Thursday, October 15, 2026The Utah Ledger

Everything Utah, every day.

Park City · City Council

Council hears water rate study scope and Bonanza comments; no action items

September 3, 2026, 2:45 p.m.

The council reviewed the scope of a water rate study with Raftelis, swore in four police officers and approved minutes. Public speakers were divided on the Bonanza 5-acre project. Two closed sessions on property and litigation lasted most of the meeting.

From the approved minutes. Updated October 14, 2026.

Decisions at a glance

Agenda, item by item

  1. Item CS-1 · Other

    Closed session: property and litigation

    No action · 3-0

    Closed 3-0 at 2:48 p.m. (Council Members Ciraco and Parigian arrived at 2:50 and 2:51) and adjourned 5-0 at 4:48 p.m.

    Moved by Council Member Tana Toly, seconded by Council Member Molly Miller. Vote: 3-0; Council Members Bill Ciraco and Ed Parigian not yet present

  2. Item WS · Contract

    Water rate consulting contract (work session)

    Discussed

    Raftelis Consulting reviewed the draft scope: council meetings, revenue requirements, cost-of-service analysis, rate design and public outreach. The council agreed to move forward and plans to approve the contract at the next meeting. No vote.

  3. Item P · Presentation

    Police officer swearing-in

    No action

    The mayor swore in Clint Johnson (promoted to lieutenant), Clayton Eves (promoted to sergeant) and Rick Penrod and Zach Williams, rehired as full-time officers.

  4. Item M · Other

    Approve August 13 and 20 minutes

    Approved · 5-0

    Approved.

    Moved by Council Member Tana Toly, seconded by Council Member Bill Ciraco. Vote: 5-0

  5. Item CS-2 · Other

    Closed session: property

    No action · 5-0

    Closed 5-0 at 6:18 p.m. and adjourned 5-0 at 7:42 p.m.

    Moved by Council Member Bill Ciraco, seconded by Council Member Molly Miller. Vote: 5-0

What residents said

Bonanza 5-acre projectAirport shuttle funding

Speakers split on the Bonanza 5-acre project: supporters cited workforce housing and the value of the parcel; opponents cited traffic, a potential height exception and a preference for open space. One e-commenter asked for an environmental audit of public open spaces and one questioned public funds for the airport shuttle.