The Park City School Bond election is drawing nearer. On November 3rd, voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of the $56 million bond. Yet, it appears the battle is still raging. Today, the Summit County Attorney’s office released a press release stating it was investigating both school board members and the bond opposition for violating election laws. In this two part series, the Parkrag wants to provide some context about allegations on both sides, present the laws, and let you make up your own mind.

Part 2: Have Park City School Board Members Violated Election Law?

As far as we know, there have been two allegations against members of the school board, with regard to presenting information to students about the upcoming bond. The first allegation from some children was that during student assemblies, children were told to tell their parents to vote for the bond. This has been denied by the school board. We won’t cover that here.

The second allegation is that a video produced by the school district attempts to influence people to vote for the bond. We received a copy of the video from the school district and will show it below, so you can make up your own mind.

Why is this potentially illegal?

According to Utah Code: “Unless specifically required by law, and except as provided in Section 20A-11-1206, a public entity may not make an expenditure from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition.”

In the video below, which appears to be filmed at the High School, was provided by a district personnel, and was shown to many classes throughout the district, it sounds like School Board President Tania Knauer says, “We are asking the voters to approve a $56 million bond.” It is legal for the School Board to provide matter of fact statements but they are not supposed to encourage people to vote one way or another. This statement could be construed, by some, as the school board attempting to influence voters.

Here is the beginning of the video, where introductions are made and then the part where Ms. Knauer makes her statement:

Why is this potentially not illegal?

It all comes down to “influence.” You may construe Ms Knauer’s words, “We are asking the voters to approve a $56 million bond” as pure statement of fact. Perhaps it is not trying to encourage or influence people to vote one way or another. Likewise, if you view the video in its entirety, you’ll see it is about 2 minutes of fact and 10 seconds of what sounds like Ms. Knauer’s statements.

Here is the video in its entirety:

Ultimate Answer

The County Attorney’s office knows what they are doing and has actual legal minds to back up their decisions. So, it will be interesting to see what they determine. Keep in mind, these acts are typically misdemeanors. So, even if they took place, were charged, and found guilty, it’s a couple hundred dollar fine. It does not validate or invalidate the election.

Still, it’s interesting to play Arm Chair Quarterback. If your child had to watch this video in class, would you construe it as the School Board trying to influence the election?

Note: We do not have any official information on whether the above issue is the item that the County Attorney is investigating. It is just one of the potential issues that has been brought to our attention by the community.

The Park City School Bond election is drawing nearer. On November 3rd, voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of the $56 million bond. Yet, it appears the battle is still raging. Today, the Summit County Attorney’s office released a press release stating it was investigating both school board members and the bond opposition for violating election laws. In this two part series, the Parkrag wants to provide some context about allegations on both sides, present the laws, and let you make up your own mind.

Part 1: Did the bond opposition violate election laws?

On the evening of October 21st, there was a community forum on the school bond at Ecker Hill Middle School. Members of the bond opposition group, Citizens for Better Education (CFBE), were handing out information outside the school. It is our understanding that a school administrator told CFBE representatives that they were violating election laws and asked them leave the Ecker Campus.

Why is this potentially illegal?

According to Utah Code: “A person may not, within a polling place or in any public area within 150 feet of the building where a polling place is located: (i) do any electioneering; (ii) circulate cards or handbills of any kind; (iii) solicit signatures to any kind of petition; or (iv) engage in any practice that interferes with the freedom of voters to vote or disrupts the administration of the polling place.”

Ecker Hill is a polling place and if people were disseminating information about the upcoming election within 150 feet of the building, this may violate election law.

Why is this potentially not illegal?

Is Ecker Hill a “polling place” year round? Or is it a polling place only on election day? Put another way, there are plenty of various types places across Utah where voting takes place: schools, churches, libraries, etc. Are all these locations considered “polling places” in the middle of Summer? On March 1st? Or just on election day. Common sense would argue that Ecker Hill Middle School is a school in the middle of October, and not a polling place.

Potential Twist

If you continue reading down the Utah Code in this section it says, “A county, municipality, school district, or local district may not prohibit electioneering that occurs more than 150 feet from the building where a polling place is located, but may regulate the place and manner of that electioneering to protect the public safety.” So, even if CFBE did violate the law, did school district personnel violate this law too by not letting CFBE persons stay on school property (as long as they were 150 feet from the outside of the building)?

Ultimate Answer

The County Attorney’s office knows what they are doing and has actual legal minds to back up their decisions. So, it will be interesting to see what they determine. Keep in mind, these type of acts are typically misdemeanors (if anything). So, even if they took place, were charged, and found guilty, it’s a couple hundred dollar fine. It does not validate or invalidate the election.

Still, it’s interesting to play Arm Chair Quarterback. IF CFBE was passing out material within 150 feet of the building, do you think this was illegal?

Summit County Attorney, Judge Robert Hilder, issued a press release stating that his office was investigating allegations of “inappropriate and possibly illegal conduct occurring by both proponents and opponents of the upcoming Park City School District bonding issue.”

The release says, “Reports state that officials representing the school district may have used public funds to campaign in favor of the bond in violation of the Political Activities of Public Entities Act.” It continues on to state, “Reports have also been received indicating that opponents of the bond issue may have also violated provisions of the Utah Election code by campaigning on school property.”

The County Attorney’s office is currently investigating these allegations and has not made any decisions on charges.

We received a submission from Jim Tedford, who is one of the leaders of Citizens for Better Education, a group opposing the Park City School bond. His submission asks a number of questions that I believe are worth pondering.

• Do we need to write a “BLANK CHECK” for unspecified,unneeded “Athletic Facilities”?
• Do we need more classroom space when enrollment in the PCSD is declining?
• Do we need the largest single Middle School in Utah?
• Do we need to spend $90 million (with interest)?
• Do we need a BETTER PLAN for improved academic, performing arts, and physical education opportunities for our students?

We received an anonymous reply to Clay Stuard’s proposal on how he would recommend we approach a bond for our schools. It has some standard name calling that’s getting frankly getting a little old. Any upgrade to our schools is likely going to impact almost everyone in our community. If you have kids and are in support of the bond are you a “NIMBY” because it benefits you personally? If you don’t have kids and are against the bond are you a “NIMBY” because you don’t directly benefit from it? It’ so tiring. Does it even matter? OK, my rant is done.

So, in the interest of fairness, and hopefully trying to have a constructive conversation, here is the reply to Mr Stuard’s proposal:

Mr. Stuard’s proposal contains many flaws which reveal either his lack of knowledge of our school district community and the facts, or he is intentionally misleading.

1. The master planning committee and school board could spend another year and hundreds more hours but a solution that everyone will agree to do not exist. We have an incredibly knowledgeable and talented school board; the best I have seen in many years. The “North 40 Gang” will never agree to any plan that puts a stadium or field house on the Treasure Mountain site. Is our community going to allow NIMBYs to hold the school district hostage?
2. Mr. Stuard seems to assume that the Committee and School Board did not consider many, many options. THEY DID. The committee of 12+ people, made up of community members and professional educators met for 150+ hours over a 10 month period contemplating ideas to address the needs of the district. That’s 1800+ brain hours. Countless options were listened to and considered, even the crazy ones. For people to suggest it was rushed and not thought out is ludicrous. The community workshops were very well attended. When people don’t get their way, they often claim they weren’t listened to.
3. Mr. Stuard’s plan will not decrease the number of students on the Kearns campus. The School District’s plan decreases it by around 450 students plus staff.
4. In Mr. Stuard’s plan most of the students at Ecker Hill would be from Jeremy. Most of the students from Trailside and Parley’s area would be bused to Kearns. 72% of students are eligible to ride the bus. Whether it’s to Kearns or Ecker won’t change that number much.
5. As a Park Meadows resident I am offended and embarrassed by Mr. Stuard’s statement. He and I must be in different communities. Our school district is one community; not an in-town community vs. out-of-town community as some have insinuated. Students are in dance classes, music programs, ski teams, soccer teams, etc., with students from other schools often starting in preschool. They like being together. I asked my daughter and her friends who just graduated from PCHS if they would have liked two middle schools as Mr. Stuard proposed and I received a very loud NO! Has busing “city” kids to Ecker for the last 10 years hurt their sense of community? I think not, in fact, it expanded it. Keeping Park City, Park City doesn’t mean becoming a community of elitists.
6. There are economies of scale, both financial and programming, that are lost when we create two schools instead of one.
7. The claims by Bruce King of 1 1⁄2 hours per day on a bus are ridiculous. That’s equivalent to going to Rowland Hall. From my stop in Park Meadows the ride averaged 15-20 minutes each way. The kids enjoyed the time socializing with friends. My kids liked riding the bus to Ecker and it made my life easier. Remember these aren’t 5 year olds. School facilities for ALL GRADE LEVELS in Park City limits is needed to have a complete community.
8. Removing one campus from Kearns will help with the bus situation at PCHS. Hopefully they will find they don’t need to use Lucky John when they see that eliminating buses going between TMJH and PCHS will help the problem immensely.
9. The school district needs a field house. Over 60% of PCHS students participate in athletics. While the school board is not averse to working with the city, a field house at Quinn’s is not in the best interest of students. Located on the Kearns campus, a field house will be used by PE classes, 800 + student athletes, marching band, etc. It can also accommodate whole school assemblies, teacher development workshops and graduation when it rains. Evening practices can be held indoors instead of under the lights in the freezing weather. Requiring students to jump into cars and rush to Quinn’s or Basin for practice is not the right answer. Eight spring sports with almost 400 athletes compete for training space on a daily basis when fields are buried in snow. A recent tour of similar schools revealed that Bear River, Morgan and Wasatch districts all have a field house.
10. Mr. Stuard’s plan will cost more. I could expand on this, but anyone with a basic understanding of school construction will see this. Examples: Building a middle school instead of elementary is more expensive. Building a second story which the foundation wasn’t built to support is more expensive. Mr. Stuard’s plan requires building both a new middle school, expanding an existing middle school and expanding the high school.
11. Mr. Stuard’s plan creates two 5-8 grade middle schools. In the state of Utah 5th and 6th grades are elementary ̧ 7th and 8th are secondary. Combining them into one school creates difficulties with programming due to certification distinctions and dual immersion. Mr. Humbert’s claim that the District’s plan creates the largest middle school in the state either shows his lack of understanding or he is intentionally spreading misinformation. The 5th – 6th grade school will be a separate elementary school on the same site as Ecker. Just as McPolin, TMJH and PCHS are on the Kearns campus, yet they are 3 schools.

According to documents obtained from the Park City School District, enrollment at Park City schools is decreasing. The news couldn’t come at a worse time for the Park City School Board, who is attempting to pass a bond for rebuilding schools across the district. One of the key reasons cited for the need to rebuild schools is the growth the district expected.

As of October 2015, the school district had 145 less children, or 3% less than forecasted in Park City schools.

Overall enrollment dropped by 22 students, or 0.5%, district wide this year. However, the largest drops in enrollment came in our elementary schools where:

• Parley’s Park enrollment dropped 8.7%
• McPolin enrollment dropped 2.71%
• Jeremy Ranch enrollment dropped 0.18%
• Trailside enrollment dropped 2.85%

Ecker Hill also saw enrollment decrease by 0.25%. These losses were offset by a 6% increase at Treasure Mountain and 1.1% at PCHS. Overall enrollment dropped 0.5% across the district.

This actually isn’t surprising given the facts presented over the last few months. There were many times during School Board’s Master Planning Committee meetings that members talked about a “bubble” of kids moving through our schools, which has led to increased enrollment. They also talked about estimates where enrollment growth would likely be between -0.3% and 2.2%…. with the most likely scenario being 1.1% growth.

However, the school board and district officials has been using higher numbers in many discussion about the bond. Business Administrator Todd Hauber has talked on KPCW about 2.6% growth. During the Project for Deeper Understanding Discussion, School Board leader Tania Knauer cited a statistic that since 2006 there has been a 13% increase in students. We’ve also heard lots of talk about double wide trailers learning chalets at Trailside because of the growth.

To be fair, the board’s plan doesn’t just hinge on student growth. There are also the major components of grade realignment, fixing the dual immersion program at Ecker Hill, and upgrading our athletics facilities driving the bond. Some proponents of the bond may also argue that this is just one year, and who knows what will happen next year. Yet, that plays right into the hands of those who say we should wait a year and study the bond more.

It’s not really surprising growth is slowing in our schools. To extrapolate recent growth, which is coming out of the one of the worse recessions and then biggest stock markets booms in history (coupled with low rates that enabled home purchases), was probably a mistake. To ignore the increase in second homes (who have fewer kids) was likely a mistake too.

Where does that leave us?

It likely means in our decision making about how to vote for the bond, we need to take into account no growth. If the number of students stays stagnant, does it still make sense to move forward with the plan? If your main reason for voting for the bond was athletics, this likely doesn’t change your mind at all. If you were against the bond because you wanted two middle schools, perhaps this makes you like the plan more, because it may make little sense to have more schools for fewer kids.

On the other side of the argument, if you were opposed to this bond because you wanted K-6 at our existing elementary schools but were told that there was no way it would work due to growth, you may really want the K-6 option explored now. Likewise, if you didn’t like this plan because you wanted smaller neighborhood schools, these lower growth numbers fit into that model nicely.

You can look at it a number of ways; however, we as a community need to take this new information about growth into account and that should change some of the discussion about the bond.

I see arguments on both sides of the bond issue; however one bond opposition argument that I heard at the Project For Deeper Understanding now rings more true than ever. Why not wait and vet the plan more? The answer to that used to be that “growth was coming.” Now, if growth isn’t coming… does it hurt to wait ? I’m sure there are arguments on both sides of that too… but I think it’s at least a good question to ask again.

Here are the enrollment numbers:

The Park City School Board provided the Park Rag with a list of their frequently asked questions and answers. I think the board feels there is a disconnect between what they believe they are trying to accomplish given constraints and what others believe they are trying to accomplish. I believe they hope by providing enough information they can help people understand where they are coming from.

If you haven’t seen this FAQ in other places, I would recommend reading it:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: PCSD PROPOSTION 1

Why do we need a bond for our schools?

The proposed bond will provide our growing school district with much-needed remodeled schools, new facilities and important athletic and performing arts space to ensure our students receive the education they deserve. Proposition 1 is designed to:
• Fund essential school needs for our growing district, with more than 80 percent of the funding going directly to much-needed classroom space.
• Fund important safety modernizations to our schools and improve traffic flow around our school buildings.
• Ensure students have the academic, performing arts and athletic facilities they need to become well-rounded adults.
• Be a cost-effective investment in students and their education, and allows the district to responsibly plan for the future.

What was the process followed by the Board of Education in weighing the input of the community and the Master Planning Committee recommendation?

The Park City School District (PCSD) curated an expert steering committee to study facilities needs, future growth potential and best practices in educational trends. The group included teachers, parents, Administrators and board members. This Committee began work in the fall of 2014 and were instructed to engage community at every opportunity. The steering committee delivered a recommendation to the board in August of 2015. More than 400 people attended and added important input at more than 30 community meetings. For 5 months (March-July 2015) 3 workshops, 5 community forums, 2 Town Hall meetings were held to collect input on working plans. In addition a third party community survey queried 500 PCSD residents to understand values and priorities. Finally, the district had feedback and recommendations from city, county, UDOT and recreation experts. These meetings represent more that 1100 (wo)man hours on how best to meet the needs of Park City students. Board members attended all of these sessions to deeply understand ideas considered. Inclusion of community feedback resulted in numerous working plans. The board reviewed the community input and the committee recommendation. Options were vetted through the application of best practice standards and choices that were fiscally responsible. The Master Planning Committee recommended expanding and remodeling the high school to accommodate the 9th graders and updating the athletics and performing arts which were not finished in the last remodel, building a 5th and 6th on the Ecker campus, budgeting for student safety and expanding at McPolin, and tearing down Treasure Mountain Junior High. Two options on the high school expansion were presented – to the south and to the west. The Board accepted all the elements and determined the west was the better option. The elementary school numbers do not show the need to add classrooms at McPolin yet, but it is being set up as the next school to be expanded when needed. Finally, the board concluded the urgency for indoor practice and multipurpose space of a field house were important student needs to address. Accordingly we adopted the prioritized project list and associated costs that are part of the bond referendum.

What are the projects included in Proposition 1 on the November 3, 2015 ballot?

Park City High School Expansion and Remodel $27,500,000
New 5th and 6th Grade School at Ecker Campus $24,800,000
McPolin Student Safety Improvements $1,400,000
Treasure Mountain Junior High Demolition $606,336
Athletic Facilities $12,000,000

(more…)