in Schools
The Little School House That Couldn’t
As part of the new development that is going on at Silver Creek (the 1200 units being put in by Home Depot), the developer was required to build a school. At face value, that sounds like a good deal and probably made sense in someone’s mind when the agreement was being made. I can hear the statement, “wouldn’t it be great to have a school for the children who live in this development?”
Yet, we are now in 2015 and the reality has come home to roost. The development agreement originally gave 2.5 acres for a school and 2.5 acres for recreation. The County Council, recognizing that 2.5 acres was too small for a school, was able to work with the developer to use the entire 5 acres for the school (the land has to be used as a school). Yesterday in a meeting, school board member Moe Hickey ran the numbers and calculated that this would be big enough to hold about 350 elementary school students. Yet there could be as many as twice that many students (maybe more) in the development due to a number of factors. Also keep in mind this school is in the South Summit School District. So, how is that going to work if half the elementary school students go to the new Silver Summit school and the rest go to… Kamas or Heber?
Now they are contemplating whether the new school could me a charter school. It’s frankly a mess.
It’s also a cautionary tale. I’m sure that the school sounded good years ago and the concept was probably hard to argue with. Yet, now we are left with what seems a wasted development. Five acres of open space, or off leash dog park, or sports fields, or almost anything is probably preferable to what will likely happen.
I hope today we are smarter with our planning, agreements, and foresight so that in 2025 we aren’t wondering how we all collectively could have been so short sighted.
What Mountain Accord has to do With California Pistachios
One of the Mountain Accord tenants I am surprised no one is talking about relates to water. As part of the Mountain Accord, the ski resorts in the Cottonwood Canyons get more water for snowmaking. I’ve not seen documented how much extra water they are getting.
I was recently reading about the California drought and how agriculture accounts for 80% of the state’s water usage but is rarely talked about. That is starting to change where articles like this one in the Daily Beast are titled, “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.” My favorite quote from that article is:
“‘I’ve been smiling all the way to the bank,’ said pistachio farmer John Dean at a conference hosted this month by Paramount Farms, the mega-operation owned by Stewart Resnick, a Beverly Hills billionaire known for his sprawling agricultural holdings, controversial water dealings, and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to high-powered California politicians.”
While it has been a wet spring, our winter in Utah was abysmal. I can envision a time when normal Utahns are required to ration water (like California today) but we’ve guaranteed extra water so that ski resorts can profit. We may look back and say”how did that happen? Only 5% of Utahns ski. There are scientists that say by the end of the century Park City will have zero snowpack.” Yet, we are willing to give up our most valuable resource…water… and for what? So that resorts can fight mother nature and survive as long as possible?
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that many times people have said that the Mountain Accord is all about the watershed. Yet, it appears we are willing to give some of that up (how much?) for the resorts. What if there isn’t much watershed in the future? Who gets what remains?
I think the question of water isn’t getting the attention it deserves. If we don’t start paying attention, in 10 years we may have wished we did.
Are Mountain Accord Phase 2 Ambiguities Big Trouble Waiting to Happen?
The anonymous citizen who provided us with the Draft Mountain Accord document included a number of his/her concerns with the new agreement. I would summarize that person’s concerns in a few of statements:
- The tunnel between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Park City is still on the table.
- If “studies” done as part of the next phase of the Mountain Accord recommend a connection between Brighton and Park City, it will put intense pressure on the citizens of Summit County and Park City for a connection.
- The environmental monitoring, adaptive management, restoration, and trails sections have barely 1 line each in the document. The citizen says it “probably reflects the reality of how minimal they have been all along, given the vast majority of the lands [Mountain Accord] seeks to cover are already federal wilderness and USFS roadless areas.”
One of the overall concerns is that the same plan that has always been in place, still appears to be in place. It appears that they will now “study” the tunnel between Brighton and Park City. If they really want that tunnel, what do you think the outcome of that study will be?
What has been changed is the messaging. It has been formalized in this document that the plan is allegedly first and foremost about the environment, with transportation used as a tool to achieve that. Yet, as one community member told me a few weeks ago, if they really wanted to limit the impact of humans and improve the “environment” in the Wasatch they would limit the number of people going up Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon. Instead, they are trying to make it easier to get as many people into the mountains as possible. Does that sound like an environmental plan?
Instead it looks like this plan has been built to be ambiguous and provide plausible responses to questions that the community has been asking. If you question the connection between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Park City, now the powers that be will say, “are you again studying it?” What are you going to say to that? Are you not a reasonable person?
Perhaps the answer is that you are against THEM studying it.
Will the New Mountain Accord Agreement Force our Representatives to Support the New Agreement?
Early Friday morning I received a copy of an outline of the newest Mountain Accord agreement.This document is likely the predecessor to the next Mountain Accord Blueprint and was what was being discussed at a Mountain Accord retreat yesterday.
As previously mentioned, there are a number interesting aspects to the outline. One of the most interesting however is in Section 3. It says:
“To accomplish the above, we [the organizations signing it] agree to support the Accord publicly and within our constituencies.”
To me this says that organizations’ that sign this will have agreed to not criticize any part of the Accord publicly. Since policy decisions must legally be discussed in public, that would mean that there could not be criticism (constructive or otherwise) of the Mountain Accord. Should Roger Armstrong continue to not support a connection between Park City and Big Cottonwood Canyon, he would be legally bound per his position in the Summit County Council to only support the Accord.
I brought this up with a member of the Summit County Council and that person’s comment was that he/she felt that most Council Members would not sign onto any agreement that would limit the Summit County Council’s ability to make sure our area’s best interests was served.
My concern is that, looking at the language of the outline, it does seem designed to be an agreement. I as a citizen of Summit County don’t want to wonder whether every council person’s comment supporting the Accord agreement is because they agree with it or because they HAVE TO AGREE with it.
I frankly can’t believe language like that is being considered at all (or even legal). It’s one thing to work for a company and have to sign a non-disclosure document. It’s a far different thing for an agreement to regulate our elected officials free speech on a topic of great controversy.
That in of itself tells you a lot about the Mountain Accord process.
Screw the Bus… Bikes Full Steam Ahead
I was walking this morning with my 3 year old, 1 year old, and 15 year old dog on a paved trail near near Gorgoza. Suddenly, a pack of 10 child-bikers came racing down the path. I moved my crew off to the side because, well my 15 year old dog wasn’t exactly legal per Summit County Leash Laws, and it’s frankly the right thing to do. We then continued walking and then came 4 kids on bikes. We again moved out of the way. Then came 3 kids and their mom. I thought “what the heck is going on?” Something was different today.
Per KPCW, I learned that today was “Bike to Work… Bike to School Day.” My experience now makes a lot more sense.
Yet what makes more sense is the way I viewed those bikers, before I knew what was going on. I saw a group of kids riding with what appeared to be a teacher from school. I saw mothers riding with their children. I saw older kids riding with their younger siblings to ensure they were safe. Again, I had no clue of what was going on but I thought, “Wow, isn’t that great. These people are embracing the outdoors.” It seems so much like what I think of when I think of Park City. A few minutes later I remember looking over and seeing the Salt Lake City to Park City Connect Bus on I-80. Did that illicit any mental response? No.
I often hear that we want to make sure our communities are walkable, rideable, and accessible (via buses). Yet, having witnessed this during this morning, walkable is not an option. Kids aren’t going to walk 3 miles to school. As for buses, the likelihood that I or my children will hop on one is 1 in a 1000 unless it is bright yellow and headed toward school. That leaves ridable — via bikes or similar transportation alternative.
Unfortunately, I hadn’t thought about it until today, but riding makes sense. We have large distances to cover. Bikes are can be cheap. Why aren’t we focusing on that as a first option? If we would treat the bike as a first class citizen, we would make our plans around it. We would make design decisions around. It’s not like it is an abnormal mode of transport. In fact, in most of the world it is the primary means of transportation.
What it also does is add to our brand. We are not a city of people sitting on busses staring on our iPads. We are an area that embraces the outdoors and the experience it offers us. Why do we want to emulate Atlanta when we can be ourselves? Why don’t we invent and then become the mountain town that solved its transportation problems through bikes (winter and summer).
Today showed me a perspective I hadn’t considered before. While buses, roads, and interstates may make sense for those invested in them (suppliers, construction companies, and government entities that are focused on roads), what is right for us? Perhaps bikes aren’t exactly it. Maybe a combo bike/e-bike is right. Maybe there is skate skiing to destinations in the winter. Maybe it’s something else. However, the more I look at traditional services like buses and rail, the more I think people are pushing a solution that is not the right fit for us. They attended a conference in Seattle and now want to do it here.
Perhaps you are looking forward to riding a bus into town. I’m not. I am, however, looking forward to next winter when I can install my fat tires, put on my hat, enjoy the sounds that only falling snow provides, and cruising toward my local grocer. That’s who I want to be.
I used to do that in the fourth grade. Today’s experience reminded me of what I wish I was. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of use want to be that way. If only our roads, trails, and government supported that.
Mountain Accord Phase 2
Last night, thanks to an anonymous citizen, I received a copy of the Mountain Accord’s latest plan for the Wasatch. This is the plan that Mountain Accord executives are discussing today at a retreat. As you may be aware, Mountain Accord is a group comprised of 30 different players from across the Wasatch with the intent of … well … it depends on who you ask. Some would say the intent is to save Salt Lake’s watershed and provide other environmental benefits. Others would say it is to increase economic development in Sandy.
After briefly perusing the document, there is so much to talk about. I will do my best to provide a few opinions throughout the weekend. However, in case you want to take a look and form your own opinions (which I would highly recommend of course), here is:
Draft Mountain Accord Document Version 1.1
h/t to the anonymous citizen who provided this information
in Development
I’m Sick of the Arrogance About Park City’s Superiority Over Summit County with Regard to Development
This morning, Park City City Council Member Tim Henney was on KPCW with Leslie Thatcher. In response to a question from Leslie Thatcher about the “Stoneridge parcel” which was purchased as open space by Park City. Ms Thatcher asked, “It’s still not annexed?” Mr Henney said “No, it’s not even in our annexation declaration boundary.” Annexation, in this case, means that the property is in Summit County but could be brought into Park City proper via a complex set of rules provided by the state.
Ms. Thatcher then asked, “Since you have title on it, you can build trails on it?” Mr Henney responded, “Yes. But we have to comply with another jurisdiction’s codes. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it isn’t necessarily the best thing.” Ms Thatcher then said, “That’s why Park City was an applicant for a trailhead?” Mr Henney said, “Yes. We approved a change order for $23,000 in additional work that had to be done to bring it in compliance to another jurisdiction’s code.”
Effectively, Mr Henney was saying that Park City had to conform to Summit County’s rules regarding development, which apparently cost them more and was not a good thing. Wow, that sounds a lot like a developer (in any jurisdiction). That said, I look at some of Park City’s recent developments that are approved and am glad I live in Summit County.
Let’s take the Park City Movie Studio, which is admittedly a bit of an easy target. In Summit County, ridgelines are very important and protected. There are rules that prohibit our mountains outlines from being obscured by buildings for people driving on major thoroughfares. In the case of Park City, perhaps the same doesn’t apply?
When I drive down highway 248 around the movie studio, it seems to block the ridgelines of surrounding mountains. If I recall, the hospital additions may block the mountains too.
I am frankly tired of hearing that Park City thinks they have a monopoly on design and development, when they clearly do not. It’s one thing to be the best and lament when you are forced to lower your standards. It’s another thing to think you are the best and then question when someone demands higher ones.
Some might call it sitting on your laurels.
in Economy
Beware the Economy
I usually like to stick to local topics but I think this “global” topic is important. Things appear to have pretty much recovered from the 2008 economic downturn. Sundance Festival revenues are back up. Park City tax dollars are at all time highs. We now have the largest ski area in North America. What we haven’t had since 2009 is a recession. On average a recession happens every 3 years and it has been 6 years.
Today we learned that the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the government’s calculation for understanding whether the economy is growing or not, had contracted during the January to March timeframe. That signals that we are likely to enter into a recession. Likewise, across the globe there are problems. A big country in europe (Greece) is on the edge of defaulting on a huge amount of loans owed to people. China, who has had tremendous growth over the last 10 years is seeing that growth slow.
I only bring it up because Park City is a place of optimism. We hope for snow. We hope to get on the trail. We want just the right amount of tourism to support our living here. Yet, we are dependent on tourism and visitors to make our resorts run, our restaurants viable, our property sell, and our government function.
If we truly enter a recession, even if it’s not as bad as 2008, there will be impacts. Less money will flow here. Less tax dollars will be generated. Less money will be available for programs. Businesses will have to cut back.
In the long run, recessions are actually good because they sweep clean bad investments that have been made that don’t help our communities. However, in the short term they can be painful.
If I were a betting man, I’d say we are very close to a recession and the end of 2015 into 2016 may end up being tough. Of course, I could be wrong. It never hurts to be prepared, though.
Good luck out there.
All I Could Think of Was Mister Car Wash
I saw this today and all I could think of was Mister Car Wash’s plea for a larger sign at their location on 224. Except, this is a lot more funny and kind-of-sorta not safe for work.
in Real Estate
Update on Our Local Real Estate Market
I love when when KPCW’s Leslie Thatcher interviews Nancy Tallman, President of Park City Board of Realtors and Carol Agle, Chairperson of board’s statistic group. Last Friday’s interview didn’t disappoint. Here are some of the highlights provided by Ms Tallman and Ms Agle about the local real-estate market:
- Prices as a whole are stable. They said that they couldn’t remember a time when they took the sales added up for all homes in the Park City city limits and the average price went up $0.
- The average price in Park Meadows, which is the “bellwether” market in Park City, and the average price in Jeremy Ranch did not go up, either.
- When looking at the median price it went up because “everyone is buying from the lower end of the market.”
- Leslie Thatcher, given the fact that average prices did not go up, asked about the bright spots. The response from Ms Tallman and Ms Agle was that stability is actually a good thing.
- As being in town becomes more pricey, people are willing to live farther out and get houses with lower prices.
- They say that we’ve run up against the limits of what a primary home buyer can pay. Home buyers may have got a few raises recently but that their expenses have gone up too. So, there is a ceiling to what they can borrow.
- The median price in Old Town is $415,000. Median price means 50% of all sales happen below $415,000. They would like to know why some of this property can’t be used for affordable housing requirements instead of building on new land. Many of these are 2-4 bedroom condos.
- They said inventory was at historic lows. They then discussed why prices aren’t up, given typical supply versus demand principles. The response was that people are tapped out and that they may be looking at newer, more exciting areas.
- Inventory started declining in 2013 and hasn’t really recovered.
- Short sales and foreclosures are way down here and across the country.
- Now people are staying in homes 10 years, versus before the economic downturn where they were staying in a home 6 years.
- Ms Thatcher asked what properties are doing well and selling fast. The response was some homes around a million dollars in Prospector, Ranch place, and Silver Springs were often going fast.
- The median price of homes sold in the Park City city limits (basically to the white barn) was $1.3 million, which is the same as a few months ago. They are seeing a mental block with buyers going higher than $1.3.
- The median price of homes sold in the entire Snyderville Basin was $800,000.
- The number of sales is down 29%. They said this fits into the lack of inventory issue.
- They are seeing some people in Park Meadows who have “tear down houses” but then fix them up to try and sell them. They are not spending money wisely. They gave an example of 2 houses on American Settler that both sold for $1.5 million that will be torn down. Therefore, they recommend talking to a real-estate professional to make sure that buyer’s views of their property really reflect reality.
Note the full interview can be heard on KPCW’s website, where they post most Local News Hour Programs.
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.