in Schools
Initial Cost Estimates for Park City School District Remodel
I am sitting in today’s school district board meeting and presentation was made by the Sean Morgan, one of the chairmen of the school’s Master Planning Committee. This was the first I’ve seen of estimated costs associated with rebuilding the Kerns campus and moving Treasure Mountain Junior High School.
Mr. Morgan said that they had received costs from 4 contractors on Phase 1 of the project. The contractors worked together to determine the costs. Mr. Morgan presented what he called the “high end estimates” for the initial phase of development. These include:
- Demolishing Treasure Mountain Junior High: $525,000
- Expanding Park City High School: $19,500,000
- Relocating Dozier Field: $3,200,000
- New 5th/6th grade school: $26,200,000
The total cost of these items are near $50 million.
This estimates excludes other phases that include possibilities like:
- Expand McPolin Elementary
- New field house
- New soccer fields
- New District Office
- New Learning Center
- Expand Ecker Pool
- District Warehouse
Estimates on later phases are less concrete. Mr Morgan estimates a total cost of the entire rebuilding (if everything was done) would be in the $80-$90 million range (does not include warehouse). These numbers will surely change as we get closer to a decision by the board.
in Development
The County Council’s Change to Section 2.3 of the General Plan is Disappointing
On Wednesday, the Summit County Council will hold a public hearing to discuss the Snyderville Basin General Plan. The General Plan defines what our community wants to see from development in our area. In the original General Plan there was a section 2.3 that simply said:
“Do not approve any new entitlements beyond base zoning until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.”
The intent behind this was that the Community Development Department and Planning Commission felt there too many existing entitlements in the Basin that were unbuilt. It appeared they wanted to ensure that we didn’t exacerbate our current problems like meeting transportation needs and over building the wrong things.
When the plan was sent to the County Council for review they tore this section apart. Comments were made about “unintended consequences” and what if’s, like what if we wanted to build affordable housing or what if we wanted to solve our transportation problems, were brought up.
Hence, section 2.3 has now been stripped of any meaning. It now reads:
“Do not approve any new entitlements beyond base zoning without first studying, analyzing, and determining whether or not:
- a compelling community need or public interest exists to justify a proposed change to existing development entitlement(s) or rezone.
- the potential community impacts of any proposal to increase existing entitlement(s) or rezone can be mitigated.
- any proposal to increase existing entitlement(s) is consistent with the Snyderville Basin General Plan’s Future Land Use Maps.”
Section 2.3’s original language seemed to say something… let’s limit new development until we get a hold on what’s been promised but not built. The new language seems to provide a concrete path toward upzoning property.
Let me provide an example of property near Bitner Road that’s currently zoned Rural Residential. This location is at the east end and across I-80 from the Swaner nature preserve. Rural residential zoning generally means that you can have 1 home per 20 acres. Now, let’s say I wanted to to put in a Chiles, a bank, and a gas station there. How would I do it via language in 2.3.
- I would work with the Community Development Department to make a plan. As they do with anything submitted, they would study it.
- In and of itself, my plan already provides a community benefit, which is increased tax dollars to the people of Summit County. I might even throw in a few acres of open space.
- There would be traffic issues, but like with every development in the area, I would pay to mitigate them.
- I would check the land use maps and see that the future land use for this area says Mixed Use – Neighborhood commercial. Neighborhood commercial has a plethora of commercial opportunities like the ones mentioned above.
That plan took me almost 3 minutes to come up with. Perhaps the Bitner Rd property is under some other legal agreement and if so you could interchange Bitner Rd with many other places in the Basin. What could a professional developer do with this type of opportunity? Now, to be fair, this plan would have to go through the Planning Commission and maybe the County Council, so it’s not a rubber stamp. That said, we can’t always count on the same type of individuals we have now in places of power to think logically and act in our best interests. We shouldn’t have to depend on people. We should be able to depend on laws.
Contrast that with the original section 2.3. This upzone would not take place for a while (maybe never). The only path to upzoning would be to try and get the County to go against it’s people’s wishes expressed in the General Plan. It’s far less likely it would happen.
That’s why I wish the essence of section 2.3 had been kept as envisioned by the Planning Commission. Sure, it needed some tweaking but it didn’t need its heart ripped out.
If the new 2.3 is the only alternative, perhaps we just need to scrap it.
in Housing
Can We Make Developers Actually Build Affordable Housing?
This weekend I wrote an article entitled What I Don’t Get About Affordable Housing. I wrote that locations like Kamas and Oakley are already “affordable” without us jumping through hoops to try and figure out how we put the horse back in the barn. A community member responded saying that “outsourcing our affordable housing only exacerbates the problem” with regard to issues like transportation. She also mentioned that she likes the diversity that comes with neighbors from all walks of life.
She makes good points. There are benefits to having a diverse community — one not made up of only second home owners. Yet, members of community have been beating this drum for years and nothing really changes. So, if we really do want affordable housing, what can we do about?
I’ll throw out one suggestion. If affordable housing is a component of a development project, make them build it, ALWAYS. One of the core concepts of both Park City and Summit County’s development code is a concept called fee in lieu. What this means is that instead of building affordable housing the developer can pay the local government money instead. What if that possibility was taken off the table. If the developer, who wants to build the new Whole Foods, wants to go forward, make them actually build affordable housing on-site or somewhere else within 5 miles of the location. Don’t let them pay money instead. If a developer wants to rebuild the old Kimball Arts Center building on Main Street, make sure that agreement includes real affordable housing at or near the building.
Perhaps there is some sort of state law that requires the fee in lieu option, but my guess is that it is included for the ease of developers. What if it was hard to incorporate or too expensive to buy land elsewhere for affordable housing, what would they ever do? Perhaps they would use their creativity to figure something out and deliver a solution many members of the community have wanted for years.
It sounds like the new Silver Creek Village will dedicate about 25% of its 1200 units to affordable housing. There you go! We can debate whether affordable housing is what the community really wants as a whole, but if the answer is yes, then let’s do something really crazy… like scrap fee in lieu and actually build something.
in Schools
No Park City School Board Member Has Voted ‘No’ in a Year?
Last September I penned an article entitled, “By Abstaining, School Board Member Tania Knauer Exemplifies What Is Wrong With Many Park City Leaders.” She had abstained from a tax increase discussion. I said, “I don’t know Ms. Knauer personally but judging from her resume she seems very competent and dedicated to education and our children. In this case, though, Ms. Knauer contributed to the problem. Instead of voting with her convictions, or at least her comments, she took the easy way out.”
Since that time I have gotten to know Ms Knauer a little better. I would say that she definitely does have our childrens’ best interests at heart. However, we are perhaps seeing an even greater problem. I went through all school board decisions in the past year (per the school district’s website) and I could not find a single instance where a school board member voted NAY. In fact, the last Nay appears to be a vote by Ms Knauer in May 2014.
It begs the question of whether anything important or controversial is happening at the school board? Wait, isn’t the school board set to vote on a budget that will increase taxes for the 3rd time in 4 years. Oh, and there is that bond for rebuilding the Kearns campus that will come in between $20 million and $100 million (they aren’t sure yet). Then there is the horrible SAGE test results where about only 50%-60% our students are competent in various disciplines. Oh yeah, there is the fact that this year’s budget projects expenses far outpacing revenues over the next few years. Oops, I almost forgot the issue over “closing” schools where each out of district student costs our district money that can’t be spent on our own students.
So there is a lot going on.
I find it almost impossible to believe that every decision by the School Board in the last 12 months was unanimous. In your life, during the last year, have you said yes to everything? Yet, that’s what the records say of our board.
The cynic would quote H.L. Mencken and say, “The people deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.” The optimist would say it’s a triumph of consensus that benefits the children.
I would say, “I just don’t get it.”
in Housing
What I Don’t Get About Affordable Housing
I was reading Bubba Brown’s article in today’s Park Record about Economic Growth in Summit County. It brought up the need for affordable housing for local workers. Yet this article seemed different because it is in the context of Summit County and not Park City.
For so long I have heard people lament that their children can’t afford to live in Park City. That people working at a local grocery store can’t afford to live in Park City. That ski workers can’t afford to live in Park City. That is all probably true.
Yet what about Summit County as a place for affordable housing — and I’m not talking Old Ranch Road? Kamas is 22 minutes away from Park City. Oakley is 25 minutes away from Park City. Check out what you can get in Kamas for under $250,00. That still may not be cheap enough, but it is at least half (probably 1/3) of what it costs to buy a house here in the Basin.
So what I don’t understand is why talk of affordable housing has to be so uber-local. My first, second, and third jobs out of college were at least 25 minutes from my home. I was willing to drive. Would I have loved to live downtown in the city where the action was? Sure, but I was making $34,000 a year and condos cost $400,000. That’s life.
If you look far enough into the future, and if you believe growth is really coming, then you’d be a fool not to buy in Kamas. If Park City will be what they project, why wouldn’t you want your kid to buy in Kamas at $220,000. That would be the definition of investment.
Folks in Kamas or Oakley, of course, may say that they don’t want these type of residents. That’s a larger issue though. That said, it seems like it makes a lot of sense for us to think outside of Park City and the Basin for affordable housing. It’s just a more straightforward path. These properties are already somewhat affordable.
We don’t have to figure out ways to fit the square peg in the round hole.
Do You Want an 82 Foot Tall Tower in Kimball Junction?
It appears Verizon Wireless is appealing to the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission for an 80+ foot tower behind Walmart. This will be a monopole type tower and will likely look something like this:
That’s a little over two and a half times the allowed upon height of a building in the Basin, but it is narrower, of course. I also suppose that if they allow this use, they should also let all the other major players do the same thing. So, that could eventually be 5 or 6 towers.
If this is something you feel passionately about, you may want to pencil the June 23rd Snyderville Basin Planning Commission Meeting into your calendar. It will be held at 6PM at the Kimball Junction Library building (Richens Building).
Here is the location of the proposed tower on land owned by Chevron:
in Development
Reader Question: Do You Really Want Houses Spread Across the Open Space on Highway 40
I received an email from a reader regarding a post from yesterday on the new proposed development south of Home Depot. He asked, “I think the idea of a whole bunch of houses out on the open space is horrible. Do you really think that is a good idea?”
I do think it is an alternative and the one the owner is currently entitled to by law. I think the first question is what we as citizens want for our community. That could be commercial growth in pockets around the Basin. That could also be no growth (probably not possible). It could be somewhere in between.
What I will say about residential development on this specific 450 acres is that there is a reason the owner wants to do something different than build houses. Could it be out of the goodness of the owner’s heart, who may want to ensure the best for the other residents of the Basin? Maybe. Could it be that they’d make more money by having a commercial component? Probably. Is it that it’s not economically viable as residential land? HMMM.
Let’s consider that last one. If the land owner went with their existing rights, they could build about 22 homes on the 455 acres. That’s 1 home per 20 acres. Now, what do you need to build a sub division? I can think of at least three things. You need sewer run to each house. You need a system of roads. You need to run utilities to each house. Keep in mind that the houses are likely to be spread out. This makes that infrastructure expensive.
To recoup your money, you’ll need to build expensive homes. But you’ll have to compete with Promontory, which is probably situated on superior land and still has lots available. You’ll also have to not price yourself out of the market. If you recall a few weeks ago, two local real estate professionals were on KPCW and said people were paying up to about $1.3 million on homes.
Is $28 million in home sales is enough to offset the expenses of building and marketing a subdivision? It seems right now the owner would rather take another course — one that includes commercial development. Would they even try to build homes there? Who knows (well the developer probably does).
If you don’t want development around the Basin, that’s the bet you are making by keeping it residential. You’re hoping that the economics don’t make any sense and that it will sit as open space for a while longer. That strategy doesn’t seem like a terrible gamble, in this instance, though.
in Growth
Let’s Look At Growth in Summit County Historically
This morning on KPCW’s Local News Hour they were talking growth again. I heard there are 4,000 units of unbuilt density (basically homes) in Park City and about 14,000 in the Snyderville Basin. The theory presented is that because of those rights to build, that people are going to flock to the Park City area. The theory could turn out being right, and if so, that’s a lot of people to add to our area.
Yet, I started thinking about unbuilt density (homes). Weren’t most of those rights to build entitled for a long, long time? Perhaps, instead it makes sense to look at historical population trends and see what is happening in Summit County. Below is a chart of growth since 1960. It uses census data up to 2014 and then extrapolates the future based on the 2010 to 2014 average growth.
What you’ll see is that the greatest period of growth happened between 1990 and 2000 (92% growth). The second highest growth is 1970 to 1980 (73% growth). You’ll find that 2000-2010 actually ranks fourth in terms of growth (for decades since 1960), with 22% growth. There was only one lower growth decade, between 1960 and 1970 (4%). The results for 2000 to 2010, of course, may have been influenced by the Great Recession. Yet, what has it looked like this decade?
If we extrapolate out the growth we have seen so far this decade, we are at 16% growth for the 2010 to to 2020 period. However, the country hasn’t had a recession since 2009. That is historically unprecedented and therefore its likely there will be a recession in the next five years. Thus, since population growth often slows related to recessions, it is likely this decade will see even less growth than what I extrapolated. It will likely have the slowest growth of any time since 1970.
So what does that tell us? Growth is likely less now than in decades, on a percentage basis (you could also look at a raw population basis, which I’ll try to do later). What we have to ask is if availability of homes drive people to move here (i.e., damn the growth trends, if we build it they will come) or whether populations grow and then they need homes (i.e., it’s the people that want to live here and not the property that matters). I wish I was smart enough to know which it was.
Yet I keep coming back to the fact that a lot of this land was available for homes for a long time. Is it just that the “right” population wasn’t available to move here (or didn’t want to move here) and thus it wasn’t developed? Is there some other factor that has limited building of homes? Perhaps.
Regardless, I think it makes sense to consider population trends as a large factor into our population models that drive political decision in and around Park City. Given those trends maybe we don’t need to rush to convert land to commercial centers to pack in density. Maybe we let land ride as residential (which a lot of it is) and see if what’s past is prologue.
in Environment
100% Renewable Sourced Energy in Utah
The Solutions Project has an interesting graphic that talks about how each state could shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050. It’s an interesting experiment to think of something so daunting and break it down into how to accomplish it and the benefits of doing so.
Here is Utah’s breakdown:
Do We View Commercial Sprawl and Residential Sprawl Equally?
People concerned with the design of our cities often use the word urban sprawl. Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl “describes the expansion of human populations away from central urban areas into low-density, monofunctional and usually car-dependent communities” according to Wikipedia.
There is the concern that urban sprawl is coming to the Snyderville Basin (if it isn’t already here). I often hear the rhetorical question, “do you want every single piece of land filled up in the Basin?” Of course not. Yet, when reading through a proposed development called Pace Meadows, which is 450 acres to the south and east of Home Depot, I started thinking about urban sprawl.
What the Pace Meadows land owners want is a mixed commercial/residential area on approximately 45 acres of their land. Right now they only have the right to build homes. On their 450 acres they could put 22 homes (1 home per 20 acres). This sets up the question of whether we as citizens would rather see 20 homes out on the prairie (I envision is looking something like Promentory) or whether we’d like to see a mixed commercial area with a grocery store, restaurants, bars, houses, etc. packed into 45 acres.
It makes me wonder whether residential sprawl, in this case, is preferable to commercial sprawl.
Past pure aesthetics, we also have to consider the traffic component of sprawl. The question is will a development like this, which has a strong public transportation focus, limit people from driving their cars? I suppose that depends on what percentage of people will take the bus. We’d need them to ride the bus to work in Park City and Salt Lake. We’d need their kids to ride the bus to Kamas or Heber (this is in the South Summit School District). We’d need them to ride to other places to shop (like if they wanted to go to one of the other grocery stores in town).
We’d need far more ridership out of this area than the average we see even in Salt Lake (5.8% of people in Salt Lake ride public transportation according to the census). Do we envision that? Could we restrict this area to one car garages and driveways? Could we tax parking to ensure that every hour of parking costs $30? Would the land owners even want to continue forward if those were the rules?
I understand that the Basin is full of unbuilt density. Yet, a huge amount of it is 1 home per 20 acre residential zoning. I’m starting to wonder if building that out is preferable in most cases to commercial development. If we are going to sprawl, would we rather have pockets of tight mixed residential/commercial activity or would we rather have homes dotted across the land.
I think that is one of the fundamental questions that we, the citizens of the Snyderville Basin, need to ask ourselves.
Parkrag
We believe in citizen journalism. We believe there are stories to tell that can help to shape our community for the better. We believe tomorrow's Park City can be better than today's.