(See end of post for update)
The town council action of changing the name of Pocketville Park evoked more emotion than I initially believed would occur. As often is the case, council decisions can spur strong emotions. Although, there was very little public testimony, several citizens have contacted me about their views concerning changing the name of the park. So, in this post I hope to dispel some misconceptions and mollify some concerns, but also signal when to galvanize into action should the concerns start to materialize.
At its previous council meeting, the town council passed a resolution changing the name of Pocketville Park to Pocketville Hollow. The change is temporary until such time as Virgin residents choose a permanent name for the park. When possible new names were discussed at the work meeting, I pushed for having the citizens name the park and Pocketville Hollow be only a place holder until the residents vote on a new name. At the regular meeting, I voted for the name change in part because the residents would get the final say in naming the park as I was under the impression that the town council had named the park Pocketville Park after input from residents. I just learned from a citizen that the residents may have previously voted on the original name. It is unclear whether there was an actual vote or whether the town council had asked the community what to name the park and selected the most common submitted name. If it was the former, then my insistence of having the public vote on the name was unnecessary.
Pocketville Park was originally common area for the Sierra Bella subdivision. Like most subdivisions in Utah, developers designate the least desirable land or the most difficult to build areas as common area or open space to meet their open space requirements under the ordinance. I assume because of the topography and the park’s location in relationship to the rest of the Sierra Bella subdivision, this low-lying area was designated common area for the subdivision. The land was acquired by the town as a result of Sierra Bella’s bankruptcy. In 2013 the bank donated the land designated common area to the town (sold for $10). The town then developed the common area into a park with sprinklers and a bathroom.
I have heard the following concerns related to changing the name of the park: 1) re-purposing of the park; 2) eliminating the park; and 3) alcohol in the park. I will address each of these concerns or fears below. But first, I believe there needs to be a condition precedent prior to any of these issues coming to fruition, and that is the town needs a POST (Parks, Open Space, and Trails) Plan or PROST (Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails) Plan. In other words, we need a plan that has had public participation in preparing the plan, and approval and adoption by the town council after public hearings. The plan should include how many parks the town should have (based upon a formula such as population or residential houses), what type of park and/or use, and where the parks/trails/open space should be located, type of amenities in the park, and funding mechanism. If we don’t plan what we want as a community then we are wasting our money and letting development control what Virgin looks like. I have been pushing for a POST or PROST plan since my swearing in.
Why hasn’t there been a Request for Proposal for a POST/PROST Plan on the council agenda? It is because I also introduced, advocated, and helped pass a Capital Improvements Policy/Plan, which is critical to the council and town to spend our money wisely. Instead of circumventing the CIP process for the plan, I submitted a Capital Improvements Plan request to the CIP committee. I have been advocating that the POST/PROST Plan be placed in year one of the five-year plan. Until we have a plan, I will vote against any significant changes to the park or area except in very limited circumstances such as an emergency or overwhelming need supported by most of the community.
From my observation, Pocketville Park had been used as a dog park, an occasional picnic location, and rarely as a farmer’s market. I have heard suggestions that the park be converted into a dog park, that a walking trail be built around the park, and yes, as a small venue park. However, the suggestions for venue park have been limited to small venue events like a local music group, e.g., 3Hattrio, or Shakespeare in the Park play. My concern about the small venue re-purposing is parking and noise. And as indicated above, I do not support re-purposing until there is a POST/PROST Plan that would support such a change.
I haven’t heard any council member suggest eliminating the park. But sometimes changing the use and nature of the park could have the same effect. Again, I would not vote to eliminate the park without a replacement park for Sierra Bella in a suitable location and only after a POST/PROST Plan supporting the elimination and replacement.
The main reason for the name change was to assist River Rock in obtaining an alcohol license. I assume the alcohol license is necessary or critical for the viability of the business and its business plan. Utah Code Section 32B-1-202 provides that an alcohol license may not be issued if there is a “community location” (public park) within 300 feet measured from the nearest patron entrance by the shortest route of ordinary pedestrian travel or within 200 feet measured in a straight line from the nearest entrance. River Rock’s (old post office) entrance falls within this distance. I don’t know if relocating the entrance to the west side of the building would fall outside the code’s proximity requirements. Regardless, the owners and the public would likely not appreciate the entrance to the old post office being changed as it would affect the historical appearance of the building. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the name change would help or not help in obtaining the license. I don’t think the answer matters as this same Utah code section provides in subsection (6) that the commission can consider proximity to the park even if beyond the 300/200 feet, or “any other relevant factor”. Should River Rock obtain a license to serve alcohol, it doesn’t affect the park. State Code prohibits removing alcohol from the restaurant. Also, State Code specifically prohibits consuming alcohol in a public park unless authorized under the Utah code.
I agree with Kent and Diane Peterson’s testimony that there should have been more transparency in the processing of the name change. However, in the overall scheme the name change doesn’t affect the park other than the name. Thus, helping a potential local business to get established in the downtown area outweighs the name change, even if the endeavor to get a license fails. The time to galvanize into action will be when there is a proposal for re-purposing, elimination, or other significant change to the park if not made pursuant to an adopted POST/PROST Plan. But I do appreciate the fervor of the testimony that I did receive about the name change as it reminded me that sometimes simple council decisions, such as a name change to a park, can be more important to the citizens than it appears at first blush.
(UPDATE)
Resolution 2023-H incorrectly states the park has never been formally named. And states that the name is changed to “Pocketville Hollow as a placeholder name until such time as the towns people choose a permanent name for the said property.” While there may not have been a town council resolution formally naming the park, Virgin residents did name the park. After publishing this post, I received an email containing 2014 Town Newsletters from February, March, April, May and June. The newsletters are more detailed than our current newsletters as these older newsletters contain minutes from the previous town council meeting. The newsletters indicate that after town council solicitated possible names for the new park, residents submitted the following names: Pocketville Park, Pocket Cove, Pocket Cove Park, Wilcox Park, The Hollow, Kolob Terrance Park, Pocketville Hollow, and Wilcox Veterans Memorial Park. The town council then selected the following names to be voted on: Pocket Park, Pocketville Park, and Wilcox Park. Pocketville Park received 35 votes; Wilcox Park received 14 votes and Pocket Park 5 votes.
So why the name change? Resolution 2023-H also states that the park “restricts the commercial opportunities of the two commercial properties that pre-existed town ownership” of the park. Since the residents and town council had previously named Pocketville Park, the real reason for changing the name of the park was to remove a potential hurdle for River Rock to obtain an alcohol license. As I mentioned in the original post, changing the name may not help River Rock as it doesn’t remove the proximity evaluation from the licensing decision. So now, River Rock will submit their license application and the town will proceed to name the park, again.
While there are still some questions in my mind about how the vote was conducted, it is clear the residents of Virgin did have an opportunity to vote on the park’s name. I will raise this fact at the next council meeting. To minimize town council involvement in the name selection, I will also suggest that rather than the town council picking the names to be voted on, let the residents submit possible names, then vote on all of the submitted names, then resubmit the top 3 voted names to another vote rather than the town council picking the 3 names to be voted on as they did the previous time. If my suggested procedure is followed, it is possible that the residents could rename the park, wait for it – Pocketville Park.
(Thank you to Marci Holm for sending the Town Newsletters from 2014)