Midway council debates tighter rules for TAP grants and building rentals

Camille, a city staff member who led the discussion, told the Midway Town Council that the city has seen a large increase in TAP-funded events and repeated requests to rent the town hall, often for recurring weekend nights. "This is a new process for us; we're learning as we go," Camille said, adding that the council should consider more structure so applicants, staff and council have clearer expectations.

The council discussed why new rules are needed. TAP — the Tourism, Arts and Parks grant program — has helped local arts and cultural events grow, but multiple theater and dance groups now seek repeated, multi-night access to the town hall. Council members said that repeated rentals can tie up weekend nights and may compete with one-time community events such as weddings.

Council members agreed the question of how the buildings are scheduled and priced is a separate operational issue from TAP eligibility, but the two topics overlap. Several members recommended adjusting the building fee schedule (including consecutive-day discounts) rather than using TAP policy to limit building use. The council did not set a new fee but asked staff to return options.

On allowable expenses and budget accountability, the council signaled it wants clearer guidance for applicants and stronger post-award oversight. Staff said applications already require an event budget and that awardees must turn in receipts. Council discussion produced these points: require applicants to disclose other funding sources; allow modest intra-budget-category adjustments if documented; require receipts for final reimbursement; consider an administrative tolerance (staff suggested roughly a five percent variance) for small differences between proposed and actual spending; and reserve stronger sanctions for material misstatements or misuse (for example, denial of future TAP awards).

Camille described administrative options the council could use: pay part of an award up front and hold the remainder until the grantee submits a closeout report and receipts; delegate limited authority to the mayor or staff to approve small, documented budget changes; and provide quarterly reports to the council listing any adjustments and applicants that failed to follow award conditions.

The council also discussed the application timetable. Members favored moving the application-close date earlier to align with Wasatch County and Heber City. Staff proposed closing the local application window in February instead of March and beginning a new funding cycle on July 1 so awards would align with the county schedule and give staff and council more review time.

Interlocal coordination with Heber City and Wasatch County was described as important to prevent duplicate funding for the same event. Camille said staff holds periodic interlocal meetings and will update the application form to require applicants to list other funding requests and amounts so reviewers can identify "double-dipping." Wasatch County committee members Nancy O'Toole and Terry Davis were cited as contacts who participated in the interlocal review process.

On review and decision making, council members favored a small review panel of two council members (rotating assignments) to prescreen and score applications; final awards would still be ratified by the full council. The panel approach was framed as a way to avoid quorum issues while giving staff a manageable review process.

Funding levels and use of CIP funds were discussed. Camille reported about $119,008.74 in the CIP TAP fund (restricted to trails and parks) and roughly $104,087 available in the general TAP fund after the first round of awards; staff noted TAP receipts average about $17,000 a month. Two applications requested portable staging equipment at roughly $33,000 each (about $66,000 total). Council members discussed using CIP funding for equipment and identified storage as a significant logistical issue if the town were to purchase risers or staging for shared use.

The council addressed fee waivers and venue-rental funding. Staff said an applicant who receives another public grant specifically for venue rental must use that funding to pay the venue; the council discouraged awarding TAP money that would effectively be passed back to an applicant as a fee waiver (staff characterized that as impermissible double-dipping).

No substantive new ordinance or grant rule was adopted at the meeting. Council members asked staff to draft clear written guidance — a short list of hard exclusions (the council discussed excluding scholarships and capital improvements from TAP awards in principle, though members left some discretion) and a more detailed list of allowable expenses — and to return recommended administrative procedures for payment, reporting, and delegation. The council also asked staff to propose how review assignments will rotate and to present a quarterly compliance report mechanism.

The meeting concluded without a formal policy vote on the amendments discussed. A motion to adjourn was made and carried by voice vote.

Next steps identified during the discussion include (1) staff drafting written TAP guidelines that require disclosure of other public funding, receipts for expenditures, and a small tolerance for budget variances; (2) aligning the application window with county partners (shift close from March to February and apply new cycle beginning July 1); (3) assigning two council members per cycle to prescreen applications and present recommendations to the council; and (4) staff returning proposals on fee schedules, possible CIP-funded shared equipment purchases, and storage solutions for stage equipment.