This might be the nadir for grasping at straws, the classic image of coaches and players on one team pointing to a spot along the sidelines, signaling furiously no catch, no catch, my god he was out of bounds.
Did you know a bartender at Matilda’s in his early 20s is doing campaign work for — are you sitting down? — all three associated Park City candidates Ryan Dickey, Tana Toly and Diego Zegarra!?
I think we’re supposed to be rendered breathless at this revelation. Here’s your October surprise, I guess.
I’m just not sure of what to make of this shocker:
- That the three indeed are tied by a shared campaign helper and support from the longtime local Democratic establishment in the race for nonpartisan positions? Well, duh. That’s been obvious since the ranked-choice-voting episode last summer and supporters of the not-trinity trying to shout Jeremy Rubell out of running for reelection and then tearing into him early in the primary campaign.
- That three candidates use the same consultant? The don’t-call-us-a-bloc running against the not-a-trinity have their own operative in common, one with rather more indelible fingerprints on the campaign. This is the stuff of pot and kettle.
- That campaign advisers and helpers are something novel or that candidates with shared interests also share help? I’d hate to burst any bubbles out there about ski town politics everywhere.
These things surface occasionally in episodes with narratives such as this candidate is mean to staff, that one is the developers’ pawn, those are not open space advocates but really against open space, the town has gone to ruin, along with outrage at alleged mansplaining at a coffee klatch and then outrage at the outrage. I do see hallmarks of advisers and/or coordination in those.
Frankly, we all could have done without those tweaks to strict truth in the grand quest for sticky campaign narratives. And I still haven’t seen cause to make the help the subject of election coverage. I mean, isn’t it the candidates themselves and how they would do in office that we’re interested in? Well the half of us who are eligible who also will bother voting?
To that end, I asked each for their thoughts and positions on some questions I was curious about a few weeks ago and intended to share by now.
The questions are nothing profound or necessarily exciting. This is a City Council race we’re talking about here, after all. But at least we can offer some substance and possible illumination of how each thinks.
Here are the questions:
How did you vote or how would you have voted on the following and your reasoning:
- Studio Crossing housing
- The $2 million fee waiver for Studio Crossing
- Clark Ranch affordable housing
- EngineHouse affordable housing project
- To re-issue an RFP for the 5-Acre Site
- The Mine Bench affordable housing project
Here are their answers, beginning with the mayoral candidates:
Jack Rubin
Studio Crossing housing development in 2022
This is a model project for affordable housing in Park City. The developers came to the table with a mixed-use plan that delivers services, community, and affordable housing. Thanks to their experience and commitment to sharpening their pencils, they were able to accomplish the project without taxpayer subsidy and deliver units at the lowest income levels they promised. This is a win for Park City’s taxpayers, employers, and workforce.
The $2 million fee waiver for Studio Crossing
A fee waiver is very different from a direct subsidy or land gift. If Park City had partnered on this project as it has on other affordable housing developments, we would have spent far more building the community amenities that Studio Crossing is now providing, made possible by the waived fees.
EngineHouse affordable housing project
EngineHouse is in the middle of Park City, adjacent to other density, within walking distance of food and shops, and near multiple transit lines. It is an ideal location for housing. I wish the developer had taken advantage of the AMPD and reduced parking at the site, something we could have achieved had we planned the entire Bonanza Park area at once and something that could’ve helped the now over-budget project avoid cost overruns.
To re-issue an RFP for the 5-Acre Site after getting back bids for the first one
This was the absolutely the right decision and indicative of certain councilors truly defending the community’s best interests. Council was misled by legal in terms of the role they could play in guiding the process to support resident will, and there were inherent and undisclosed conflicts of interest with the single developer put forth through the original RFP process. The re-issued RFP affords the community far more transparency and a much greater say in what ends up on the 5 acres.
The Mine Bench affordable housing project
There was an RFP response that involved building out an affordable housing project at the expense of the luxury hotels a workforce development on Marsac Avenue would have benefitted. This may have justified rezoning some of the open space along Mine Bench. But the RFP response selected for the council to review would’ve cost taxpayers and involved a plan unsuitable for the site. In this case, a 3-2 council vote saved the community from a bad project.
Clark Ranch affordable housing
I am opposed to Clark Ranch for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the land is designated open space, was purchased by Park City with the intent to conserve, and housing was never recommended for the site. Second, Clark Ranch is steep, isolated from services and transit, and introduces risks and impacts Park City Heights and the broader community should not bear. Third, the project requires almost $6 million for a new road before we even consider the per unit subsidies. There are other parcels near Quinn’s Junction that deserve vetting. We must do better for our workforce and our taxpayers than forcing another public private partnership that is inherently challenged and in direct conflict with our General Plan and community values.
Ryan Dickey
Studio Crossing Development
The fundamental question this project asks of an elected official: Can you tell the difference between a project that moves the needle on our community priorities, and one that’s just more sprawl. It’s not always easy. When candidates talk about “balance,” this is one where the rubber meets the road.
Studio Crossing is akin to Dakota Pacific, a project I also voted against and, in fact, led the denial of as chair of the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission. Both projects deliver large quantities of affordable housing, but also large quantities of nightly rental and commercial density — both of which create demand for lots more workers and more housing. The result is more traffic and sprawl with little net benefit to our housing problem.
It’s easy to forget that when I led the denial of Dakota Pacific, it was a split vote. Now in hindsight, with near unanimity against the project, one can see I was able to spot a flawed project from the start, and vote to protect the community’s interests. You can trust me to keep doing the same.
Fee waiver
I was the only council member to stand against this developer giveaway that ran counter to both our code and common sense.
To recall, the developer of this private project came to council seeking nearly $2 million in fee waivers — after the project was already under construction and going vertical. But the city’s code is clear: Only nonprofit or public projects are eligible for fee waivers. Studio Crossing is neither. The discussion should have ended there.
Instead, the council chose to ignore its own code, arguing fee waivers would incentivize similar projects. But the incentive was clearly unnecessary — the project was already underway.
Worse, the decision ignored the negotiated incentives already granted to make the project viable: new nightly rental and commercial density in exchange for affordable housing. Additional incentives were plainly unnecessary — and cost taxpayers dearly.
EngineHouse
99 units of car-optional affordable housing in the center of town, walkable to two grocery stores and multiple transit lines built through the city’s first successful private partnership for housing, constructed at our target cost. An achievement our community should be proud of.
5-Acre RFP reissue
I fought against this unnecessary move that delayed our progress by half a year, put the city in legal jeopardy, and discouraged the winning respondent from the first RFP from participating again — resulting in a lower-quality set of proposals to choose from the second time around. For those who recoiled at the initial renderings from the second RFP, I stand with you.
I’m pleased that Brinshore, the eventual winner, has been a great partner so far. But the council has had to work for months to produce a plan as progressive and aligned with community expectations as the winning proposal from round one.
Mine Bench
The council never had an actual project before it on the Mine Bench — only initial terms, lots of questions, and a proposal for a $75,000–$100,000 feasibility study to answer them.
I can’t say whether I’d have supported a future project about which we had few details — I spent too many years on the Planning Commission to do that — but the bones of this proposal far exceeded our expectations when we issued the RFP. Given its potential to reduce traffic and cars in town, and its exceptionally strong economics, it made sense to continue our review and make a decision based on facts.
Instead, a majority of the council chose to heed a few loud voices over the community’s broader interests and killed the project before it could be evaluated on the merits.
Clark Ranch
Clark Ranch represents a nearly decade-long vision for housing at Steve’s Point — advanced by multiple councils and mayors without dissent until now. Some council members are suddenly reversing course under pressure in an election season, while others seek to pursue a Kimball Junction–style development in open space at Richardson Flat.
At the recent debate, my opponent publicly advocated for development in Richardson Flat. So let’s be clear: There are two competing visions in this election. Mine is a modest amount of housing on 10 of the 344 acres of Clark Ranch — tucked away, contiguous to an existing neighborhood — with the remaining 334 acres permanently protected under a conservation easement.
My opponent’s vision reverses years of progress, relocating housing to hard-won open space the city owns but cannot access without crossing property owned by Larry H. Miller Real Estate — the former Brockbank/Romney property at the center of the Hideout dispute and still the subject of active litigation. Access to that site would require conceding to demands for town center-style commercial density and as many as 1,600 new housing units, along with UDOT’s proposed new highway exit and light towers directly adjacent to Park City Heights. Is moving housing from one 10-acre site to another really worth the impacts of creating another Kimball Junction in Richardson Flat?
The density, details, and costs for Clark Ranch are still to be determined. I ask Park City Heights residents to trust that we’ll make decisions in the best interest of both their neighborhood and the broader community — and that I’ll keep listening along the way.
I know the easiest thing for me to do in this election would be what politicians too often do when backbone is required: reverse course, cave under pressure, or let a good project die under the guise of “further study.” But people are tired of those politics — and so am I. I’m leaning in for the good of the community, being transparent about my intentions, and letting voters decide.
Jeremy Rubell
Studio Crossing housing development in 2022
In collaboration with the city, the Crandall family (local residents and developer), pursued a zoning change from hotel use to the current mixed-use residential/commercial solution, including over 200 affordable homes to serve our local workforce. Studio Crossing delivers significant community benefit as both a stand-alone project and as a complement to fully residential Park City Heights. It delivers accessibility, walkability, transit and trail connections, live/work opportunities, and local services with much needed support commercial. By using policy tools, the city was able to enable the development without taxpayer or federal funding. This allows homes to be specifically designated for our local workforce and consider master leasing agreements with local employers like the hospital, schools, public safety, etc. Studio Crossing is a model for what we can accomplish when pragmatism and strategic planning drive workforce housing solutions.
The $2 million fee waiver for Studio Crossing
Yes. The city has gifted hard assets, both land and our tax revenues, to other projects that languish. Conversely, fee waivers are an absorbed employee labor cost that is incurred regardless. In this case, fee waivers were granted in exchange for a myriad community benefits offered by the developer including pocket parks, trail connections, deeper affordability, and transit amenities. These are investments Park City Municipal would otherwise have to deliver and pay for with our public funds at a much higher cost and lower return.
EngineHouse affordable housing project
I initially pushed back on EngineHouse. I speak regularly about the need for broad strategic planning in terms of development, transit, and circulation. It seemed foolish to commit to the height/scale of EngineHouse, including street and neighborhood changes the project demands before planning the 5-Acre Site and overall Bonanza Park area. More public benefit was agreed upon after extensive negotiation with the developer, such as affordability and parking, and I’m appreciative of their commitment to our community. Subsequently, I got on board with the rest of Council and voted yes. While I still don’t agree with the isolated planning approach the city pushed with EngineHouse or the heavy public subsidy model nearing $15 million of local funding, it is a great example of public-private collaboration and how healthy debate (including leveraging a split-council vote) can drive better outcomes.
To re-issue an RFP for the 5-Acre Site after getting back bids for the first one
Reissuing the RFP was not the result of a council unable to make decisions. It was the result of a council majority demanding transparency and the best outcomes for our constituents. Prior to that, Council was repeatedly misinformed. First, we were advised in a public meeting that firms who did not bid on the RSOQ could later bid on the RFP. That turned out to be false. Next, we were told during the RFP process that Council could not serve on the development partner selection committee, and that we would have an opportunity to refine site requirements after receiving initial bidder information. Both of those statements also proved false.
The RFP was therefore reissued to provide greater specificity for bidders, lending towards more accurate responses, and to ensure Council had a more active role in decision-making on this critical community project. All original bidders were encouraged to apply again, though some chose not to. Based on the clarifications included in the revised RFP (which remain publicly available), one may deduce where concerns with the initial process and responses arose. While I would like to share more, Council has been advised that much of the procurement process is protected, and disclosing it may constitute a legal violation.
The Mine Bench affordable housing project
Absolutely not. Unlike some others on Council, I firmly oppose rezoning open space for development. The Mine Bench project posed a number of other challenges such as destruction of mature alpine landscape, trail impacts, isolating workforce inhabitants halfway up a mountain, difficult road access during the winter with occasional unsafe conditions, difficult and costly transit access, incompatibility with the neighborhood, use of public funding to subsidize profitable commercial operations, etc. There are far more suitable and properly zoned parcels in the area that could have been pursued with commercial sector collaboration, while also eliminating the need for taxpayer funding. I’ll say it again because it can’t be said enough: no on rezoning open space.
Clark Ranch
Again, no on rezoning open space. The community continues to speak up and reinforce the value natural setting provides us, including trails, wildlife, and protecting our entry corridor from overdevelopment. This site poses additional issues such as a local taxpayer price tag (at this early stage) in the $30 to $50 million range, difficult to serve with transit, isolated from other neighborhoods, no ability for taking cars off the road given its isolation from our community and commercial services, Federal funding that prohibits prioritizing local workforce, and the list goes on. In 2022 the council (in a split-vote I lost) authorized taking money instead of housing units in the Deer Valley area because the development is behind an access gate, and that would have carried no taxpayer cost. To pursue Clark Ranch at all costs is a strategic misstep while also flying in the face of community engagement as reflected in our General Plan, just unanimously adopted in September.
Tana Toly
5-Acre Site (Re-issuing the RFP)
I trusted the procurement official (city manager) and the 5-Acre team’s recommendation to re-issue the RFP for several reasons. For example, they were correct that the Brishore is performing well and the city’s monetary contribution remains unchanged to date. Time will tell as council adds to or detracts from the project.
Mine Bench
What came before Council wasn’t a development approval but a question of whether to invest $400K alongside large local employers to study feasibility. I supported moving forward, because if viable, this project could have provided significant workforce housing close to jobs and yielded millions in long-term revenue for the city. Unfortunately, we never advanced even the feasibility stage, which I believe was a missed opportunity to partner with employers on a joint solution
EngineHouse
This was the city’s first public-private housing partnership, and it created new workforce housing. I was the lone no vote — not because I opposed the housing, but because I disagreed with the location next to a major substation.
Studio Crossing (2022)
I voted yes, along with Councilors Doilney and Gerber, while Rubell and Dickey voted no. This project was years in the making — earlier councils had worked with the developer to avoid yet another hotel at this site. Instead, we secured much-needed workforce housing, with units that can be master-leased by employers like the hospital. I also emphasized that any commercial space should be support-oriented for residents, not designed to draw more tourist traffic into the neighborhood.
$2 Million fee waiver for Studio Crossing
I supported the fee waiver because it directly improved the project’s ability to deliver housing, not just profit. That said, I’ve continued to reflect on this decision since the vote last summer. The applicant had already been granted nightly rental allowances in exchange for affordable units, so waiving fees on those same units gave me pause. At one point I proposed waiving about $750,000, the cost of just the fully affordable building, rather than extending the waiver to additional units. Like many council decisions, this one wasn’t simple, and I’ve asked myself often if we struck the right balance. Ultimately, I’m encouraged to see the project nearing completion and hopeful it will provide our workforce with real opportunities to live in town and build their lives here.
Diego Zegarra
Studio Crossing housing development in 2022
Yes, with consideration for fewer nightly rentals. Not many neighbors I’ve crossed paths with support the idea of more nightly rentals.
The $2 million fee waiver for Studio Crossing
No. The nightly rentals were the incentive for the project, which seemed to have already been under construction and underway when the fee waivers were approved. Fee waivers should be prioritized for nonprofit partners like Mountainlands Community Housing Trust.
EngineHouse affordable housing project
Yes — critical workforce housing in an area near bus lines, grocery shops, restaurants, etc.
To re-issue an RFP for the 5-Acre Site after getting back bids for the first one
No — this idea of sending things back to committee and stalling projects is partly what has left us with a dirt lot in our entry corridor. Significant feedback was taken and considered, planning for a vibrant arts and culture district for our community. Let’s execute on our vision. Projects get stalled and partners walk away. We lost Sundance, then the Kimball Art Center.
The Mine Bench affordable housing project
It may have been a good partnership with the private sector, but the feasibility study did not go through. Having employees of resorts and hotels above City Hall and Main Street could have commensurately removed cars off the road for workforce heading up to those centers of employment. The community has been asking for the private sector to pitch in, and this could’ve been an opportunity for that.
For Clark Ranch affordable housing
Part of the challenge is that we open up multiple large projects simultaneously instead of focusing on finishing what’s most viable: senior center, 5-Acre Site, HoPa. Let’s look at moving things forward that are closer in reach and then tackle more complicated ones. I’m hearing feedback that makes me consider the scope of size at Clark Ranch to fit with the character of the neighborhood.