What We Don’t Understand About Park City Municipal’s View on Transportation
Last week, Park City’s transportation lead, Kent Cashel, met with the Park City School District’s Master Planning Committee. He gave a 15 minute talk on transportation. One of his key points was that if the school district decided to move Treasure Mountain off of Kearns it wouldn’t “solve” the transportation problem. He repeated this a few times.
Sitting in the meeting, the take-away was that no matter what the school district did, it wouldn’t impact traffic in Park City. Yet, with grade realignment likely coming our way, there will be 400 more students on Kearns if Treasure Mountain is rebuilt there. While we agree building a school somewhere else won’t SOLVE the traffic problem it would HELP the traffic problem. It’s like the person who is 100 pounds overweight who decides to forgo the first and second helping of dessert. Will that solve their weight issue? No. Will they lose 20 pounds over the next year. Probably.
What Kent Cashel did was give the School District an out. Traffic is likely less of no longer a consideration for the school district. However, if we were to look at problems across Park City what would be Problem #1? Traffic. What would be problem #23? Rebuilding Treasure Mountain.
We had a chance to help solve two issues at once. At a minimum there would be fewer cars on Kearns at certain times of the day. If Park City’s transportation guru had simply said, “moving the school would help… it won’t solve the problem… but it would help” then the district may have had an additional reason to look outside of Kearns for their school.
Instead, it appears Park City was more concerned with keeping a school in Park City. That’s at the expense of every resident and visitor that drives in on Highway 248.
Of course Park City’s solution is for the Utah Department of Transportation to widen the lanes on 248 in 2019. Or perhaps add a bus lane in the next couple of years. Anyone want to bet a steak dinner that their plan will SOLVE Park City’s transportation problems? If so, please let us know… we are hungry.
Either way, be sure to think of your Park City government when you are sitting in traffic heading into town. They not only own the problem, but the decisions they have made will likely make things worse.
in Schools
Citizen Rails Against PC CAPS Program
In Tuesday’s Park City School Board meeting, a citizen who represents some members of the Park City High School PTO and Community Council spoke very critically about the school’s PC CAPS program. Her main issues were:
- Seems to be claims by parents and students that haven’t been followed up by the school district
- Enrollment is flat, yet additional funds are being poured into the program
- Students were denied withdrawal requests in order to keep the program’s headcount up
- In the 2015-2016 school year, enrollment in PC CAPS is up slightly but that’s due to the addition of sophomores
- There are unsubstantiated claims that PC CAPS has helped students get into colleges when their grades and SATs were low. The citizen said they had contacted the program’s director multiple times to get proof of these claims but have never received anything
- Believes the program’s director has written negative things about traditional education on a personal blog and believes that goes against what our school’s are emphasizing
All in all, it was a pretty scathing attack.
The School Board’s response to this Public Comment (in written form) was:
“Concerns were brought forth regarding budget and enrollment of the PCCAPS program. A request was made for a full review of the program. The superintendent, under her administrative duties, will provide a report to the governing board in an upcoming meeting.”
So, we’ll be watching for that report.
Below is the video. The citizen’s comments start at approximately 1 minute in and last 3 minutes:
in Park City
Question: How Do You Know If Our Weather Is Changing?
We were having drinks last night with good friends and the topic of the “future of the Wasatch” came up. We made the comment that growth may be a moot point due to weather. We cited Utah Atmospheric Professor Jim Steenburgh and his opinion that warmer temperatures are on the way, cross country skiing is going to be tough around here, and Park City Mountains will still have snow… but generally at higher elevations.
One of our friends said, “yeah… but there was weather like this in the 1970’s.” His point was just because there is a lack of snow this year doesn’t mean the future is lost. And just in case you were wondering… our friend isn’t Ted Cruz. He makes a good point, though.
How do we as a community (or individuals) decide whether our climate is really changing. Will it take 5 years of low snow? Will it take 10 years? What if we have 1 good year in 10? What if there is 6 good years in 10?
Ultimately we’re not sure. However, we do know that it’s perhaps the most important question we should be asking. If there is less snow, our resorts would suffer. It isn’t unimaginable to expect that fewer people would come here. Would a resort close in Park City? Right now that’s hard to imagine… but Deer Valley selling to Vail in 10 years isn’t impossible to contemplate… or perhaps the other way around.
The question is important because it drives almost everything we do. Should we build a train to Park City.? Should we allow the Boyer Tech Park to be a second base to Canyons? How should we plan for growth? If there is less snow how does that impact the second home market (2/3 of homes in Park City and 1/3 of homes in the Basin)?
If Park City becomes purely a Sundance and Summer place for visitors and the rest belongs to locals, the things we focus on would be very different. Instead of focusing on transportation we may focus on dual immersion for our kids. Instead of focusing on limiting growth, we may focus on actual affordable housing. We don’t know exactly how it would be different but we do know the problems we are trying to triage today will be completely different.
It’s just something we were left thinking about today… after a good conversation last night.
in Growth
How Fast is Summit County Growing? Really Fast? Are You Sure?
There’s a saying, “if you repeat something long enough, soon everyone will believe it.” We are starting to see his point when it comes to population growth in Summit County. It seems like a day doesn’t go by when we here that “Park City’s population will double by 2040” or “Summit County will have 100,000 people by 2030” or “we have to be ahead of the growth” or “we need ____________ because the growth is coming.” Anything someone wants, whether that be Mountain Accord, more transportation funds, or trying to get investors to build another hotel in the Basin it seems founded on those six letters G-R-O-W-T-H.
The thought is so engrained we almost feel stupid for questioning it. That said, we here at the Park Rag aren’t above being stupid.
First, where do those growth calculations come from? Those come from a 2012 report from The Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget. It actually states that by 2040 Summit County (including Park City) is projected to have 71,000 people. Right now there are 38,000 people. So, that would be an increase of 33,000 people. Granted, that’s hefty increase of 86%… If it really happens.
First you have to recognize that the Governor’s Office is a political beast. Good growth must mean that Utah is doing well. If 2 million more people want to come to Utah in the next 30 years, that must mean we are doing something right! Yet, that “enthusiasm” for growth doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen… it just means we shouldn’t take their word for it. If we look nationally, Pew Research guesses that between now and 2050, the US population will likely grow by 42%. If we look at Utah between 2010 and 2014 it did grow at twice the national average, so perhaps it’s possible for our state. That said, what about Summit County?
One of the most interesting tools we have found is the US Census Flow Mapper. It shows on a county by county level the net migration and where people are coming from and going to. Summit County’s migration looks like this:
This map shows us that in an average year a net 261 people leave Summit County for Salt Lake. People also leave for Cache, Weber, Tooele, and Wasatch Counties. The most people come from Orange County California (282 people per year) with some coming from Davis and Washington Counties. Here is the spreadsheet of datap.
According to the Census Bureau, on average there is a net migration out of Summit County of 429 people per year (during the period they looked at).
The other part of the calculation to determine growth is births and deaths. In 2013, Summit County had 418 births and 146 deaths. That’s a net growth of 272. That still leaves Summit County with a net decreasing population. If we factor in foreign additions and a few other factors we may achieve a little growth.
To be fair, the Census data is from 2008-2012 during a recession and Utah grows more in good economic times. There are also more births during good economic times (for instance there were 595 births in Summit County in 2007). Yet, to turn around low growth to a growth of 3.3% a year is going to be a challenge.
We aren’t trying to be a “popper” here (i.e. someone who denies population growth). However, because so many decisions are based on it, it’s important to keep our eye on it. If their forecasts are right we should grow by about 1,270 (3.3%) people a year, every year. In the roaring years (2000-2010) it appears we grew at about 2.4% per year. Right now, we aren’t even achieving that. Of course, if the California drought continues, all bets could be off, in some sort of reversal of the Grapes of Wrath.
If we are going to make good decisions, we need to constantly monitor the underlying data and adjust our conclusions. We hope our local officials are doing that before they make any huge decisions.
in Environment
If the County and City Ban Plastic Bags, They Should Ban Paper Bags Too
This morning, Recycle Utah’s Insa Riepen was on KPCW talking about recycling. She mentioned that the Town of Vail (in Colorado) has banned all single use plastic bags and is continuing her push for our area to do the same. This was proposed a few years ago and promptly died over concerns of how it may impact tourists. Proponents of the bag ban cite the negative impacts of bags on our landfills and the impact they have on recycling machines when put in curbside recycling (hint: never put a plastic bag in curbside recycling). We’d always thought in a perfect world, we’d all have 10 reusable bags we’d bring to the grocery store. However, in the real-world, we realized it was likely a shift from plastic bags to paper bags.
We were surprised to find out that paper bags aren’t much better than plastic when it comes to global warming. You must reuse a paper bag 3 times before it has less impact than a single use bag on global warming. The non-woven polypropylene reusable bags sold at Whole Foods must be used 11 times and a standard cotton tote has to be 131 times to have less global warming impact.
Thee are of course landfill benefits to killing the plastic bag, but it does tell us that if Summit County and Park City ban plastic bags they also need to ban paper bags too. This would force people into using reusable bags, so they are used enough times to break-even environmentally. Even with that, there is still the issue of visitors. If visitors come to Park City, buy 3 reusable Whole Foods bags, and throw them away on their way out of town, we are in worse shape yet.
It’s a tough topic to crack and may be one without a good solution. We admire Ms Riepen’s passion and persistence but in this case there may be better fish to fry.
Funniest Thing We’ve Seen in Park City In a While
Yes, we’ll answer the question you have been probably asking yourself… This car is for sale. Just $10,000. So, if this screams “dream car” to you. Keep your eyes open as you drive around the Basin. You won’t be able to miss it.
in Skiing
Sale of Brighton Ski Resort Will Likely Tell Us a lot About Where Our Mountains Are Headed
A Friend of the Park Rag tipped us off to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune about the parent company of Brighton (and 16 other ski resorts) selling their holdings. Our thoughts quickly jumped to who would buy it. Would it be someone we know like Vail, Deer Valley, or John Cumming? Would it be some random investment trust. If it’s the latter, they are likely thinking they got a great deal, and will hold out for a time when winters are better in Utah.
However, if it’s the former, we think that will tell us a lot about what’s really happening with regard to the future of the Wasatch.
If John Cumming (CEO of Powder Corp and part of of Snowbird) was to buy it, we would look at that similar to an outside investor but with a more personal touch. There is something to be said for owning parts of resorts in both Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon.
If Deer Valley bought it, we would see that as a sign that they are going to combine resorts in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Deer Valley recently purchased Solitude which has a connection with Brighton. Because Deer Valley likely wouldn’t want to degrade the “Deer Valley” brand with the combined Solitude/Brighton property, we would think that would put an end to any connection talk between Brighton and PCMR. Likewise, they probably wouldn’t want to help a competitor (Vail). They would concentrate on making their Wasatch Front property a unique and different experience than the one in Park City.
If Vail purchased the resort, we could see a big push behind a connection between PCMR and Brighton. You would likely see a big push for Mountain Accord initially (if they thought they could influence it) and if that didn’t fly, they may fall back to a private connection between the two resorts.
Likewise, if Vail is not the purchaser, that may tell us just as much about the fate of any connection. If Vail, the smartest guys in the room and the ones with ever-deepening pockets, don’t think Brighton is worth it, then that likely means a connection doesn’t make much sense at all.
We’re sure there are probably twenty other takes on what a purchase of Brighton means in the grand scheme of things. It should be interesting to watch as a sale may come before the end of the year.
h/t to Our Friend for making sure we saw the SL Trib article.
in Skiing
As Heard Around Town At Least 10 Times This Weekend…
“No way our ski resorts will stay open until April 12th.”
If we get a few more days of 65 degree weather, it should be interesting. Our opinion is that Vail will stay open exactly as long as it needs to stay open.
That, of course, could be tomorrow.
New Whole Foods Will Test General Plan’s “No New Entitlements” Policy
The Snyderville Basin General Plan Phase 2 is moving through the County approval process. The General Plan defines how citizens believe development and growth should occur in the Basin. It defines everything from our desire for open space to a focus on trails to limits on big box stores. One of the most interesting aspects is Policy Statement 2.3. It says:
“Do not approve any new entitlements beyond base zoning until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.”
Effectively it’s saying that because there are so many development rights already in existence (to build offices and retail), “let’s not over build. Let’s first build what has been already promised to people, before we promise anything new.” It seems like a logical strategy.
Yet, the new Whole Foods development, across from the Outlet Mall, is asking for 7,000 more square feet than they are currently entitled. They are currently entitled to 61,000 sq ft. but are asking for 68,000 sq ft. That’s 11% more space.
If the county truly believes that we should first expend the majority of existing development rights before anything new is granted, they will ensure that this development sticks to its original agreement — at 61,000 sq ft.
If not, they need to remove that language from the General Plan and let our citizens know that our direction is “GROWTH… Full speed ahead.”
in Schools
Sally Elliott and John Hanrahan Lead Efforts to Start School Later in the Day
We were filming a meeting of the Park City School’s Master Planning Committee when someone mentioned that Sally Elliott, former County Council member and prominent member of our community, had sent emails requesting that citizens sign a petition to start a discussion on whether Park City High School and Treasure Mountain School should start later in the day.
We reached out to a Friend who put us in contact with Ms. Elliot. Ms Elliot gave us permission to reprint her email. It’s worth reading:
Dear all,
Though my children and three of my grandchildren are now beyond high school, I recall my continuing struggle to function before the sun is bright. Attached is a body of evidence that my struggle is medically demonstrated and applicable to a broad swath of the population.
If you feel compelled, it would be helpful to a large number of citizens and students in the Park City School District if you would sign the petition to at least have a broad discussion about starting school at a later hour.
|
This came to me from John Hanrahan who has children of an age to benefit from your efforts. He says:
If you only have time to take one action today to help our teens thrive in school, please sign the petition to start PCHS and TMMS later, through the link below, and send it on to all your friends! Yes that only counts as one action :). Our starting email list is 20, our petition goal is 300!
If you have more time to benefit the kids, send an email to the School Board and superintendent Dr Ember Conley, letting them know what you want. There are several links attached with great info and research showing the numerous benefits of a later start time for TMMS and PCHS.
If you want to go even bigger, send a letter to the editor as well, and gather more research articles for our ‘library’ and future presentations. Call or email with any questions or thoughts, thanks.
http://www.startschoollater.net/ this website has lots of useful information
As of now the petition has over 345 signatures. Having read the links Dr Hanrahan provided, the benefits of starting school later are generally that kids learn more and it’s better for their health. Secretary of Education Arney Duncan even tweeted his agreement with the concept. Yet, what was interesting was the reaction from some of the educators in the meeting we were attending, when news broke of Ms Elliott’s email. Their response was that given a choice, kids would choose to start earlier. The stat quoted was something like 75-80% of kids would start earlier because they wanted to work or ski. In effect they were saying “this later start time isn’t something we should even look at pursuing.”
If 70% of High School kids said they would like beer served at Prom, would they do that too? If 95% of kids said having sex in the next week was important to them, would the next PC CAPS group start working on their own version of TINDER to make it easier for our students to hook up? Probably not. It seems our school district prides itself on evidence based learning… except perhaps when it’s inconvenient.
We don’t know know that later start times would benefit our community as a whole. However, we do know that there seems to be enough evidence that a discussion is warranted.
We hope Dr Hanrahan’s efforts, and Ms Elliot’s communication of the issue, at least lead to a community meeting on the subject where data can be presented and parents’, teachers’, and childrens’ opinions can be freely expressed.
Here are links to documents attached in Ms Elliott’s email:
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.