Joint councils direct staff to refine plan for regional housing authority while weighing a 'task force plus' alternative

Joint city and county councils met Nov. 14 to weigh whether to pursue a Regional Housing Authority to centralize housing development and related services, and directed staff to return in January with refined financial analyses, draft interlocal agreements and a narrower set of options.

The presentation from Jason Wooden, housing development manager, outlined committee work since April, an evaluation matrix comparing governance structures and an early budget model. "We are roughly spending about $1,200,000 per year" on current affordable-housing operations across the two governments, Jason said, and staff modeled a stand-up seed amount of about $1.5 million to launch a regional authority. The presentation also noted potential grant opportunities, including a HUD program cited as having roughly $85,000,000 in available grant funds.

The discussion centered on two fault lines: whether a formal authority would produce meaningful efficiency gains and access to funding that justify its startup costs, and whether creating a new entity would risk slowing Park City’s active projects. Council member Chris Robinson summarized the policy focus: "The problem we're trying to solve is to build affordable housing," and said he wanted a structure that leads to construction rather than primarily compliance or education work.

Opponents cautioned about short-term fiscal and program risks. Council member Jeremy noted the $1.5 million startup estimate and warned that each jurisdiction appeared prepared to contribute roughly $500,000; he said the councils needed clarity on whether the authority would mean net new spending or a reallocation of the current approximately $1.2 million annual outlay. Supporters, including council members Max and Ryan, said the potential efficiency gains and a single "clearing house" for applicants and projects could speed delivery if the governance model avoids duplicative staffing.

Several members proposed a staged approach. Multiple speakers urged a "task force plus" model — a time-limited, paid facilitation or staffed task force that could plan governance and financing and could evolve into a full authority if warranted. Council member Ryan and others stressed guardrails to ensure ongoing Park City projects are not disrupted during any transition of staff or responsibilities.

On contracts and existing strategies, staff and council members said they preferred maintaining current partnerships — for example, continuing the county’s contract with Mountainlands Community Housing Trust — while adding new implementation tools rather than replacing existing programs outright. Staff clarified the $1.2 million figure did not include some centralized services (legal, HR, IT), which could affect the modeled delta between current spending and startup costs.

By consensus, the councils did not take a final vote but directed staff and the subcommittee to continue work: prepare interlocal-agreement drafts, develop a clearer budget and cost-benefit analysis, and return in January with a refined recommendation that narrows the options to the housing authority and a task force (or task force plus) pathway. Kenneth summarized the direction: the group would "continue down this path" and come back with specifics.

Next steps: staff will model detailed costs, potential funding sources and governance options, and a follow-up meeting was proposed for January to review those materials. The councils emphasized that existing pipelines and RFPs should continue while planning proceeds; creation of a regional authority, if approved later, would be a multi-year effort.