we generate a lot of seasonals. We shouldn’t have our employees impacting – we should house all our employees
    • Mayor: you said most businesses have seasonal swell and shrink, seasonal flows. I want to put in context difference between us, one-size-fits-all comments from Don resonated
    • Our district quadruples. Employees in off-season vs on-season, size quadruples
    • I talked to a downtown hotel – their food&bev doesn’t change at all in off-season, lodging employee base increases by 15%. We’re quadrupling.
    • If we’re mitigating solely the year-round vs year-round and seasonal – we generate far more seasonal
    • We want to be able to house seasonals in our workforce housing
    • We want some of the product mix to skew more toward seasonal type housing
    • We know that’s a big ask, because it’s not what we spent a year discussing
    • How do we mitigate that? One thought we had is what if we said we’ll mitigate all the year round, like anyone else, then we add to what we’re required to mitigate
    • So we add an extra 20% of seasonal generation
    • And we’ve found some people think a benefit: increase # of lower tiers of economic spectrum. Create more of the heavier-rate-restricted units. Right now there’s a spectrum of multiple levels, it’s set of what you can charge in rent. We’d be willing to restrict more of ours at a lower level – more opportunity for people who make less. We’d generate less revenue, create more opportunity for lower-income employees
    • Asking 2 things, giving 2 things
    • Asking for the ability to work with staff to develop a program like this that we can come back with that’s more baked. Get public feedback, move something forward at the next meeting
  • Jim: I concur, you have been placed in an awkward position – trying to untangle commitments from 18 years ago. Resort has talked in recent months about using your own property on Vine to build employee housing. That’s in resort’s best interest, employee housing. I think we’re talking about Lots 53-57-58, subarea 1, subarea 2. Is that correct? On those you’d meet the current, just change distribution of income levels?
    • Jeff: we are asking to be able to use all those spaces in addition to Vine St. Asking to count seasonal employees, to place them in the units we create, and ability to change skew of 1-2-3BR requirement to fit our needs
    • Jim: so you’re saying use Vine St to fulfill the requirements, or additional?
    • Jeff: as a portion of it. … I feel like I’m not getting somewhere you’re needing to me.
    • Pete: if required employee housing could all be done on Vine, you could do it all there, it could take the place of the already-contemplated employee housing on Vine St?
    • Jeff: if it could fit, yes. We would have to do an analysis
  • Hailey: I’m not clear either on what you’re proposing. Tyler is a little more clear?
  • Tyler
    • “Gets” for town
      • Additional requirement to house 20% of SKMR seasonal
      • Provide 75% of total rental units in 0-50% AMI
    • “Gets” for applicant
      • Allow seasonal employees to reside in all housing
      • Allow flexibility to determine unit mix inc dorms
  • Hailey: we said no to your gets; now you’re offering something in return?
    • Jeff: yes
  • Pete: looking at what we’ve agreed upon already – Vine St is employee housing. When we talk about ‘get’s – that’s not a ‘get’. We’ve already got that.
    • Seasonal employees – typically lower income, probably in or near 0-50%. Not really a get
    • Additional 20% – kind of a get, if you can’t already house them on Vine St
    • I’m trying to figure out what the new get is for us, or if we’re just converting old gets into new ones
  • Jeff: we understood Vine St that it could be used for housing, not just seasonal. I didn’t realize that your perception of Vine St was it couldn’t be used for workforce housing mitigation.
  • Pete: my understanding was it was for housing for employees.
  • Hailey: shouldn’t we be looking at this separate? We’re just talking about mitigation in general for whole district. We don’t need to look at the spot, just looking at overall mitigation
  • Pete: but to the extent they would have built seasonal housing there anyway…
  • Hailey: with current LDRs, when we denied their proposal, they don’t have to house any seasonal employees
  • Pete: I understood they recognized they would have to build housing for their employees there
  • Jim: I was under the impression that Vine was employee housing, in SKMR best interest to do that. Ryan pitched it to us a number of meetings ago after running afoul of the law with a rental situation in E Jackson. Here’s a resort acting in its own best interest. Resort was going to house ITS employees. Lots 53/57/58, subarea 1 – contemplated a rough doubling of commercial/lodging – that’s a significant amount of additional housing. Not just at current mitigation rates, you’re saying you’d go above and beyond – right?
  • Jeff: yes, current of the day LDRs – and then an extra 20% for SKMR seasonal
  • Tyler: 20% of seasonal at the mountain. If there’s 100, they’d have to house 20. Right now they have to house 0.
  • Jim: if you think about condos on 53-57-58 as proposed, and rough doubling of ldoging at hotel – significant additional housing based on current mitigation rates.
  • Ryan!: ability to house seasonal employees in the district in the units
  • Tyler: in all the units
  • Ryan: potentially. We realized the units required to be built can’t house seasonal employees. You have to build 20-30 units, and our employees wouldn’t be able to live in them. 100+ seasonal employees we have, and more at the hotel. Being able to house these employees within the district… takes pressure off the community.
  • Pete: perhaps way forward. This is un-fully-baked. I wouldn’t want to begin to make any judgement without talking to housing director
    • Throughout this process, idea of hewing to new mitigation rates – whoel thing predicated on doing that. Immeasurable benefit. Clear decision that requiring mitigation for seasonal employees does not meet that benefit. Wouldn’t want to go backwards. Probably some # of seasonal employees that would provide an equal benefit. Would need to know relative values. I suspect 1.2 of them is not a year-round unit, but there’s probably some #. April?
    • Understanding that housing isn’t supposed to provide housing for employers. Maybe some mix. Don’t think it’s 1.2, don’t want to guess
  • Tyler: so 20% is not enough. Comments on other points?
  • Don: to allow seasonal employees to reside in all required housing. I understand it’s heavy on seasonal employees, but you do have obligation to house your full-time employees, jobs created by future development. If you have to do that, at least some of the units have to be appropriate for full-time workers, families, kids. You can take a unit built for family, and use it for seasonals – is there a harm to us allowing it?
    • Dorms are not appropriate for families. Only for seasonal. You can put anybody you want in a 1-3BR, but not in a dorm.
  • Tyler: not interested in allowing seasonals in “all”
  • Bob: this applies to condos?
  • Jim: I agree. Suggest charts – # generated, etc
  • Hailey: generally interested. Like that applicant has increased mitigation from 2000, maybe even going further. Recognize resort zone justifies a different lens

 

 

Zipline landing area

  • Applicant: approve zipline in sketch plan. Final review in CUP
    • Just up from the hotel
  • Don: can’t we land it in the pool?
  • Bob: I want it to land in a place that fits into the general activity of the bottom of Rafferty – lifts and all that jazz
  • Jim: I recommend we eliminate this. We’ve heard for years from all over E Jax that coaster has brought level of intrusion and disturbance to what a person might reasonably expect when trying to enjoy quiet title to their property. We all like to have fun, we’ve all joked about it. When I hear shrieking going all all day, into the evening – but as someone further than me observed last summer – really it sounds like a 13 year old girl being murdered over and over. That’s the shrieking, the level of disturbance. After we’ve heard about complaints about this being unregulated and unlimited – why we would consider adding to it – that would be literally turning a deaf ear to all those people in much of east Jax.
  • Tyler: you would not be in favor of adding it in the sketch plan?
    • Jim: no
  • Tyler: leave it as now – they can apply for location
  • Hailey: I think leave it, apply all together. I don’t think of it like Jim does. I think it’s just more appropriate to look at it as its own CUP.
  • Pete: I don’t think we have enough information to say yes or no. Not going to weigh in with FS, not getting a good idea of what a ziplien brings to the table, in the form of its impacts.
  • Pete: not sure what the advantage is if we do say yes. Operational aspects are where rubber meets the road anyway. We can put it up there and not use it
  • Don: this is a 2-part Q. Do we generally think it should live there? If FS allows it, yeah I think it should generally live there. Real Q is oeprational characterists. My experience around zipliens is limited. Been on 4. HI, Costa Rica. Never heard anybody yelling. Most people just hang on for dear life and get to the bottom. Others may shriek. Just as we try to modulate – we’re soon going to talk about Tribal Trails Rd. Reaonsble people say if you build a road you need traffic quieting devices, speed bumps. We can say let’s start with these hours of operation, and if ok, expand. And right to reduce. This thing can be modulated. I don’t think we have to presume that it’s not a good thing, and I think we can control the reality of it. We also have the right to modulate the coaster use if it’s just too noisy for the residents, we can revisit it and say no you have to start later and stop earlier. Not a black & white situation. Make it so they can serve the intended purpsoe – offer folks a fun recreational experience – and reasonably protect the quiet & joy of the neighbors’ properties
  • Bob: not against the zipline, but not ready to say it can be right there
  • Tyler: majority would reject. We’ll bring it back as CUP
  • [Jeff raises hand]
  • Jeff: I’d just like to take a moment. One of the reasons we came through the door with an application. 4 years ago Ryan wrote the initial letter, before I was with SK. I came on a couple years ago. One of the goals was to develop the recreational side of the hill. We hired consultants, brought people out, looked at how we could grow & develop the mountain, how we can make it work and sustain for next 80 years. Out of the base area masterplan we had 4 goals
    • What we want
      • Clarity on lots – in the plat for the lots. Signed by mayor OK For condos, one had permit pulled, lack of clarity. Strong argument could be made that’s what those were intended for.
      • Gondola landed on public land. That one for us – for SKMR ops – we’re OK with it landing on its current location. Doesn’t serve community’s needs as well there. How tight it is with race lanes, with tubing, with the new condos
      • Zipline. To be able to be landed somewhere on the base.
      • Also kind of idea that there’s support for items that impact that – we were hoping a letter Forest would say we accept a gondola, zipline landing here.
    • In exchange, willing to put something on the other side to create balance – clarification – but hasn’t been working in favor of the district
      • 1% fee that clearly says we’re entitled to charge a fee, can be used – we’re now saying shall – that’s a very big difference.
      • Was a specific workforce housing rate for the district that wouldn’t include much housing at all. It’s more than $50M, if entire amount of the district is built out
      • 34 amendments. 30-31 went on the side of community benefit, not towards easing restrictions.
      • In addition, a lot we threw in voluntarily
    • What I’m trying to get to – on the gives & gets, we’re asking for 4 items. It is critically important that we know that what we’re giving, whether seen as clarification by some, but they have real economic impact for us
    • In order for us to move forward, we need some clarity here. I’ll leave it there
  • Jim: thanks. Clarifying and putting teeth in regs, no fault of your own, have been neglected or never carrying through – putting that house in order should not be seen as a community benefit. All of our responsibility. Appreciate your wilingness to show leadership working in resort district.
    • I’m sure as a stakeholder, when SG began meeting, many provided fact sheets – basic facts about their interests. Weighing different benefits. Ski Club – ski racing events – kids from all over buy lift tickets, it’s gone up to $49 / day. At the end of the season, that directly contributed something like 1/4M revenue directly to resort. Economic impact to town is more like $2.5M – lodging etc. When I look at that on fact sheet, and I read 2000 masterplan – that’s the way this resort was supposed to function. Something we can all get behind
    • I understand youre trying to generate more revenue. Why not look to generate it in that manner, indigenous natural attributes of the area, like in comp plan – and it’s our heritage – and why town spearheaded $1.5M investment, so we could have early-season training
    • I feel for you, youre trying to propose a way forward, but we have a way already. Why not try with mountain sports center? Go in that direction?
  • Pete: we have a hard stop at 5pm
  • [Jeff and Ryan conferring]
  • Hailey: what’s next?
  • Tyler: motions below
  • Jeff: not trying to dodge your comment, but we’ll save it for the next conversation
  • Don: gonna remind everybody, answer Jim. Reason SKMR needs revenue 12 months of the year is because no ski resort in existence can live on winter revenue. None. Not in Europe, US, Canada, South America. 2011 Ski Area Recreational Improvement Act – climate change, demographics – less predictable. If you want to keep these resort areas healthy, you need to allow them to have revenues, allow people to enjoy natural attributes in summer as well as winter. I’m not a cultural prescriber. It’s not up to me to decide which activity my fellow citizens of the US enjoy. I know we have people who like to do first ascents and class V. Others like to float along with Jim and get a quiet and tranquil experience of river running. Those are both valid. If I were younger, I’d like to climb the N Face of the grand. Now – ropes course, or zipline, or guided climb of the Grand. We cant ask SK to plan to be financially successful, with one hand tied behind their back and hopping on one leg. If FS will allow them to land a zipline on their own land, it’s OK with us. Or if you want to say you absolutely don’t want to allow a zipline, then say it Jim
  • Bob: item A still needs to be tweaked up.
  • Tyler: if you don’t schedule for date certain, will need to re-advertise. May be appropriate. Make motions and not set date certain. So far, bringing back at date certain. You could continue to Jan 7.
  • Bob: seems apropos to move forward on letter to FS
  • Pete: I suggest Jan 7 for date certain, whether prepared or not
  • Ryan: we hoped to conclude this discussion with you all as a group, before the next group. If we can come back with fully baked housing proposal. But up to you guys
  • Hailey: is housing main outstanding item?
  • Tyler: yes
  • Jim: also SKRMA
  • Tyler: ask applicant if they want clarity on housing chapter
  • Pete: Christmas then holidays, earliest date would be Weds, two dates – a lot to ask staff. This is pretty complex. If miraculously we were ready on the 2nd, I’d call a special meeting. I woudlnt want to put pressure on our staff to bring this back fully baked. I know it might be disappoiting. Suggest look on the 7th. If ready, discuss, or at minimum continue to date certain
  • Jim: can we give direction to work with housing staff?
  • Tyler: just moving to continue the item until Jan 7
  • Bob: move to continue P18-018 to Jan 7 – workshop or regular meeting? Regular meeting.
  • Hailey second
  • All in favor
  • Bob: move to write letter to FS
  • Hailey second
  • All in favor

 

Other comments

  • Don: extremely pleased with outcome of this election – Arne & Jonathan. Completely confident new council will carry on this and other items with great integrity, transparency, and good intentions. Thank Arne & Jonathan for being brave or foolish enough.
  • Jonathan: thank Don & Bob
  • Hailey: perhaps last meeting for us 5 – been a pleasure serving with you 2. I’ve only gotten emotional one other time on the bench. I will miss you greatly
  • Jim: resolution Jan 7 to thank them
  • Pete: thank you
Phone: (307) 733-9417
info@jhalliance.org
685 S. Cache St. PO Box 2728
Jackson, Wyoming 83001