Press enter to see results or esc to cancel.

Summit County Should Consider Breaking Up New Transportation Taxes on November’s Ballot

As we know, last fall’s Park City School Board bond initiative failed. The public said NO to the school district proposal. Yet, did the district need to have a complete failure? No.

What would have generated enough public support to give the school board and district much of what they wanted? Imagine if instead of one large $56 million dollar bond, the school district would have had a bond to rebuild Treasure Mountain, a bond for adding on to the high school for 9th grade, a bond for the 5/6 school at Ecker and a bond for upgraded athletic facilities.

The public would have likely voted to rebuild Treasure Mountain. The public would have also likely voted to expand the high school. There is even a slim chance the people would have voted for the 5/6 school at Ecker. The district may not have gotten everything they wanted, but they would have got the important things.

Moving from the past to the future, it’s likely this November the public will be asked again to vote on tax increases. This time it is likely Summit County will propose at least two taxes increases for fixing our transportation problems. The county has been discussing implementing both a 0.25% “County Option sales and Use Tax for Transportation” and another 0.25% “County, City, or Town Option Sales and Use Tax to Fund a System for Public Transit.” Each tax would raise about $4.1 million per year (total of about $8 million) and would have to be approved by voters during this year’s election.

In an interview last Thursday on KPCW, County Council person Claudia McMullin and KPCW’s Leslie Thatcher were discussing the possible tax increase. According to the interview, Summit County road maintenance is now annually underfunded by between $500,000 and $1 million. Ms Thatcher asked whether that meant we would only need to implement something like a 0.08% tax increase to cover this shortfall. Ms McMullin replied that there are so many other projects that need to be done as well.

When I heard that comment from Ms McMullin (she is right, there are a lot of potential projects), it reminded me of the school bond. The similarities are that there are a lot of potential things that could be done, but the public is likely only going to support some of those.

So a question to ask is, could the county break up the tax increases into smaller portions and have the public vote individually on those? Instead of coming up with a laundry list of items these taxes may be used for then TRYING TO SELL THE COMMUNITY on “fixing transportation” could they instead put multiple taxes on the ballot that would add up to the 0.5% total of the two potential taxes? Perhaps they could put a 0.065% tax increase to fund ongoing maintenance of our roads. Then they could put 0.014% tax increase for funding increased frequency of bus service. A Kimball bus circulator tax could be put on the ballot at 0.06%. Maybe a tax for a park and rides (the turnout by Ecker and/or the land by Jeremy Ranch Elementary, then one by the Home Depot, etc.) could be put on the ballot at around 0.15%

We’ve recently heard through citizen surveys that people want solutions to traffic. Well, let them confirm that by voting with their pocketbook. More importantly, let the community not just vote for “fixing transportation” but for individual ideas. We’d probably learn that 90% of voters have no problem in keeping their roads updated. We’d then learn whether people thought increased bus frequency made sense. We’d also learn about the public interest in park and rides. It would be a very tactical way of looking at issues.

It would also enable the county to have very tactical messages. On the repairs and maintenance, they could cite their statistics that it costs many times more to replace a road than to maintain it. On bus frequency they could tell the public that the reason people don’t ride buses is because they come every half hour and if we bring that down to 7 to 15 minutes, it will increase the number of riders by X and will take Y number of cars off the road.

It also would allow the county to sell the message that they have watched what happened recently, they have listened, and want to ensure they give the public the chance to choose.

Of course there are a couple of potential problems with this. First, is it even possible to break up tax increases on the ballot? From the language of the two laws that enable these tax increases, one says the body “may impose a sales and use tax UP TO 0.25%.” The other says they can impose one of 0.25%. So, it may not even be possible, legally.

Second, I would guess most consultants skilled in putting bonds and taxes on a ballot would call this idea crazy. They would likely say to put as few items on the ballot as possible and hope that the public will “just vote for transportation.” Of course experts told the school district that they should include something with athletics on last year’s bond because people don’t vote for education, they vote for sports. We all know how that worked out.

If the county decides to put transportation taxes on the ballot, is dividing up the taxes a crazy idea? Perhaps. Is it one of the best ways to really know if the public is behind the county’s vision of transportation? Most certainly.

Death to the Term NIMBY Because We are All NIMBYs

This morning I had a fleeting thought about the acronym NIMBY. You may be familiar with it. It means “Not In MY Back Yard.” Most recently in Park City it was commonly used during the school bond debate to describe those people living in Prospector or Park Meadows who apparently didn’t want the bond to pass because if it did, and the football field was moved, then sounds from games would bounce off mountains and be too loud for the neighbors (I guess)… and supposedly the lights would bother the neighbors since they would be… uhhhh… pointed in the wrong direction or something. Therefore, any of this community’s concerns with the bond were dismissed as being that of NIMBYs.

I was reminded of that fleeting thought a few moments ago when a Park Rag commenter told another commenter that the term NIMBY was offensive. The two commenters were discussing the proposed affordable housing and transit center that may be put between Jeremy Ranch Elementary and the Burt Brothers. One commenter thought that people in Jeremy Ranch may not like this development because they were NIMBYs. Another commenter said the term was offensive.

Personally, I agree and disagree with them both. I’m not sure it’s an offensive term but I don’t think the label does much good.

The truth is that most of us are NIMBYs. Want an example?

Let’s build a homeless shelter on Main Street, perhaps right next to the Egyptian Theater. There isn’t a homeless shelter around Park City (that I know of) and why not provide the homeless with an opportunity to be in the center of our city where the potential jobs are and where visitors may be able to help them?

Want another example? Let’s go back to Mountain Accord and have them build that tunnel through Big Cottonwood Canyon to PCMR. It would likely bring a lot more people to Utah, increase the state’s visitors, and increase the tax base of our state, thus increasing revenues for education statewide. So what if people just stay in the valley, stop going to our hotels and restaurants, and make a day trip of it? Don’t be such a NIMBY. Don’t be so concerned with yourself.

Want yet another example? If I recall on Old Ranch Road there is farm land across from Willow Creek Park. Wouldn’t that make a great transit center, if we could buy it? Especially if we connected Old Ranch Road directly with Highway 40? People could come in via Highway 40 via Old Ranch Road and park at the transit center. They could then be shuttled to Canyons and PCMR for skiing. We could have buses running downtown and to PCMR. Why not?

Need another one? Let’s open Guardsman pass year round to traffic. Who cares about the extra traffic going by houses in Old Town and causes more congestion there. That’s NIMBY thinking. It’s not like traffic will be going fast and become dangerous. It’s frankly good for everyone. It provides another way into Park City, so traffic is alleviated up Parleys Canyon, 224 and 248. It likely makes things that much safer!

Need yet another one? Why didn’t we want to put the new state prison in Park City… perhaps on the Triangle Parcel (Between the Home Depot and the Park City Gun Club)? Just think of the economic impact of having a prison near our community! What? You want that prison in Salt Lake and not near where you live? Why?

Wait there’s more. Let’s take the final step and go full circle. We have a transportation problem right? We need more buses on the road! We need transportation alternatives! Yet, how do we fund them? The obvious answer is that all of us living in 84098 currently have a “Park City” address … but we don’t REALLY live in Park City. We live in the unincorporated Snyderville Basin and not Park City. The problem with this is that taxes like the “Resort Tax,” that could be used to fund transportation, are only available to cities and not places like the unincorporated Snyderville Basin. Therefore we are missing out on substantial taxes, that could fund transportation, from visitors to the Canyons because we are not in a “city.” That tax number is likely 6.35% of Vail’s “Canyons” related revenues. All we need is you 84098-ers to change your address. Just so you know… you won’t live in Park City anymore. You’ll live in Moose Valley. But please don’t fuss, because it’s good for all of us. Especially don’t mind the drop in property values associated with you living in Moose Valley instead of Park City. Why would you care?

Because you are a NIMBY. Most of us are NIMBYs. There is nothing wrong with it. At a broader scale, even globally, we all care about where we live.

It is true that at some point we all may have to make sacrifices for the greater good, but it should be a very high bar. Most people in Jeremy Ranch bought into their houses, knowing that the parcel of land between the Jeremy Ranch School and Burt Brothers was zoned Rural Residential and Hillside Stewardship. This would mean that one or two houses could be put on the 30 acres of land between the two sites (not affordable housing and a transit center). You could go further with what people expect around their kids safety, the ability for a two lane road to handle this extra traffic, etc.

The point is that a park and ride and affordable housing at the new location near Jeremy Ranch may make a lot of sense and may be overwhelmingly good for our community as a whole. It may even be good for the Jeremy Ranch population (if we turned into a bus commuter neighborhood). However, IT BETTER make much more sense than a spot that negatively impacts no one or many fewer people.

The truth is that we are all NIMBYs. We just don’t notice until an issue directly impacts us. Most importantly, as a community we should want to support our different neighbors’ issues. Today, it may be affordable housing near Jeremy Ranch. Tomorrow it may be a heliport in Sun Peak.

We’re all in this together.

For a slightly different viewpoint, I’ll suggest you watch the great George Carlin video below. It is definitely NSFW (Not Safe For Work).

Do Park City Students Spend Too Much Time on Standardized Tests?

We at the Park Rag continue to be impressed by how well spoken and thoughtful our local students are. We received the post below last week from a student at Treasure Mountain Junior High about the level and amount of standardized tests that our students endure. We hope you’ll give it a read.

We reached out to the school district for comment on this post last week but have not received any comment.

March 23, 2016

To Whom It May Concern,

This is Hailey Lebold. When I’m not at Treasure Mountain Junior High School in the eighth grade, I am at work at Papa Murphy’s or at Ecker Hill Middle School at swim practice. I just looked at the testing schedule for the end of the year and would like to share my concerns.

Including today, there are 54 days left of the school year. Then, I counted up the days that we are taking standardized tests and that number is 23 days. 23 out of 54 means that about 42% of our days left in school are spent taking standardized tests. I have many concerns about the large percentage. With that many days spent testing, it brings students stress and anxiety levels up. It tires students faster and if we try to do homework at night, we as students do not have enough energy to stay up. Thus meaning homework does not get done, bringing down grades, creating annoyed parents and students who are worried.

I would like to pose the question, why do we need to take both Galileo and SAGE tests? If we take the Galileo tests throughout April, why do we need to take the SAGE tests starting a week after we finish Galileo? If our teachers need to teach us more before SAGE, then we are taking the Galileo test without a clue about how to answer specific questions. Furthermore, if we take SAGE to help us as students learn more, why do we not receive the results until near the end of summer? That would be about two and a half months that we go without any information. By then is the information accurate anymore? We could have learned more over the summer which would make the data invalid.

Lastly, these tests are taken at the end of the year. At the end of the year, students already have end of year finals. Ninth graders take the AP Geography test. Quite a few students opt out of the SAGE test. Why do we give the option to do that if it is a standardized test? If the district is requiring students to take the test, but also letting students opt out, what is the point of requiring the test?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope that you will take these concerns under careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Hailey Lebold

Note: For all posts by students we contact them to make sure they want their name published. We also ask him or her to confirm that his or her parents are aware and have approved of this being posted online.

The Community Discussion Should Begin Soon about Summit County Buying the Land Between Jeremy Ranch School and the Burt Brothers

As many people have heard, Summit County purchased an option to buy about 30 acres of land between Jeremy Ranch Elementary School and Burt Brothers.  In the county’s press release, they stated they may be looking at putting affordable housing or some sort of transit solution on the land. Over the past few days, this has caused some concern on social media sites like NextDoor and with a few people I have spoken with.

The concerns seem to stem from both the affordable housing component and the transportation component. People aren’t so sure they really want affordable housing next to a school or that they want it at all. As for transportation, people seem concerned that a park and ride will bring more people into the Jeremy Ranch area, and that will make the Jeremy Ranch interchange as big of a mess as Kimball Junction.

I had the chance to sit down with Summit County Manager, Tom Fisher, and Summit County Council Chairperson, Roger Armstrong, on Friday to talk about the topic. The first question I asked of Mr Fisher was why they thought this was the right spot for a transportation hub and affordable housing. Mr Fisher quickly corrected me and told me that no decisions had been made on what may be going there. He said that they wanted to receive community input before making any decisions. Mr Armstrong said that there are a limited number of parcels available for purchase and that when this became available it made sense to at least consider it for use by the county and its residents. Mr Fisher and Mr Armstrong both spoke of two of the top priorities, per citizen surveys, and the need to make things better. Those priorities being transportation and affordable housing. That is why they listed them as potential solutions in the county press release about the purchase of the land.

That’s the good news. It appears the county views this as a potentially valuable piece of land that can be used in a numbers of ways. While the statements about affordable housing and transportation in the press release provide an idea of where some in the county would like to go with the land, it really sounds like it is open for debate. Other options (in my view… and not necessarily Summit County’s) could include a recreation center (pool, park, field house). It may prove a better place for a new Park City school than the Ecker Hill campus does. Perhaps we want an extension of the business park where the Burt Brothers is, since it seems to be so busy these days. Perhaps we want some restaurants and small retail like a pharmacy. Perhaps we want a park and ride. Perhaps we want to preserve it as open space.

Or perhaps we would prefer to leave the land as it is zoned. That would mean someone could build just one house on the entire 30 acres.

It really is up to us as citizens.

After my meeting with the county, I don’t believe they plan anything “nefarious” with the land. They are just keeping their options open. However, it is up to us as citizens to guide those options.  The county’s goals may or may not align with yours. That alignment will likely guide your attitude toward whether the county should ultimately buy this land.

Keep in mind that the county only purchased an “option” to buy the land. They have until January 2017 to decide whether they actually want to proceed with it. Your feedback to the county in the next few months will likely drive the direction they will take.

I firmly believe the county learned from the school bond failure. They know they will have to make a concrete proposal to the public before they spend almost $4 million on this land. They will have to tell us who any proposed partners are in the deal (i.e. Mountain Lands Community Housing Trust, the school district, UDOT, Park City, Vail, etc.). They’ll need to convince us that traffic on a two-lane Rasmussen Road can handle whatever they propose (or that it can be expanded). They’ll need to convince Jeremy Ranch residents that whatever they do will positively impact home values (or at least not reduce them). They’ll need to convince Jeremy Ranch Elementary School Parents that it introduces no safety issues with their children. They’ll need to convince all residents, if they decide to build a transit station, that people will actually stop on their way in from Salt Lake and ride a bus into town. They’ll need to convince Pinebrook and Jeremy Ranch residents that the proposed interchange improvements have accounted for the added traffic a successful project would bring.

Simply stated, they’ll need to convince a majority of people that, all in, this is the right thing for our community.

We have smart people with good ideas in our government. If they put themselves in the average-residents shoes, they’ll likely come up with good solutions. However, they only have about 10 months to gather input, make plans, gather input, find partners, gather input, go through our planning commission, gather input, hold meetings with the county council, gather input and make an ultimate decision on whether to buy this land. Borrowing the words from a Jerry Reed song, “they have a long way to go and a short time to get there.”

We hope that community meetings to begin gathering feedback start soon. While the feedback we have heard has been negative to date, that’s not surprising. People aren’t typically rushing to speak in favor of an idea they like (they just assume it will happen). So, many people could be in favor of this idea. However, it will be up to both sides to make sure their opinions are heard in the coming months.

Later Start Times at Park City Schools

There has been a citizen driven movement in our community, somewhat started by Dr John Hanrahan and vocalized by Sally Elliot to at least have a discussion about starting school later. This morning, I heard that “0 hour” at the high school began at 6:15 AM. YES, school starts at SIX FIFTEEN AM (for some kids).  That appears to be the time slot where many of our advanced courses like AP Physics lab are offered.  There’s nothing quite like waking up to a discussion of advanced physics!

That said, the school district seems open to discussing the option of starting high school later.

If you missed last night’s school district presentation on later start times for our high schoolers, as we did, you may be interested in reading the powerpoint and/or watching a video of the event.

Click here for the presentation.. The video is below.

Office Hours with Ember Conley (3/25/2016)

Each week, Park City School District’s Office Hours with Ember Conley attracts more citizens. This morning 15 1/2 people attended the meeting. That 1/2 was a baby (get them started young!).

Today’s discussion stretched from later start times, to the status of teacher surveys, to the learning center, to the plan for both a 5/6 and 7/8 school, to growth, to some miscellaneous items. Below was my best effort at capturing major ideas expressed at the meeting.

  • The first topic was later start times for our classes…
    • Late start meeting last night was great.
    • Citizen said she has had kids and always dreaded early start.She says “we have a community that is so well educated and we have so many AP classes and are trying to compete and kids are taking heavy loads and classes like Physics lab is at 0 hour. The bus picks them up at 6:47 AM.” One of her kids will have zero hour runs track, and does debate. She realizes there is time that has to be made up but she feels our kids need more rest.
    • Citizen asks what zero hour is. Dr COnley replied it’s an optional hour of class before school. It starts at 6:15AM.
    • Citizen asks why classes have to be picked in March. The answer was that scheduling is complex with regard to when classes can be offered, what teacher needs are, etc.
    • Citizen says he understands that part of the scheduling problem is the buses.
    • Citizen says it is hard to work with late start times with younger children.
    • Dr Conley says if swapped times, Ecker Hill would be the earliest start time and that would be only two years.
    • Citizens asks when the elementary school would start. Response was that everything is still be considered but the current proposed scenario is at 8:15.
    • Two bell system (two start times for district) would cost extra $1 million in capital for buses.
    • Three bell system (three different start times) would have high school starting at 9AM. They would finish at 4PM.
    • Dr Conley says if that some administrators are concerned that if we are buying buses before we put money into facilities, something is wrong.
    • Citizen says 88 minute class periods seem too long. Dr Conley says 7 period day is more efficient than block period but that we’ve had great success with the block schedule (block schedule means certain classes on one day and othe classes on alternating days)
    • Dr Conley says she would personally prefer shorter days with more school days but that can cost a lot of money and has other drawbacks.
    • Citizen says she got a call before the meeting last night. She referenced a teacher who says he has kids who fall asleep first period. He says that’s not the case with later classes. She says many teachers have expressed this.
    • Dr Conley says one of the ripple effects with moving some schools to an earlier start time (and high school later) is after school programs. She says if classes start earlier, then young kids will be at after school programs for longer periods, so after school programs may have to cost citizens more.
  • A citizen asks if results of the teacher survey about the district been released?
    • Citizen says she has heard that teachers are afraid of speaking out. She feels they need to be able to speak out.
    • Dr Conley says she wants to hear what teachers think. She meets with teacher and the union regularly.
    • Phil Kaplan (of the school board) is facilitating this process. Dr Conley says there were so many comments that need to be coded to responses. Statisticians have been brought in to look at it. It should be released by April or May.
    • Citizen says there seems to be a culture of where teachers are afraid.
  • Citizen asks what the status of the learning center is. He says there are rumors flying about it being closed.
    • Dr Conley says they are actually adding positions at learning center.
    • Citizens asks if there are exit studies about how the kids are doing after leaving the learning center. Dr Conley says she will check into it but it is a hard problem to track.
    • Citizen says that perhaps the problem is that the district is talking about bringing the learning center into high school and people are getting confused.
    • Dr Conley says that there are more and more problems with TMJH. So, they are continuing to look at bringing the 9th grade into the high school. As part of that, it may make sense to bring the learning center into the high school as well because more technical classes could be offered to both learning center kids and other kids at the school.
  • Citizen asks why there is continuing talk about having two schools at intermediate level (5/6 and 7/8). He says trend is that K-8 now. He says you don’t find the 5/6 and 7/8 many places. He asks why are we trying to do that?
    • Citizen responded to the question and said having 9th grade at the high school makes sense. Many 9th graders need access to 10th grade classes. So, he believes a 9th grade close to the high school. He says then it becomes a building issue.
    • Another citizen says we should be looking at what is right for the kids before discussing building and traffic.
    • Citizen says most people are fine with the 9th grade being in the high school.
    • Dr Conley says she asked her elementary teachers about what grades should be together. She said some said it should be K-6. However, most said they should have 5th and 6th together. Many of the teachers felt that 6th graders should not be with 7th graders because of the different maturity levels. Teachers also felt that 5th and 6th should be out of the current schools with the addition of Pre-K.
  • Citizen asks what will happen with growth.
    • Dr Conley says an example is Trailside. She says we need three more teachers for additional classes but there are not enough classrooms.
    • Dr Conley says the biggest growth right now is 8th, 9th, and 10th graders.
    • Dr Conley says she has been talking with North Summit and South Summit. She says she has told them that until they give us money for schools, we will not open our classrooms. She said that did not go over well with them but she was saying what was right for our district.
    • Citizen says she has shifted her thinking because she thinks there will be many additional Kindergartners and Pre K full day, she thinks the district will be out of room in the elementary school. She suggests that an early learning center be added. She says that there could be 300-400 PreK and Kindergarten kids in this type of building and it could be built for 3 to 4 year olds. Dr Conley says those are the types of things that we are open to. Dr Conley says she HAS to do something with TMJH. She said she then has to get the 9th graders into the high school. She says the rest of it, she is open to discussing.
  • Citizen asks if Dr Conley is at liberty to share what bad things she just learned about TMJH. Dr Conley said no.
  • Citizen says one of the other things to think about there are opportunities when older kids mix with younger kids. She went to a K-8 and said the opportunities the younger kids had because of the older kids were huge. She said the little kids were separated from older kids in the building a bit but it worked.
  • Look at hiring dance teacher full time at Parley’s Park. She has been teaching part time reading through dance.
  • Dr Conley wants to add 10-14 additional teachers (1.5 to TMJH. 3 sections Kindergarten. Rest are elementary). Right now our lowest class size is 11. The largest average is 23.3.

Note: I also recorded today’s Office Hour’s meeting. If you are bored on a Friday night, and interested you may want to give it a listen. This meeting is at a loud coffee shop, so you may hear some strange noises from time to time. Click play below to begin listening.

[yendifplayer audio=1]

 

Summit County Buys the Option to Build on the Land Next to Jeremy Ranch Elementary

Yesterday, Summit County Manager Tom Fisher signed a purchase order for an option to buy 30 acres of land next to Jeremy Ranch Elementary School (the land between the school and the Burt Brothers). The intent is to implement solutions related to traffic and affordable housing, if further study ultimately determines this land would be useful for those purposes.

The purchase price of the land, should the county decide to buy it, is $3.7 million or $125,000 per acre.

Our best guess for intended uses would be an intercept lot for parking and some sort of workforce housing. We are working to get more information so we can get a better idea of what the county has in mind.

We’ll provide additional information as it becomes available.

Press-release-dahle

Click here for the press release