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…)

Park City Resident Clay Stuard provided the Parkrag with an alternative to the current plan from the Park City School Board. His plan focuses on keeping a middle school within the city limits of Park City, discusses alternative solutions for the Kearns campus, and provides alternatives for the location of a field house.

As we quickly approach election date, we feel it is important that we as a community decide whether plans laid out by the school board are the path we want for our community or whether the issue warrants further discussion. With that in mind, we present Mr. Stuard’s proposal.

I am not supporting the upcoming school because I think there is a better school facilities plan for our community, one that will reduce traffic impacts and is better for students and families. Here it is:

Demolish Treasure Mountain Junior High School and build a new grade 5-8 “middle school” with separate wings for grades 5-6 and 7-8 in its place.

Remodel (as necessary) Ecker Hill Middle school to accommodate a grade 5-8 “middle School” similar to the new Treasure Mountain Middle School mentioned above, and adjust attendance boundaries (as necessary) to balance student populations between the two “middle schools.” This two “middle school” plan will keep a ton of traffic off of Highway 224 and Kilby Road and make Park City parents lives and student time on the bus much better.

Leave Dozier Field where it is and build a second story on top of the existing one story portion of the west end of the high school and if necessary, an additional two story classroom wing to the south. Expand the gym and performing arts facilities on the rear of the high school as currently contemplated. Rebuild the “home team” bleacher facility to incorporate desired locker rooms, offices for coaches/officials and storage/concessions. Add parking to the east side of the performing arts center as needed.

Do not run buses along Lucky John to “help solve traffic problems” on Kearns Boulevard. The street is too narrow and buses will be very disruptive to the adjacent residential neighborhood.

If a Field House is needed, then build a joint-use facility at Quinn’s Junction where easy freeway access is available to everyone.

School facilities for ALL GRADE LEVELS in Park City limits is needed to have a complete community. It will also make us a more walkable and family friendly community.

VOTE NO ON THE SCHOOL BOND and let’s think this plan through again…and do what is best for our community, families and the students.

Clay Stuard
Park City Resident

On Tuesday evening, the Project for Deeper Understanding held a debate about the proposed Park City School District Bond. Here are some thoughts from the evening:

• Dr John Hanrahan did a great job of moderating the debate. He asked good questions. One of the hardest parts of moderating session like this is asking pointed questions that will be answered by parties on both sides. He did a good job of phrasing questions so they could be answered by all participants.
• I was a little surprised by the makeup of the crowd, as it was much older than I expected. If the average age of those who turnout for the election matches what we saw at the debate, the pro-bond people may be in trouble.
• I’m not sure if the Project for Deeper Understanding changed the debate format due to concerns over there being 4 people for the bond (2 school board members plus two citizens) vs 2 people opposed to the bond, but I think the way it turned out worked well. The way they structured it was to have the school board provide opening remarks and then sit in the audience. Then the debate was “2 on 2.” This was much better than allowing the board members to answer every question (in my opinion). If the board members would have been onstage to answer questions, it would have given the pro-bond folks a decided advantage.
• Former school board member Moe Hickey did a great job of presenting the pro-bond side. You can agree with Mr Hickey, or not, but his experience is evident. When he said that his opinion was that the 5/6 school should be built at the school district’s Bear Hollow site (but the consensus was that it should be at Ecker Hill), it lended even more credibility to his arguments. No dig against the current school board members but I think they are going to miss his presence on the board for the foreseeable future.
• The anti-bond group chose a good tactical route when they said they weren’t against a bond (or paying for schools), they were just against this plan. That enabled them to attack specific aspects of the plan and not appear like they were against schools, teachers, or children.
• The pro-bond group missed a good opportunity to counter criticism about the athletic portion of the bond, and strengthen their argument when a member of the public stated that she cared about education and wondered what parts of the bond were targeted at education. Mr Hickey directed everyone to write the state legislature about more funding for schools. Ms. Hoggan quickly said that all day Kindergarten would help get challenged kids on track faster and then spent 90% of her time speaking about the Park City Educational Foundation. It was a missed opportunity.
• The pro-bond group did a good job of pointing out that what some people want, two middle schools (one on each side of the area), could cost twice as much to build, and would lead an increased number of employees and thus even additional cost.
• Ms. Ziesler did a good job of coming back to the argument of “real world aspects” of this plan. She spoke about the problems of having 1700 5th-8th graders at Ecker Hill, the extra traffic in the area from before/after school activities, and requiring young children to leave their neighborhoods.
• Ms. Hoggan brought up a good point that the community still has the opportunity to contribute to this plan because it is not in stone and there are many design teams that will touch almost every aspect of the plan.
• It was interesting that all questions during the hour allotted to public comment/questions appeared to be against the bond. There was no one that stood up and said, “I like this plan.” Perhaps that is to be expected in this sort of environment but I was a little surprised. Even during the Ski Link Project for Deeper Understanding debate there were a few people in favor of Ski Link.
• One member of the public was very confrontational and aggressive toward Mr. Hickey with his questions. Mr Hickey did an admirable job of keeping his cool and genuinely tried to answer the gentleman’s questions.
• The pro-bond group answered a question about the field house costing $12 million. They corrected the person asking the question and said the field house was only about $5-$6 million of the $12 million in athletic upgrades. That’s interesting because I remember being in a Master Planning Committee meeting and a committee member asked VCBO, the planning company, about the costs of a field house. I believe they said for $5 million you get a pre fabricated metal barn and that we’d likely need to spend at least $11 million to get a very basic building that would look OK on Kearns. I sure hope that if they are going to build a field house that both costs are being estimated correctly and they have allocated enough money.
• Ms Ziesler made a good point that the high school was already designed for expansion, and could accommodate 20,000 additional square feet of space, which would be enough to house the addition of the 9th graders. She pointed out this would be $4 million versus the $25 million remodel planned.
• A citizen asked a “gotcha” question of Mr Hickey. The citizen said that VCBO (the planners) had said that to pass a bond, there needed to be an athletic component. Mr. Hickey did a good job of handling that and said VCBO would likely say something like that and that athletics had been part of the discussions for a long time. Instead of shying away from the argument, he met it head on and rebutted it nicely.
• There was a moment during the evening that felt a little “dirty.” A citizen stated that he hoped the school board would hire a good construction manager to oversee the project so we didn’t have cost overruns like we did during the last high school remodel. The moderator directed the question to School Board member Phil Kaplan and asked, “Have there been discussions about a construction manager?” Mr Kaplan responded that they were in the process of hiring a construction manager. Mr Cronley retorted that the board was already seeing cost overruns so they were resorting to using a person from the school district that may not have the requisite experience. The moderator then asked Phil Kaplan, “Is that true Phil?” Mr Kaplan responded that it is correct that they were looking at hiring a person who is currently on staff but that does have experience. Wile I suppose Mr Kaplan’s answer is true, it doesn’t capture the reality of the circumstances. The School Board appears to want to promote a facilities manager who has construction experience and then hire a contractor to assist the facilities manager with things like estimating costs. This bears watching.

If you have a few minutes, I would encourage you to read the live blog from the debate. It can provide a lot more detail about everyone’s arguments, and if you are still undecided about how to vote, you may find some clarity there.