in Schools
What’s the Take Away From Last Night’s School Board Master Planning Meeting?
Last night I live blogged the School Board’s Master Planning committee. The live blog was probably a little hard to follow, because so much of what was done was visual. In effect the members of the committee worked in six teams to place cutouts of schools (i.e. the high school, Treasure Mountain, McPolin, etc.) on a map of the Snyderville Basin.
Each group then presented their ideas in front of the committee. These ideas were recorded by the planners and the planners will use the 6 proposals to find common ideas and work their way down to two to three scenarios. Then during the next meeting, the committee will look at those scenarios and put costs alongside them, in order to make a final recommendation.
Of the six groups, five were essentially the same. These groups want to knock down Treasure Mountain, add on to the high school to support 9th graders, build a new district office, leave McPolin where it is, and move the Treasure Mountain School somewhere. These five groups varied on some concepts. Most, but not all, also wanted to build a fieldhouse on Kearns. At least one group wanted to build a PC CAPS building. Some groups wanted to move Treasure Mountain School to a property at Bear Hollow. Other groups wanted to move Treasure Mountain School to the Ecker Hill campus. Most groups wanted to move Dozier field to another spot on Kearns. One group wanted to leave Dozier Field where it is.
The sixth group presented an out of the box idea to move the High School to a spot between Trailside and Round Valley. The discussion around the idea led to further discussions about converting the existing High School in to some sort of arts school. While the group admitted this was presented to just make people think about alternatives, it really does represent the only different idea. Therefore, it is very likely that this idea won’t be in the mix.
So, the proposed outcome is becoming clearer. Here is my best guess of what will happen:
- Tear down Treasure Mountain
- Add on to current High School to support the 9th grade
- Move learning center to north side of High School
- Redo entrance to McPolin so it is easier to access
- Rebuild Treasure Mountain at Bear Hollow
- Rebuild the District office on Kearns
- Move Dozier Field and the baseball diamonds to a new location on Kearns
That means the elementary schools will be Pre-K to 4th. Treasure Mountain at Bear Hollow will be 5th and 6th. Ecker Hill will be 7th and 8th. The high school will be 9th to 12th.
Of course, Treasure Mountain could be built next to Ecker Hill Middle School. I believe the traffic concerns will push them to place the school at Bear Hollow. They may also decide to build a fieldhouse on Kearns. However, I believe they will start to see the total costs of this project add up and it will discourage them from doing so.
So, what will this likely cost? That’s a good question and without specific plans, it’s really a guess. I’m willing to try, though. Rebuilding Treasure Mountain will probably be about $20-$25 million. Adding on to the High School will probably be around $5 million. A new district office will probably be about $3 million. Moving the fields and redoing the entrance to McPolin is probably under a million. Building a new learning center is probably $1-$2 million. The tear down is probably another million or two. Permits and paying to mitigate traffic (which they will likely have to do) are probably another million. So, I would guess we are looking at around $40 million.
If they want to add a fieldhouse, then maybe $45-$50 million. Currently, the school district has about $18 million in the bank. Look for them to use just part of that money (maybe $5 million) on this project. So, we are probably looking at a bond of $30-$35 million.
Then there will also be the costs of “portable classrooms” that can be used while this construction is taking place and outfitting the schools with equipment. That likely will have to come out of the School District’s budget.
The next Master Planning Committee meeting, where a recommendation will be finalized, is May 14th.
It should be an interesting summer.
in Schools
School District Master Planning Committee Live Blog
We are Live Blogging Tonight’s Master Planning Committee Meeting. Click Read More below to follow the live blog. Your browser should auto refresh as this story is updated.
Why Does Park City Need Reassurances on Mountain Accord?
Today on KPCW, Park City City Council Member Andy Beerman was talking Mountain Accord. At one moment he said:
“I’m not terribly concerned about us having veto power over this… We are not ceding our land use authority to the Mountain Accord. So if Park City or Summit County decides they are opposed to something we can refuse to participate in that and it’s not going to get done to us.”
Then in the next sentence he said:
“We’ve had further reassurances, and there has been a lot of concern about this and Summit County and Park City went to the Management team of Mountain Accord which is a select members of the Mountain Accord and everyone assured us that we ultimately maintain our veto power over this.”
My question is if “land use authority” stops a tunnel from being pushed on us why did we need further assurances? If our authority over our land is rock solid and we can say “no tunnel will be drilled into Summit County or Park City” then why do we need someone to assure us?
Perhaps its because our land use authority isn’t all that rock solid. So, now we are relying on verbal assurances. That’s verbal assurances from the same people that devised the tunnel scheme in the first place.
The more I hear, the less better I feel.
The State Would Never Push Something on Park City?
This morning, KPCW’s Lynn Ware Peak talked to Park City City Council person Andy Beerman about Mountain Accord. His response to a question regarding “vetoing” a tunnel from Brighton to Park City was interesting…
Lynn Ware Peak (KPCW): So if you go through the whole [Mountain Accord] process do you maintain the veto power?
Andy Beerman: I’m not terribly concerned about us having veto power over this [the Mountain Accord tunnel]. We are not ceding our land use authority to the Mountain Accord. We’ve had further reassurances, and there has been a lot of concern about this… everyone assured us that we ultimately maintain our veto power over this. At the end of the day, the feds or state could do this to us, whether we’re at the table or not, but we don’t expect that to happen. It would be fairly outrageous for something like that to happen.
Our question is … is that really outrageous? Take the Park City Film Studios. That was a very contentious project. I’ve heard many stories that if Summit County or Park City didn’t approve the studio, the state would have found a way to make it happen. Perhaps those are just rumors. Perhaps not. Either way, it doesn’t shock me. I don’t find the concept of a state “threat” as outrageous.
With the tunnel concept, it doesn’t seem outrageous to think that the state could “do this to us” if someone powerful enough in state government decided they really wanted a tunnel.
I think Mr. Beerman knows that too.
in Schools
We’re Live Blogging Tonight’s Master Planning Committee Meeting
Tonight, Park City School District is holding their second citizen-based Master Planning Committee meeting. These meetings are designed to get public input on the construction needs in the school district. The first meeting was generally regarded as a waste of time. We’ve heard that the School District recognized there were issues with the first meeting and this one will be better. We sure hope so.
We’ll be live blogging once the meeting starts at 5PM.
Today’s Shower Thought
If 2/3 of Park City homes are second homes, shouldn’t Park City focus its attention on servicing that group and not full-time residents?
Park City Has Changed. Is it the Growth or the People?
I had a conversation a while back with a friend who was lamenting how Park City had changed. I said, yeah the growth is really killing us. She said, “It’s not the growth, it’s just the people.” It was one of those comments that sticks with you. I wasn’t sure I agreed with her, but it was worth considering.
So I’ve been trying to pay a little more attention to people I see around town, and I think she may have a point. Over the past few months I’ve seen everything from elderly drivers being honked at because they were only driving 45 by the Blue Roof (the speed limit is 45 there by the way) to people passing other drivers on the shoulder. I’ve seen pedestrians walk right into traffic and cause everyone to stop and not even give the obligatory wave.
Yet this morning, I saw everything I needed to know in a 15 minute period. On the way to the vet, I saw a driver flip-off another driver for what appeared to be stopping and turning left into Summit Center (which by definition, you kind of have to, if you are turning left). As I was talking to the receptionist at the vet, a woman barged in, interrupted, and cut in front of me to talk about a rabbit she had found in her driveway. As I was sitting in the waiting area, a SUV pulls up and parks in a handicap spot, in order to take his dog in to doggy daycare. The driver jumps out, gets his dog out of the back, and walks in. No handicap sticker… Nothing…Yes, there were 5 other spots open in front of the daycare.
How would you describe Park City? Are people friendly here? Are they considerate? I’m sure the snap response would be “yes.” After some more thought…really?
In my case, my friends and (some) neighbors are very friendly. Some random people are nice, but I would say many of the random people I meet seem self-absorbed and I wouldn’t call them exactly NICE. It’s more “new” San Francisco than Omaha. Maybe that’s understandable. Two-thirds of homes in Park City are second homes. One third of homes in the Snyderville Basin are second homes. They’ve brought their baggage from the coasts. What do I really expect?
This morning I heard Park City Council member Andy Beerman say, “Let’s keep Park City, Park City.” I personally think that ship has sailed. Perhaps it should be “Let’s keep Park City, like 1985 Park City.”
Just a thought.
The Words You Choose Mean Everything
Earlier I was writing a story on Park City’s new head of transportation, Alfred Knotts. According to Tahoe Transportation District’s website, he is currently Transportation Projects Manager for The Tahoe Transportation District and will be starting his new position in the next few weeks.
What’s interesting is Park City Municipal’s press release regarding hiring Mr Knotts. The press release says, “City Manager Diane Foster announced that Tahoe Transportation District’s Transportation Program Manager, Alfred Knotts, will become the new leader of the City’s Transportation Planning Department.”
Do you spot the difference between how the Tahoe Transportation District lists Mr. Knotts’ job title and how the Park City press release lists Mr Knotts’ Tahoe job title ? Projects Manager versus Program Manager. Granted, it’s a subtle difference but I think most people would conjur different mental images of what a project manager does versus a program manager. I certainly do.
This isn’t a jab at Mr Knotts whatsoever. I previously said he sounded very competent and a selection committee obviously thought he was the right guy. This is more a jab at the press release.
Were Park City officials concerned that the sound of “promoting” a project manager to head Park City’s entire transportation department wouldn’t be received well? Was it an honest mistake and they meant project instead of program? Perhaps Mr Knotts recently received a new title and Tahoe’s website wasn’t updated. I’m not sure.
And does it really matter in the scheme of things? Probably not. Mr Knotts will either be successful here (or not) and it has little to do with his previous title. His success is really what residents care about.
That said, if it was an intentional change of his previous title in the press release, it tells you a lot about Park City government.
Park City’s New Transportation Coordinator Appears to be a Good Choice
This morning, KPCW’s Lynn Ware Peak interviewed Park City’s new head of transportation planning, Alfred Knotts. Mr Knotts was previously a Transportation Project Manager with the Tahoe Transportation District. The Tahoe Transportation District oversees transportation in the Tahoe area, which encompasses 5 counties and 2 states.
He is replacing Park City’s Kent Cashel who is retiring after 17 years of employment with Park City Municipal.
During his interview, Mr Knotts spoke about the challenges they faced in Tahoe with huge numbers of visitors coming into the area during the summer months. This is starting to align with what we are seeing in Park City with more visitors in the summer months, as well. Mr Knotts also worked on a complicated ferry project that may link the north and south shores of Lake Tahoe. This project required an environmental impact study as part of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. This is similar to what will be required with Mountain Accord.
Both from his interview and limited research on his background, he seems like a solid choice. I view this as a great opportunity for Park City. Kent Cashel, who held the transportation helm at Park City for many years, is highly regarded. However, I haven’t had the chance to interact much with him, so all I can judge his recent performance on is results. Most would say that traffic has become a problem on his watch. Likewise, I personally haven’t heard much out-of-the-box thinking from Park City on transportation in recent years. Whether that is Mr Cashel’s fault, or not, I don’t know (it’s always complicated). However, the buck stops somewhere and that’s probably in the transportation department.
So, fresh blood and new ideas are probably not a bad thing. I hope Park City leadership will give him an opportunity to see what he can come up with and be a little creative.
in Growth
Why I’m a Bit Skeptical of Population Growth Forecasts
Every time I hear that the population in Summit County is going to be XXXXX (pick a number) by 2040 or 2050, I cringe a bit. It’s just so far off. Yet we base so many of our decisions and spend so much of citizens’ tax dollars to get ready for this “coming growth.” These forecasts come from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB). The 2010 forecast, with 87% growth by 2040 is what everyone quotes these days.
Yet, let me take you back to a quieter time. A time before the Great Recession struck. A time when home values were rising 10% per day. A time when we were all so innocent. Here is the 2005 GOMB population forecast:
By 2010, Park City’s population was supposed to be almost 11,000. What did it turn out to be? 7,547. That’s only a 45% miss. By 2013, what was the forecasted population? About 12,000. What was it? 7,950. That’s about a 50% miss.
Now, we get that forecasting is hard but let’s not pretend it’s accurate. This also isn’t to say that there hasn’t been growth. Park City grew about 5% between 2010 and 2013 (the latest years with data). It’s just not near what was predicted and we can’t believe that if over 10 years it’s off that much, that over 30 years it will somehow be better.
So, the next time you hear that Park City’s population is set to boom or that Wasatch County is poised to grow by 7 billion percent, remember that the people forecasting those numbers haven’t exactly been in the ballpark this millennium.
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.