Council adopts lower water penalty tier retroactive to July 1; Clark Ranch housing plan draws opposition
September 4, 2025, 2:30 p.m.
The council adopted Alternative 1 for water rates, cutting the top penalty tier to $37.84 per 1,000 gallons retroactive to July 1, at a revenue cost of about $1.3 million. As the Building Authority it approved a $60,000 utility easement for a water tank. On Clark Ranch, three members were interested in advancing the recommended scenario and two opposed, after about 20 residents spoke against the site. The mayor announced the city manager was marking 11 years of service.
From the approved minutes. Updated October 14, 2026.
Decisions at a glance
| Item | Result |
|---|---|
| Building Authority: utility easement for Summit County Service Area 3 | Approved with conditions · 5-0 |
| Resident parking program (work session) | Discussed |
| Childcare scholarship program (work session) | Discussed |
| Approve August 14 and 18 minutes | Approved · 5-0 |
| Consent: insurance amount for a Main Street awning | Approved · 5-0 |
| Clark Ranch affordable housing: design, mix and city contributions | Discussed |
| Water rates fee schedule amendment (Resolution 18-2025) | Approved · 5-0 |
Agenda, item by item
Item BA-1 · Roads and utilities
Building Authority: utility easement for Summit County Service Area 3
Approved with conditions · 5-0
Sitting as the Municipal Building Authority, the council approved a 3-acre utility easement on the 52-acre Naniola parcel off I-80 for a 750,000-gallon tank for Summit County Service Area #3, priced at $60,000 ($30,000 up front and $15,000 at years 7 and 10), with a reverter clause letting Park City exit if the district does not annex. The primary tank is failing, creating an emergency. The parcel was bought in the 1990s for its water rights ($900,000). Funding comes partly from the state Division of Drinking Water.
- Land deal$60,000 to Summit County Service Area #3
Item WS-1 · Other
Resident parking program (work session)
Discussed
Staff reviewed permits (416 residential at no cost, 110 guest, 175 residential business at $70 a month or $10 to $25 a day) and issues including five permits per address, weak treatment of multi-unit dwellings and long-term vehicle storage. About 60% of business permits go to nightly rentals. Consensus was that the program still serves its goals but needs changes, and staff will return with code changes. No vote.
Item WS-2 · Budget
Childcare scholarship program (work session)
Discussed
As of August 31, $794,320 of the original $1 million was allocated ($698,920 in scholarships, $95,400 in provider incentives) for 27 providers, 119 households and 137 children; staff expects to use the full $1 million by year-end. Staff recommended eliminating the area median income cap for enrolled residents, a sliding scale, incentives for full-time providers in city limits and higher incentives; incentives would cost $41,900 to $125,700 for ages 0 to 3 or $125,800 to $377,400 for all children. Summit County contributes about $300,000 to $400,000 a year. No vote.
- Payment$794,320 to Upwards
Item V · Other
Approve August 14 and 18 minutes
Approved · 5-0
Approved.
Item VI-1 · Other
Consent: insurance amount for a Main Street awning
Approved · 5-0
Approved a standard insurance amount for an awning at a Main Street building in the Historic Commercial Business zone.
Item VII-1 · Development
Clark Ranch affordable housing: design, mix and city contributions
Discussed
The Alexander Company presented four financing scenarios; recommended Scenario 3 has a $13.7 million gap and 34 market-rate owner townhomes, 57 workforce rentals at 71% to 120% area median income and 110 affordable rentals at 50% to 70%. Clark Ranch was bought for $6.7 million. Timeline: entitlements and private activity bond application in November 2025, tax credit application April 2026, construction start September 2026, completion September 2028. Council Members Parigian, Toly and Dickey supported Scenario 3; Council Member Ciraco raised location and cost concerns and projected a subsidy above $100,000 a unit; Council Member Rubell opposed the site and any subsidy. The mayor summarized that two members opposed and three were interested in advancing. About 20 speakers and written commenters, mostly nearby residents, opposed the site citing road cost, traffic, steep grades and debris-flow risk, and urged a conservation easement or other sites. No vote.
- Budget$13.7 million
- ContractAmount not given to Alexander Company
- Units: 167 rental, 34 ownership
- Developer: Alexander Company
Item VII-2 · Taxes and fees
Water rates fee schedule amendment (Resolution 18-2025)
Approved · 5-0
The council adopted Alternative 1 for single-family residential and irrigation accounts, cutting the top tier from $75 to $37.84 per 1,000 gallons, adding an extra-large category (1.25 acres and up) and making credits retroactive to July 1, 2025. The revenue reduction is about $1.3 million on top of $1.1 million already implemented, which must be addressed this fiscal year or by budget amendment. Council Member Rubell asked staff to explore a contribution to offset mining-impacted water capital. Council Member Dickey preferred Alternative 3 and Council Member Toly Alternative 2, but all supported retroactivity.
- Budget$1.30 million
What residents said
Clark Ranch cost, road and trafficWater penalty tierResident parking permits
Roughly 14 speakers and 5 written comments opposed the Clark Ranch site, citing cost, traffic, grade and open space; John Greenfield asked why large users do not pay more for water.