The Summit County Council delayed voting on a series of amendments to the Utah Olympic Park’s development agreement for a second time on Wednesday after councilors expressed concerns about the economics of the project. Snyderville Basin residents, primarily from the Sun Peak neighborhood, had told the County Council they were worried about the development’s scope, as well as back gate access to the park from Bear Hollow Road and a potential closure of the pool. However, the county cannot legally consider the pool’s closure when deciding whether to approve the amended development agreement because the pool is operated by the nonprofit, not the county government. Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas said there was a lengthy history between the Sun Peak neighborhood and Utah Olympic Park regarding access to Bear Hollow Road, but the only time the road was strictly designated for residential use was during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The park’s development agreement from 2011 did not include any restrictions on the use of the back gate, and the county decided to not put any conditions on access because a traffic study at the time said it wasn’t necessary. Thomas said an updated traffic study, which the county engineer had also reviewed, did not recommend any additional conditions for Bear Hollow Road access, even with the proposed development at the Utah Olympic Park. However, Thomas said the County Council has a “wide amount of discretion” to impose conditions if necessary through the amended development agreement. County Councilor Chris Robinson asked Utah Olympic Foundation CEO Colin Hilton to add specific details to a back gate policy Hilton created to assuage the fears of Sun Peak residents, telling Hilton he viewed the policy as too vague since it allowed residential traffic and “deliveries” through Bear Hollow Road. Generally though, the County Council did not seem concerned about the pool or Bear Hollow Road access on Wednesday and instead focused on the foundation’s financial status and if the proposed development agreement would help the nonprofit, which is currently losing between $3 million and $4 million annually, with its long-term economic health. The Utah Olympic Foundation largely operates using funds generated during the 2002 Games, but the monies are quickly dissipating as venues continue to need upgrades, maintenance and staffing to function. “We’re eating away at that principal (amount), and we can’t do that,” Hilton said. “Getting the Games to come back is going to help, but … a place like the Olympic Park is operating on a highly subsidized basis.” As part of the amended development agreement, the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation suggested a future partnership between the nonprofit and the county to pursue a “major sporting event venue” designation, which was recently created by the state Legislature to provide financial assistance and taxing tools to qualifying venues. The designation would allow the Utah Olympic Park to engage in tax increment financing, so tax dollars generated on the park’s property would go back to the park to build a self-sustaining Olympic venue. “There’s been concern voiced in the community about what this would do to take money away from the county and give it to the Olympic Park,” Hilton said. “Today, as a nonprofit, we are not paying property taxes, and we have limited sales tax collections. … When we get innovative and create some for-profit functions, like a hotel and a conference center and a restaurant, that’s generating new revenues. What we’re asking for is consideration for some of those new tax collections to help us operate and sustain the park. It’s not taking away from any existing tax revenue because that is not occurring.” Robinson said he didn’t like the proposed approach because Hilton estimated it would generate $1.2 million annually, which is not enough to cover the foundation’s multimillion dollar shortfall. “I was hoping that what we were going to see was some elegant thing that was going to provide long-term cash flow,” Robinson said. Hilton said there were multiple components to the foundation’s strategy to bolster its finances, and the Utah Olympic Park developments were only one piece of the puzzle. The foundation manages two other venues in addition to the park — the Utah Olympic Oval and the Soldier Hollow Nordic Center — and Hilton also mentioned fundraising efforts and corporate partnerships as potential revenue sources. “In this first 10-year period, we only acted on a need for affordable housing for employees and stakeholders of the park,” Hilton said. “We have not acted on those elements that would be generating income because there are a lot of factors at play. It’s only now that we feel it’s time to act.” He also said he appreciated the County Council’s interest in the nonprofit’s future, but he reminded councilors that his request was to consider the specific items in the proposed development agreement. “That was the purpose … to lay the groundwork so that I can address this big picture of sustainability at the Olympic Park,” Hilton said. “We don’t have to solve all of this through this process today.” County Council Chair Canice Harte suggested postponing a vote on the development agreement for at least another week to give county staff a chance to draft conditions of approval, but councilors were not clear on what those conditions might be. County Manager Shayne Scott said there will likely be a work session to discuss the development agreement in more detail next week, with a vote tentatively scheduled for the following week. The proposed amendments to the development agreement outline new ski runs on the eastern side of the property, as well as the location and size of parcels intended for future developments, including a hotel, storage facilities, office space and employee housing. It also requested the county grant low-impact permits for the park’s construction rather than attach a conditional use permit to each piece of the project. Low-impact permits still require oversight from the county, but the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation would not need to hold a public hearing. However, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission may opt to hold a public hearing and revert to the typical permitting process if there are too many questions about the development. The post Summit County Council delays vote on Utah Olympic Park development agreement for second time appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less