Town Council Meeting Notes: February 4

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.

All council present

Staff: Tyler, Audrey, Johnny Z

Developer: Ryan & Jeff, Jessica J

Media: Cody & co

Audience: Patty, Kevin, Amelia, Tisa, Marisa, Leah, Skye, Shane (736pm); Mo

Tyler – Agenda

• Forest Service
• Housing / zipline
• Leases – motion to put on upcoming workshop

Item A: I move to direct staff to 1) work with the applicant to amend the Snow King Planned Resort District

Master Plan subject to the conditions from the February 4, 2019 staff report pursuant to the Town Council

direction provided at this meeting, 2) make any other necessary edits to the satisfaction of the Planning

Director and Town Attorney, 3) obtain SKRMA’s formal position on the revised amended conditions; and 4)

once staff has obtained SKRMA’s formal position on the amendments, bring this item back for final

consideration by Town Council at the March 18, 2019 Regular Town Council meeting.

Item B: I move to continue Item P18-208, a Sketch Plan for the Snow King Planned Resort District Master Plan, to March 18, 2019.

Item C: I move to direct staff to draft a letter to the United States Forest Service outlying comments on the Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project Proposal as described in this report and as modified by Council at this meeting for consideration at the March 4, 2019 Town Council meeting.

Item D: I move to direct staff to place on an upcoming Town Council workshop and/or regular meeting discussion of Lease Agreements between the Town and Snow King Mountain and any other entries including the review of current lease agreements, options for amendments and consideration of other mechanisms to achieve the desired outcomes including but not limited to a land swap(s) associated with the implementation of the Snow King Planned Resort District Master Plan and the United States Forest Service Master Plan.

Forest Service

Tyler

• Applicant wants either specific letter with ‘maybe’ become ‘yes’, or a general letter of support for overall proposal on the mountain
• This is not part of formal planning application
• Applicant provided additional information, esp on road

Discussion

• Pete: go in order of the motions?
  • Jeff: we would like clarity on item 3. Will inform our ability to get SKRMA to approve all the concessions in 1, 2, 4
• Pete – start with item 3 (FS)
• Hailey – so it all hangs on the letter – to lighten the mood. Tyler: what do you think about telling FS something now, vs what we said in October, vs not saying it now?
  • Tyler: I think your letter of Oct 1 fulfilled your role as Cooperating Agency. They asked you to ID issues you want them to explore & further analyze, which improvements you want to see alternatives on, study further. That’s what you did. You fulfilled your obligation. The request in front of you is what the applicant would like you to do, so they have more assurance as they go to FS, and update town masterplan book. But you have done what you need for FS. I think more specificity like zipline no on west side is helpful – that’s more detailed than your October letter.
• Jim: Tyler, can you think of another instance where town or county has written a letter of support for a private development to another government agency?
  • Tyler: not off the top of my head. No.
• Jim: as staff working with FS staff, you have all the info you need to inform your counterparts about the specificity about zipline, gondola, etc?
  • Tyler: you havent made a motion. More specificity wouldn’t hurt. Motion as-is says you’d write a letter based on this table.
• Arne: you said more specificity like zipline would be helpful for FS?
  • Tyler: all this will be up to the FS, we’re just giving them feedback as cooperating agency. Whether they would spend time vetting putting a zipline on town property if we said we’re not interested – might save them time & energy.
• Arne: when does that start in their realm?
  • Tyler: they’re in that process. There may be a document issued this summer – June/July – not sure if it includes alternatives [NOTE: it should, if it’s a draft EIS…]
• Jim: let’s work on the other items, regardless of this one.
• Pete: if we move A, applicant will not have to work with staff if they don’t want to
• Jim: I move Item A [see above]
  • Hailey – second
  • Pete: does this hurt applicant if we don’t agree on item C?
    • Tyler: no – this is no action, just directs staff to start the ball rolling. They can withdraw the application if they want.
  • Jim: just want to show the public we’re making progress
    • Jim: we’re trying to make the SK resort district viable. This is as good a step as we can take through the entire process
  • Arne: this includes 1-30 and phasing?
    • Tyler: yes
  • Arne: our current document says we want a viable ski area, with private company running it. I’m concerned about economic vitality, that’s in there. Fees as backstop – I’m willing to move this to the next step, but I want to see how that plays out. Worthwhile to take this step. If SK is going to succeed under its current structure, this is an improvement. We now have definitions – what does ski area mean in terms of hours of operation, beginning to talk about fee structure, and I applaud that
  • Hailey: includes housing?
    • Tyler: yes
  • Hailey: I’m going to support it. I’ve heard for 6 years from my fellow councilor that the masterplan needs to be worked on and fixed. I think this gets us into a much better place. Housing is the biggest piece. I’ll support it.
  • All in favor
• Hailey: move Item B (continue sketch plan to March 18)
  • Second: Jim
  • Pete: looking forward to it
  • All in favor
• Hailey: move Item D (lease workshop)
  • Jim: second
  • Jim: want to extend thanks to SK ski patrol for getting the mountain open today – biggest powder event. Joyous event for the town. Pass that along to patrol.
  • Jim: one of the more illuminative moments of stakeholder process, we heard how critical it was to have a functioning resort master association. With funding mechanism, taking care of shared responsibilities. That was not from a conservation person, it was the director of the JH Chamber of Commerce. Shows how critical this is. Not just that we’re asking for it, it’s that we have to do these things.
  • Arne: want to make sure we’re not doing this too early in the process (leases). I would much rather do it at a time when we have additional information about what’s actually being proposed at the base. Some of those parts are still moving. Not my intent to drag it out and throw out $1M/yr. Caution us, not doing it too early.
  • Arne: thank you guys for bringing these issues forward. And thank staff for incredible amount of work, and the public – the public has been amazing in terms of their commitment. Oddly enough I’ve thoroughly enjoyed all the comment.
  • All in favor
• Pete: Item E?
  • Just kidding
• Item C
• Hailey: if we did submit a letter reflecting this or other ideas, do you think the FS, it would box us in to an answer? Would they not provide the alternatives, or the no alternative option we suggested in October? Would this hurt that?
  • Tyler: FS will make that decision. I think they’ll take any comment from their cooperating agency seriously, and weigh it. They’ll definitely seriously consider it. Knowing it’s coming from coop agency, probably carries more weight than the rest. But they’ll make that decision.
• Hailey: Q for Jeff – why do you feel you need this letter, vs just waiting to hear from the FS?
• Jeff [with a prepared statement, for the first time ever]: can I take about 5 minutes to answer that?
  • If we go back 4 years ago, Ryan wrote a letter to Mayor Fliter, asking about starting the base area masterplan process, and about the same time the FS masterplan submission process started
  • Took about a year and half to get to where the letter was asked for again. Suggested to Mr Stanley that he go back and hold neighborhood meetings, public meetings. We did about 40 of those. A big effort, lots of meetings here
  • 2.5 years ago came back to conclusion, asked again for the letter
  • Over next year and a half, 10 meetings, that’s when I got involved
  • Took public comment, just like first year and a half. Came to agreement on MOU because we decided these 2 needed to be looked at together
  • Together is why it’s important to us
  • Look at them collectively.
  • Council at the time was very interested in making sure public could weigh in – ‘one stop shop’ – look holistically – gives and takes might not occur on the base only, might occur on the mountain
  • 13 months ago stakeholders ago selected
  • 11 months ago 1st public meeting with 250 people
  • 7 stakeholder meetings, 16 people, 4 horus each, all open to the public
  • 4 scenarios, which included base area stuff and mountain stuff
  • Public got to come in, weigh in, give back their voice
  • And that’s all in the staff report
  • So the idea then was that these 2 were linked. The base area and the summit were linked
  • So if we’re making concessions on one side, we’ll have asks on the other
  • At the conclusion of stakeholder process, we submitted 2 masterplans – we have 4 versions, well 4.1 now submitted today.
  • Went from lift on the east side, then getting rid of some, made very significant changes, all weighed out with all the people that participated
  • 4 year process that cost an extraordinary amount to you, and to us, both financially and time, effort, community
  • Thanks. Staff has been incredible. Tyler specifically. Incredibly thankful for.
  • I feel like I have a parking spot out front
  • At the end – what was our reason for coming here – SKRMA?
  • SKRMA, the larger umbrella, not just us
  • Gives & gets – I realize that 2 of 3 don’t really apply to most of SKRMA – that’s SKMR. The lots are owned by previous entity that’s not a voting member of SKRMA, 1 by SKMR.
  • IF we go back to the hotel, what are they getting out of the base area masterplan?
    • $35-50M extra housing mitigation for entire district.
    • New ways to be ‘corrected’
    • In exchange: not getting lots. Why would they care about gondola?
    • For them – it’s investment in the mountain. We’ll have a general area where a zipline can go, but we don’t know if the town will say yes you can have it when FS asks
  • To me it all circles back to SKRMA. You guys have been hitting on SKRMA quite a bit
  • If I could rewind time, go back 4 years, sitting down and understanding what SKRMA was supposed to be, in 1999, pulling all the old minutes from 99 and 2000, and really defining what it was meant to be
  • 2 camps
    • SKRMA isnt functioning the way it was designed – propping up the ski area – was or is dysfunctional, simply deserves a 2nd chance
    • Another school of thought – SKRMA was never designed to be a forced fee to prop up the ski hill. Entitled to charge a fee.
      • In our mind, we’re changing SKRMA to say what some people wish it said, vs fixing it. To us that’s a big give, a big step. If you look at it through that lens… the chapter that says ‘operational platform’ doesn’t even mention SKRMA
      • Housing mitigation – incredibly expensive
  • So 2 of the things are outside lots and gondola – we’re OK if the gondola doesn’t land on town land, so it comes down to the lots and support for the FS plan
  • So we know the things we’re trading today, you’ll be there – you don’t know what the environmental is going to say – could exclude it – FS could say no, that’s 100% our risk
  • Before we can say yes to this laundry list that will cost us substantially – you have our back.
  • As long as environmental, geologic, safety, is mitigated, you in general support our FS plan – then we know we can accept items 1-30 as well as everything else
  • If it’s not there, the likelihood of success for us to get approval from SKRMA is very low
  • If you came back and said “OK, if we say no to the zipline, you can have your old housing chapter back, or no to the road, you can have the old SKRMA chapter”
  • So why do we need to know? It’s the basis of our plan. We came here because we want to develop recreation
• Pete: why then not just wait til FS decision for us to finalize this? We’re looking at 3 months probably, right? What’s the harm in waiting?
  • Jeff: good Q. If youre unwilling to give a letter, than we’re unwilling to give on the other 30 points. There was always the supposition that somebody has to go first. Chicken & egg. What if FS says you can have a zipline but town hasn’t weighed in?
• Pete: I understand you don’t want to dig into the work without knowing… but also knowing that it might take 2-3 months, you have a longer timeline with FS approval… We all thought this would proceed faster than it has. Would we be all better off just waiting to see what the FS has to say, and then taking the time to dig in? If answer is yes to what you’re asking for… I’m sure there’s some preliminary work
  • Jeff: there’s risk on both sides. Let’s say it takes 10 months for the FS to come along, there’s 10 months we’re not activity working to structure capital, think about things like gondolas. Somebody comes in with a development plan under the old housing regs. If FS approves or doesn’t approve some things… It’s a good Q.
• Arne: thank you Jeff. To me, part of what I still don’t get is – we’re framing this discussion as a letter to the FS. I look at this as do we agree with the vision you’ve put together in your application to the FS. Do we agree that these visions – does the town share that? To me, we’ve already communicated to the FS. I completely understand the desire for you to have more clarity, and ask for more clarity from us. To me I just come up with – the request as a letter, may not be the right way for us to communicate to you Do we agree with this vision. The “socioeconomic input” the town has – that’s about vision, that’s about do we agree with where we’re going. We had this last week, more than happy to have more of it. I’m sure there’s common ground – except zipline more disagreement. What process do we need to get you the clarity you’re looking for. Once we start getting EIS, alternatives, we’ll have the opportunity to formally take part
  • Jeff: if there’s a way we knew that the things we’re trying to do, we’re not going to have to fight the town later – zipline is most obvious – if we know we’re not going to have to fight you on top later – a formal letter to us – says there’s support. I’m thinking out of the box here. We have to know everything we’re giving is being met with some sort of support on the other side.
• Jim: you referred to the ziplien saying there’s an area for it. There isn’t. We’ve just said IF there is a zipline, this would be the area. We’ve not ever said there’s a zipline landing area.
  • You said, do we go back to the old SKRMA chapter – you’re right. It does not say verbatim “SKRMA shall support the ski area” but the preceding chapter is dedicated to SKRMA. SKRMA permeated the entire mechanism. Only mechanism for operating platform to support public benefit that we know come at a great cost. If we go back to that, it still leaves us with a broken SKRMA
  • I know agreeing to things after the fact is never easy, but surely the members of SKRMA can see that the path we’re on is a path to nowhere
  • Jeff: I strongly disagree. The idea that this is seen as … hotel owned by one group, KM6 by another, condos, Mr Walter – all feel like they’re doing OK. We’re trying to be very collaborative, trying to make it say what you wish it said all along. They didn’t envision this break-apart, so it didn’t mean SKRMA was the mechanism – however today it’s the logical mechanism. WE’re saying we’ll play ball, that’s a big deal, a big thing. Hopefully worthy of some compromise on the other side as well. I don’t disagree that if we’re looking for a funding source to be a backstop – the way we’ve written it is backstop – it gives rise to doing exactly that.
• Jim: but you mention the chart. We’re open to many things. There’s a lot of difference of opinion in the community about those. We don’t know what the backside of the mountain stuff will look like. Makes a lot of people uneasy. That’s a compromise. Putting gondola on town land that’s a big compromise.
  • Jeff: yes to summit and gondola, we appreciate that. The others are maybes. But if we said maybe we’ll change housing, the answer would be no on the BAMP. We’re looking for the same certainty from you. We need certainty on SKRMA, we need our attorney to work on it. We need to know if maybes are yes or no, then we can determine if we can convince SKRMA members to move forward
• Pete: worth noting we can’t offer certainty on either side here. For better or for worse. Only way is to wait til FS makes the decision – then you have certainty.
• Jonathan: such a wonderfully rich melange of stuff. I go back to first principle: the only thing everybody in this room and community can agree on it – we want SK to continue to be the Town Hill. What does that mean? Maybe easier to define beauty than the town hill. That’s a complicated thing. What I’m hearing to riff on Arne, you’re looking for assurance that we arent going to knock your knees out in 6 months – a trust issue – a sense of confidence that we’re not going to come back in 6 months. That to me – it’s not the letter to the FS, it’s how you can you be sure we’re not going to do something different?
  • Jeff: yes, assurance that you’re not going to be adversarial toward the plan we put forward, because we’ve compromised so significantly on the base, to not have to fight the town.
  • Jonathan: I’m hearing a powerful emotion from you, need for trust. What you hear from us, at least for myself, discomfort about some things, like the environmental. For me, new to this. Discomfort about how quickly things are going. So the Q – is there another way for you to gain trust, and us to get past this discomfort, other than the letter? Is there a better way to address your emotional concern about trust, and our discomfort given the questions?
  • Jeff: I would need to talk to Ryan in the hallway, and then others
  • Jonathan: I have no idea what language we’d put in the letter. 4 other people would have different ideas of what gets us to comfort. Uncertainty & anxiety being exacerbated. Big fears take hold around idea of letter
• Ryan (56 min): at the end of the day, we’re seeking that support – you’re in acceptance of the things we’re proposing, and wont change your mind. When I hear Jim say we didn’t approve the zipline – I have no idea what that means. So are we going to fight over that in a few months? We don’t have clarity. I appreciate the challenge you and Arne are in being new to it. I’ve been through 3 councils, and the same discussions. It’s difficult for our business on many fronts, to keep the faith, that there’s an end in sight some day.
  • OK with other ways. Could be a letter to SK. Could be a letter we draft for you and you sign.
  • You can say it to us, not to the FS, and we would trust you. Say X Y and Z very clearly
  • That would be seemingly very reasonable
  • They have the same outcome for FS and SK – TC is generally supportive of the concept of these things that SK has proposed
• Pete: since you’re not as concerned about us telling it to the FS, are you just wanting to be able to say after FS decision that town supports it? That’s different from saying you don’t want legs cut out later.
  • Ryan: at the end of the day we do hope to achieve a positive outcome […]
    • Yep, folks, the town generally supports these things
• Pete: the purpose is to influence the FS decision?
  • Ryan: yes, in a sense that you’ve already done so with this chart, they’re already making new calculations. EIS was looking at zipline adjacent to gondola. They’re no longer looking at that. If you can finish this chart, it makes it more clear for FS. Gives you quite a bit of ability to influence the process
  • Jeff: and they hear us agreeing to it. Like zipline next to gondola, moved to east side, so FS siad OK check move it there in their analysis. They no longer have a configuration next to the gondola
  • Pete: in that case, a letter that spells out what we’re not interested in should suffice?
    • Ryan: yes
• Jim: if we could move summit beginner terrain into yes, does that increase your comfort level? Seems less involved than amorphous backside. The summit beginner terrain is something we heard a fairly large amount of support through public process. We don’t know, but given how we qualified it, I’d say there’s a statement of support
  • Jeff: I’m going to take a stab at ranking most controversial: #1 road, #2 zipline, #3 backside inside our permitted area but still it’s a new use, not a new use, a use envisioned but never used, seen as quote, an expansion, and #4 summit. You’d be taking the least of those 4. When we think of the real needle-movers, as far as taking SK to being able to to making significant changes to how SK an operate, it’s those that are the biggest revenue generators, it’s the 2 that are the most controversial
  • Ryan: on that note, summit beginner terrain provides the space for the road, so they’re all tied together. Road goes through summit beginner terrain. So you’re essentially saying that’s where the road would go.
    • We offered to have our SE consultant come in here this evening
• Ryan: diving into details on the road – figured out ways to reduce the impact from the initial drawings. You can make it not so wide, put blocking things on steep areas, that’s what they did before making this final drawing for FS. So this area for beginner summit terrain is all in the road.
  • These other alternatives were analyzed for roads – different avenues, steepness, grade – within permit boundary. Those are all being analyzed by the FS. Ultimately they all have large impacts on the ski area, more so than this one which was selected.
• Jim: my response would be – there was a sticker that circulated a couple years ago. “Snow King: cold, dark & steep”. I’d love to have one. It hits right to the core.
  • Ryan: we have those on sweatshirts
  • Jim: and on a day like today, a fantastic place to be – SK was the town hill in all its glory today. You’ve been coming up with plans for years. Just because you come up with them doesn’t mean we need to act on them, or find them to be viable. If you think youre going to take SK and turn it into a sunny beginner’s paradise, you bought the wrong ski mountain
  • Jeff: we’re trying to make it more accessible to more people. Our skier days are half what they were 20 years ago. While our big brother to the north has gotten bigger, we’re losing share. We’re trying to get more locals, and get the occasional tourist who decides not to drive to the village road. It’ll always be dark, steep, cold. We hired the best of the best. All our plans in the past were homegrown. This time we hired THE organization that consults with the best ski areas in the county.
  • Jim: what you’ve talked about – a magic carpet on the top, seems viable with downloading, if we say OK to the gondola. But the road, zipline, backside, that’s where things get really thorny. Getting way ahead of the process. Feels plainly like we’re being asked to put our hand on the scale. After analysis, that’s the appropriate time for us to weigh in. I’ve said that consistently.
• Arne: going back to the table: We’re boiling down to these 4 elements. I’m more than happy to go through them individually again, see if we get either 3-2 acceptance of language, if there’s movement. Most I think there’s some significant agreement. I have Qs about the road, more about the design criteria. I still Q some of the particulars, but more than happy to continue that discussion. If the best way to move this off where we are is to dig in, see if we can get to additional comfort level, I’m willing to spend time. May not tell you what you want to hear.
  • Jeff: we can deal with no
• Arne: at this point you’re not pushing back on the one no that’s up there. I think we owe this process that additional discussion. Do we share this vision?
• Hailey: I appreciate you bringing it up to the higher level of vision. For me when I look at it, it includes all of 1-30, this part. At the end of the day, I want to see a SK that can take us the next 40 years, and besides the one no, these are yes’es for me pending environmental review. I think that will take SK through the next 40-50 years. And I think 1-30 are significant. Although Jim you think they should be doing it anyway, unless we get this, it wont happen. If we wanna get somewhere today, I can do that. This helps make SK continue to be a town hill in my mind. I look at my son & my father riding a gondola together and taking a cat track down, if that’s the best way.
  • Hailey: I would link the letter to the ordinances
• Arne: having the discussion gives you the same clarity as the letter
• Arne: the zipline is, and this is where it blurs with funding discussions. I do feel – I appreciate Jeff’s comment about different ways to read language in the masterplan – was it intended to support the town hill or infrastructure only? I see that as the same way we’ve decided what it means to keep the ski area open at 49 hours. I don’t look at this as any different. To me the zipline is the one that the rationale for it is economic support. I think you can find a way to bring involvement of everybody in the masterplan where that revenue is not necessary.
  • Tyler: “no”
  • Arne: road – are there other ways – beginner way down – that’s not my vision. I do not – I recognize there needs to be a more improved road for reasons, not sure one of the goals is downhill beginner. So it’s a conditional. Not a no, but… I need to see more information.
  • Arne: summit & backside – EIS is real data / information. None of us are experts on creating or even evaluating that data. Facts I need before I can make that a yes. May be ways to say “yes depending on”. Backside to me, Jeff you were using language – it has been, I dunno about always – it’s been within the boundaries that something would happen. I’m willing to accept that something would happen. Not as clear what that something it. Still a maybe
  • Hailey: so even if EIS said super, you’d still be a maybe?
  • Arne: no, I am accepting that there’s something on the backside
  • Hailey: you just want to see the details?
  • Arne: yes
• Jim: let me take a swing. As CM Jorgensen observed, there’s clarity in going through. I do not believe it’s proper for this council to send a letter to FS weighing on behalf of a private development. NO precedent for that in TOJ or TC that any of us can recall.
  • Gondola on town – that’s a major concession that this council and prior was willing to make, to make SK viable. We will have good & thorough process
  • Zipline is no. Lets give the rolelr coaster, etc, a shot to work first. Let’s see how it pans out as a ski area, before we have to add another amusement park style attraction
  • Boundary expansion / road – we’ve had an esteemed member of our skiing and mountaineering community come to us multiple times – somebody I see as the dean of ski topography – worked at SK since 50s, but been out there with slope angle measurements, hiking the proposed route – that esteemed ski mountaineer has come to us and impressed upon us that the currently proposed layout is a bad idea. There is no way I could hear that and say oh yeah, sounds good, somebody drew a squiggly line
  • Summit multiuse building / observatory – yes in general sense, depending on bulk, scale, mass. Mixed opinions, I’ve heard a generous amount of support for modestly scaled restaurant done right. Observatory I’m willing to keep an open mind
  • Summit beginner terrain – might be able to get to us
  • Backside – this is one of those ideas that – I think there was a rope tow. Been in the vision for decades, but also a reason why nothing has been done. Despite even unauthorized mowing, rarely enough snow to sustain much activity into Leeks. We have read official scoping comments of WGF saying they would oppose precisely this – it is important habitat. So for us to write a letter saying it sounds great. We’re already heard up front from the Game & Fish
    • Hailey: they are the experts on that
    • Jim: I cant commit to anything on the backside. In an era of climate change. The only thing saving our town hill is north exposure. This will require a hige investment in snowmaking, pumping, cooling. We’ve heard these ideas. Then we’ll be told we need money to pay for it.
    • Let’s do everything we can to make the front side sustainable and viable as a ski area. There were hundreds of powder hounds out there having the best skiing you could have today, dozens of ski racers who were out enjoying it. That is part of our heritage, it’s our history, it’s something we can all get behind – it’s skiing.
  • Hailey: we obviously all have different views. Everyone has a different view & opinion on SK, it’s our job to distill all the public comment. You’ve heard opposites on that distillation.
• Jonathan: first principle: we all want SK to continue to be the town hill. We have not had brought before us an alternative to a private sector solution. I have gotten a lot of comments about – I said Green Bay Packers ownership would be great. Nobody has come forward, doesn’t seem will of community to have it community owned. Nightmare scenario: in 5 years, gets dumped back in our lap because it isnt working
  • My ideal: have everything work within current boundaries, perhaps an exception for beginner area on top. That would be my preference.
  • My next point of departure, when I think about how could SK fail – one way is if we handicap you with such severe restrictions that you couldn’t generate a profit, you couldn’t make it work financially. I have concerns about that.
  • Things could get sold off. The more structure & integrity that SKRMA has, the better off we’ll be in the long run for preserving the town hill. Make sure SKRMA has rigorous guardrails.
  • I am concerned about the environmental aspects on the backside. I don’t remember from Game & Fish is that strictly a winter habitat issue or year-round? If it were open in the summer to mtb, would that be an environmental problem or just winter? I don’t know. A lot of questions outstanding
  • Final point: in terms of environmental issues, we cant really lose sight of those. That’s why I’m more concerned about keeping it within boundaries of the ski area
  • Gondola – no brainer
  • Zipline – I like Arne’s idea. Again I don’t want to handicap you guys if you really really need it, I’d be willing to consider it. Doesn’t strike me as in keeping with the town hill. Delicate balance on
  • Boundary – would much prefer to see them not changed. Fundamental Q tho: 10 degree slope, 12 degree, seems what you’re asking for is a couple major lines across the mountain, vs a whole bunch of tighter ones. I don’t know what the right answer is, and I don’t know theres a community consensus. Will stick on no comment
  • Summit beginner – yes
  • Backside – if EIS concerns, that’s a problem
  • Final comment: I don’t understand economics well enough so that if FS says no – what happens to your masterplan if the FS says no? I don’t want this back in our lap in 10-15 years. So… I guess I’m OK as long as there’s not an EIS thing on the backside
  • Larger big-picture issues
• Pete: we all want to preserve TH, not sure we all agree on what that means. Old double chair and a few skiers, or gondola and vibrant commercial enterprise? Disconnect. We’re being asked to weigh in not on the enviro or geological changes, but on the public’s desire. To convey to FS the wishes of the residents of Jackson. I don’t believe there’s a clear consensus on the part of residents. Not sure how we get there, btu we arent there. Outcome of meetings was a complete lack of consensus, at least based on the public comment we’ve heard. Yet we’re being asked to tell FS not what we think, I have my own opinions, but what community thinks. I don’t know what to tell them.
  • I’m comfortable with ability to use CUP to determine zipline. Would support passing along CUP details. And entire amendment process details too.
  • We always knew we can’t control FS decision, need to make our own decisions on the base area.
  • Don’t think we should use financial viability of for profit business to support any of this. Own terms. A lot of people who don’t ski, don’t think that busy ski area supported by development they don’t want is a good thing. Others do.
  • Road / boundary – no CUP, not sure how we get good public engagement. I know 2 things: most people in community have not weighed in and/or don’t know details. Those who have are very split. I don’t see a consensus here. Not saying one couldn’t emerge with more detailed public engagement, look at entire amended masterplan. Consensus is not there right now. Very difficult in good faith to send letter to FS saying this is what people want. I don’t know. I don’t have a personal opinion here, to be honest. This is something the residents need to decide. Certainly should decide if we write a letter saying this is how they feel.
  • Gondola – don’t know about public support, but there is public process. I know some people see it as a bug not feature, others love it. I hold both of those simultaneously
  • Zipline on town – consensus was no, helpful to let FS know
  • Zipline in subarea 4 – there’s a public process to resolve based on the impacts, parameters – we’ll have that process, I’m comfortable
  • Boundary expansion / road – not consensus, shouldn’t represent there it
  • Summit building – not sure there’s consensus
  • Beginner terrain – enviro impacts, can’t know, not community consensus
  • To sum: not sure what we’re being asked to do – either community consensus on subjective merits when we don’t know that, or community consensus on environmental impacts that aren’t known yet.
  • Maybe in future, community will say yes – I’d be happy to say so
  • In the meantime, we’ve made it clear what the areas of concern are, made sure they’re considered. But no consensus on any part, for or against. Don’t know there’s a community consensus against the road. Until we have it either way, should refrain from representing it
  • I know some will criticize that this is our job to represent views of the community. But that’s what we do, we put process in place. We could get enviro info, hold hearings on each, on our schedule
  • This process has been designed to review proposals at the base
  • In good faith, the best I could support is a letter saying the residents of Jackson have conflicting views – not sure such a letter helps anybody
  • I would suggest we don’t write any letter at all, just let the people of Jackson know they should write in to FS
  • I suggest we wait for FS decision.
  • I understand your hesitance to enter into a substantial amendment where SKRMA does give up a lot, without that clarity. Suggest we wait. Knowing we’ve already come pretty close to agreement on many of these issues.

• Tyler: your options are: no action, letter to FS, letter to SKRMA, continue to discuss it
  • Jonathan: letter to FS is not the fundamental issue. The issue is trust. Curious whether other CMs would be option to suggestions from applicant about vehicles, items, actions other than letter, that might help them do what they do. Would you be open?
  • Jim: as a matter of process I’d suggest if somebody wants to make the motion we take the vote, then we can consider other suggestions.
  • Arne: suspect this is not over. Tyler can you give us your tabulation?
  • Tyler: don’t need to worry about date certain.
• Tyler tally
  • Gondi – yes
  • Zipline town – no
  • Zipline area 4 – could be a no
  • Boundary – no comment at best
  • Summit building – yes
  • Beginner terrain – yes
  • Backside – N/C / maybe
• Jonathan: basically the table but beginner terrain flipped?
  • Tyler: yes
• Pete: do we tell ‘no’ to FS?
  • Only on zipline
• Arne: it’s just are we comfortable with the vision as proposed?
  • Arne: hear from applicant?
  • Tyler: alternative methods? You’ve just all stated where you’re at
• Jeff: it is useful. All the comments – probably gonna push us to, mayor your comment re: nothing happens until FS portion is complete. That’s become pretty clear. When I look at – I was doing the tabulation as well. Maybe we picked up one and maybe dropped one off. One of the ones that went from maybe to no is probably more important piece, so we may have gone further away from our ability to agree to decide a lot of the base area stuff. So I would say that the A, B, D – that’s premature. I know we picked a specific date, but I see no way we can retain counsel to work through and develop all of that. This may be pushed much further down the line and reverse the chicken and the egg, and move to the FS.  We need to get back to our teams and review where we are. So we can pitch to the other parties what they think of the outcome so far
• Ryan: for some reference, we’re probably looking at a year or more before we have clear determination from the FS. They’ll have a draft maybe by the end of the summer, maybe we get a decision by the end of 2019, 2020. For a business, the impact of that on your business – can you do anything on your property, can you afford to wait a year – it has a big impact on everything you do for that period of time. Decisions you make – to invest more into it, to keep it viable. That’s some of the context that we have to look at a decision like that through. Frankly, clarity, knowing you guys have told us something is a relief
• Jeff: if we revisit in a year, I want to thank all of you, thank staff, thank the public for weighing in on this. We look forward to continuing the process with the FS. If that means saying goodbye for now, thanks a lot! We’ll take the results back to SKRMA. In case I don’t get the chance to say thank you, I’d like to say it now.
• Pete: I specifically want to thank you for your ability to keep a good sense of humor throughout this process
• Arne: I’m prepared to engage in comment in FS process as they start to prepare alternatives. Not saying we go silent until they’re done. Knowing how these processes play out – draft, alternatives, another public comment opportunity. I don’t see this as…
• Jeff: that’s a good point. If you weigh in at earlier point, depending on what – if yes’es, do we stick with this application…
• Jonathan: seems like it sits at just a few issues. There was progress. You’ve worked with 3 councils. I don’t know if this has to be binary. Speaking just for myself, if you think this through – it is only a few issues that are keeping us apart. They may be dealbreakers, but I for one would be open to hearing ideas on how to address them. It’s not a complete mess at this point, it’s just a very particular and deep mess.
• Hailey: restate in a different way. The community value of all the items we worked through in the masterplan are worth turning maybes to yeses pending environmental review. Obviously we heard the count, but that’s where I come down. There’s huge community value, and if we don’t get that, I’ll be disappointed. I’d like to move maybes to yeses
• Pete: we’ve done a lot of work. Hope we can pick this up where we left it. We do appreciate your willingness to work with us. I think we’ve gotten a lot done. I hope you get a nice break.
• What next?
  • Tyler: don’t need to continue it, as it’s not a noticed motion
  • We’ll say we’re good there.
• Tyler: so direction for staff is to write no letter to FS, provide no additional info to FS, until such time as we’re asked as CA to continue to weigh in?
  • Jim: being cognizant that staff will work with FS, with institutional knowledge from today.
• Audrey: what happens in March?
  • Either applicant writes letter to continue item indefinitely or withdraw, or if that isnt done, we wouldn’t bring it back, it stays open for 180 days (or 90?) and then is considered withdrawn if no action
• Tyler: you did make 4th motion about the leases, we’ll still do that.
  • Jim: Larry in lead – figure out the appropriate time