Mountain Accord Not Ready for EPA’s Evaluation
We received an email from a Friend of the Park Rag. The person had attended a National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) Meeting that had discussion related to Mountain Accord. Here are the comments:
Lots of great info and conversations at Tuesday’s NEPA meeting.
Federal Highway man Harold Peaks said the Mountain Accord is definitely NOT ready for NEPA. He said it needs to be much more precise and clear in it’s vision.
Forest service guys said they DO have the power to override city and county.
The clearer we can make our wishes and vision made NOW BEFORE NEPA the better the process proceeds and the better our chance of our vision being respected and included.
I brought up the Zion NP model of shuttle buses and restricted auto traffic. They said that is NOT represented in The Mountain Accord. They told me it needs to be proposed by me, and/or anyone else, to Mountain Accord, EIA, NEPA, etc… ALSO, If they went with the Zion NP model it might not even need NEPA if they just used the existing roadway.
What we wonder, given this, is the EPA doesn’t seem to have enough specifics to talk about environmental impacts…. Yet, how are we, as citizens, supposed to decide whether we want to continue with the process? It seems we as citizens have “donated” hundreds of thousands of dollars but the EPA says it needs to be much more precise and clear in the plan’s vision.
If the national government can’t be clear about it’s vision and specifics, how do we as Wasatch Mountains citizens have any confidence there is a specific plan. And if there is no specific plan, why do we keep giving it money?
Oh yeah, to have a seat at the table.
Summit County Is a Finalist for Social Media Golden Award
Many people rely on traditional media for their understanding of the world. Yet, the past 5 years have brought on a renaissance of the local organizations’ ability to let people know about issues that may impact them.
While we are undoubtedly biased, we may even say that social media is more important in many circumstances than traditional media. Case in point is the Rockport Rocks Fire. In an emergency you may tune in to Channel 5 to understand what is happening. Yet, that information has to pass through various filters, and hours later, via a helicopter, and some random person staged in front of a burned out building, it may get to the audience.
The better angle, should you really need it, is social media.
In our case, Summit County is a finalist for The Golden Post’s award for social media during an emergency. Our Summit County Public and Community Affairs person, Julie Booth, is responsible for informing the public.
While a number of issues such as school funding, Mountain Accord, and traffic dominate the headlines, we are happy to know that Summit County is being recognized for over-achieving at its role in informing the public for the information that could actually save our lives.
It’s one thing to read about the opening of a new restaurant; it’s another to know when to leave an area because fire is fast approaching.
We wish Summit County luck in winning the award; however we realize that we as a community have already won because Summit County has already invested in someone who can inform us of the important things … in a seconds notice.
We know we aren’t always complimentary on the Park Rag, but this an area where we think Summit County is doing a great job.
As Seen Today in Silver Creek …
We love spring around Park City.
h/t to K and M for the pics
in Schools
Should VCBO Resign from Park City School District’s Planning Process?
Ever heard of the $600 hammer that the Federal Government routinely purchases? $600 for a $12 hammer is a great deal…. if you are selling it.
It appears that hammer is coming to Park City (and our schools) in the form of a potential bond for Treasure Mountain School.
As you may know, the School District wants to tear down Treasure Mountain Junior High and build a new school. As part of this, there are a number of “side” projects that may be included like a new School District Office, a space for PC CAPS, a Fieldhouse for the High School, and more.
You may be in full support of this initiative or you may not. However, what we are probably all in agreement of is that public funds should be used in the most efficient manner possible. The better we use our money on schools, the better schools we get. We can pay teachers more, get better facilities, put more programs in place for our kids, or we save for a rainy day.
Yet, what we saw this Thursday during the Park City School District’s (PCSD) Master Planning Committee Meeting disturbed us.
It is beyond just ‘likely’ that the School District will issue a bond for a rebuild of Treasure Mountain School. The Park City School District has hired a firm called VCBO to plan for a rebuild of the school. On Thursday, employees of VCBO were in attendance at the PCSD meeting.
They were asked by Todd Hansen, PCSD Building’s Director, what the cost was for a new school school. Here is the exchange:
Todd Hansen (to VCBO Planning Group): Hey guys, the cost for building right now is about…what… a hundred…?
VCBO: $160 to $180 [per square foot]
Todd Hansen: [So] $180 to $160 depending on how elaborate you get.
VCBO: It depends on the economy. We are not back up ’07. It might be by the time you all do this.
Todd Hansen: The Longer we wait the more expensive the money is.
VCBO: If I was going to do it we’d calculate for a bond election at $250.
So, the cost right now is $160-$180 per square feet. Yet if VCBO were to determine the costs for rebuilding related to a bond election they would recommend $250 per square feet? They would recommend that Park City and Snyderville Basin Citizens citizens sign up for paying $70-$90 more per square foot than today’s rate? By the way, that’s 38%-50% higher than today.
Why would VCBO ever do that?
First, this is purely speculation. So we don’t know for sure. But here are some ideas:
- Perhaps they think that in 12 months it will cost 50% more to build something in Park City.
- Perhaps they want to give the builder (whoever that is) a little leeway.
- Perhaps they are doing a solid for Park City Schools. If the bond is $80 million and they only need $50 million to build the school then PCSD can use the rest to build other things like PC CAPS buildings.
- Perhaps VCBO believes they will aso get the contract for building the school. What better way to ensure top dollar than to plan for a school at $250 per square foot and then get the contract for building it… at $250 a square foot.
Again, we don’t know for sure. We are speculating. Perhaps they are just trying to prepare us for massive inflation. We don’t know.
Our further concern stems from conflicts of interests related to the planner versus builder of the new school. As we sat in meetings, PCSD Master planning Committee Co-chair Rory Murphy was fairly adamant that he was not in favor of the Planner and Builder being the same company. The rest of the committee seemed to zone off … seemingly watching the finale of Two and Half Men. We reached out a planner we knew and they confirmed Mr. Murphy’s concerns were not out in left field. It seems both making a plan and fulfilling that plan can introduce conflicts of interest.
Where we are right now is that VCBO is planning the project. From what we have seen, VCBO’s Planner, Molly Smith, is exceptional at her job. She will have Park City folks wondering why they aren’t rebuilding all South Summit schools too, when she is done. The bond will pass and then they’ll need someone to build the new Treasure Mountain school. Who is the best person to do this? Probably someone who has a lot of experience in the community!!! VCBO.
We reached out to someone with intimate knowledge of planning and the person indicated that since VCBO got the planning contract it may stop some other companies from applying, because they assume that VCBO has got the rest. That’s not VCBO’s fault… it sounds like it’s just the way it is. So, we’d guess VCBO is already the front runner for construction.
The issue with VCBO planning the project and then bidding on construction is that they have influenced the project. In this specific case, they have influenced the perceived price — and in a dramatic fashion. Is that a conflict of interest? We, as citizens, need to decide.
We see two paths that restore the public’s confidence. Either VCBO is removed IMMEDIATELY from planning or VCBO is not allowed to bid on construction. They have admitted they would recommend a cost 38%-50% above current levels. Why would we as a community support that, especially given the conflicts.
If you were rebuilding your fence and got 5 bids would you go with the guy who is 50% more? No, you’d probably think he is ripping you off. In this case, we are at the front end of the process. We have a chance to do what’s right and ensure every dollar of money put towards students helps students.
In this case, 20%-50% above current levels seems to be helping someone else.
We believe every dollar of funds spent toward education should somehow benefit the students. We have an opportunity to stop and say “we understand the game. stop.” We need to ensure that our hard earned dollars are spent well. The current arrangements may not afford that or the public interest.
in Schools
Bear Hollow Land Would Work for Treasure Mountain School According to Park City’s School Planning Committee
When the Bear Hollow development was created, a certain portion of the land was given to the Park City School District. This week the school district’s Director of Buildings & Grounds, Todd Hansen investigated the land. His initial impressions appear to validate that’s it’s likely a viable spot for a new 5th/6th grade school (to replace Treasure Mountain). His calculation accounted for 1,000 kids and 110,000 square feet. This would be across two levels and would fit on the land (including parking). He did note that this would have to go through County Planning procedures, due to the nature of the original Bear Hollow Agreement.
It is good that the Master Planning Committee is exploring all alternatives. We do question the addition to traffic on 224 but at least we see the group exploring the possibilities, which is good.
The map below shows where the site is located. It is right before Bear Hollow, and below UOP, when you are driving into town. It is the circle in red:
Vail Resorts Is Not Talisker
Vail Resorts reported their Second Quarter results yesterday earnings rose 32% for the second quarter, compared to the same time last year. Net Income was $115 million for the quarter, representing a 95% increase over the last year. BAM.
Vail is not Talisker. That’s pretty obvious.
Other items to note from their press release:
- Vail CEO Rob Katz said, “We continue to see strong momentum in our resort real estate markets with solid demand for our remaining condominium inventory and increasing interest in ur development parcels.”
- The company reaffirmed it is planning on spending $50 million on its Park City resorts and plans on connecting them (as reported on KPCW).
- CEO Katz said, “Our investment in Utah will be one of the most transformative ever undertaken in the ski industry and we are pleased with the progress of the local approval process for those projects.” Uhh… take that word “transformative” how you will. We’re not sure if that’s good or bad. Didn’t Walt Disney say something like that about Orlando in 1963?
- Total lift revenue across Vail’s 9 resorts (open this season) was up 8%.
- Ski school revenue was up 2.1% at the 9 resorts.
- Total skier visits were down 0.3% at the 9 resorts.
As is usually the case, the question segment of their earnings call sheds light on subjects:
- A person of Bank of America asked about the impact Tahoe was having on their earnings. CEO Katz said that Colorado had done better than expected. Utah was what was expected. California was having issues.
- Credit Suisse asked whether the 5% increase in early season pass price given the weakness in Utah and Tahoe would work. Katz Said, “We have factored in all these things….When you think about Park City and Canyons the investments we are going to make into both of those resorts, obviously connecting them is dramatic improvement in the guest experience.”
- When asked by Barclays Bank about approvals for connecting PCMR to Canyons, Katz complimented the process our local entities are using and says he doesn’t forsee any issues in the approvals required to connect the resorts.
Mountain Accord Board Members Need to Think Broadly When Disclosing Conflicts
During Wednesday’s online Mountain Accord Debate, Laney Jones, consultant to Mountain Accord was asked a question:
“We heard on our local radio station, KPCW, that a citizen raised questions about conflicts of interest with regard to members of the Mountain Accord’s Executive Committee. Will Mountain Accord commit to publishing on its website all conflict of interest forms from each person on the Executive Committee before the process continues?”
The answer was..
Laney Jones (of Mountain Accord): “I can address that. The executive board is made up of about 20 entities. A lot of them are elected officials and some are private entities. I think the question has arisen as to whether any of the board members have a financial interest in land or ownership around where transit lines may have been proposed where that land might benefit. To date, the decisions that have been made have not made any specific decisions about where those transit lines go or their locations. So, there haven’t been any decisions about where someone may of financially benefitted but we do think it is a good idea for all our executive board members to disclose any of their financial interests. That is going to be the recommendation to the Executive Board that those are going to be disclosed and posted on the website. And they would recuse themselves from any that would have conflict.”
We appreciate Ms. Jones comments. We believe there should be no conflicts and every decision made should be based purely on benefits to citizens. Yet our fear is that people will voluntarily disclose direct conflicts but hide the real ones. The obvious conflicts would be the Mountain Accord buying your land to put a train on it. The less obvious conflict might be if you owned a piece of property between Little Cottonwood Canyon and Big Cottonwood Canyon where you could put hotels and restaurants. Would you benefit from a hotel being a mile away from a transit line? Probably. Should everyone know that you have this conflict. Yes.
If we receive a voluntary list of conflicts that aren’t wide ranging it does no good. We need to demand that it is a requirement that all executive board members list all financial interests for them and relatives in Salt Lake, Summit, and Wasatch Counties. Only with a complete list, untainted by their own opinions, will we truly know there are no conflicts. We should also extend this request/requirement to legislators pushing the appropriations of $5 million to Mountain Accord in the legislature.
It’s not that we don’t trust what is happening… we just want to have complete faith that decisions are being made in the public interest.
The Best Forum on Mountain Accord Yet
Yesterday on KPCW, Leslie Thatcher asked Summit County Council member Chris Robinson about an online meeting, happening later that day, related to the Mountain Accord. He said he had no idea what that was about. Perhaps he should have, as it was the best discussion we have heard on the topic.
The online “debate” featured:
Laynee Jones, Mountain Accord
Carl Fisher, Save Our Canyons
Paul Marshall, SkiUtah
Peter Metcalf, Black Diamond Equipment andOutdoor Industry Association
The moderator was from Boston and the insight into the real issues was outstanding. This felt like the first discussion we had witnessed where it was like a bunch of your friends talking about what they thought. It is very compelling. If you have a little bit of time, we recommend you watch it. Introductions are at the beginning and questions from the Internet start at about 45 minutes in.
in Development
A New Whole Foods Grocery Across From the Outlet Mall
Perhaps you drive along Landmark Drive, between Walmart and Tanger Outlet and have wondered, “what’s that parking lot on the north side of the street?” Wonder no more. If the developers of the land have their way, you’ll be looking at a new 45,000 square foot Whole Foods Grocery Store, in addition to a couple of buildings housing retail and restaurants.
There is currently a Whole Foods in Redstone, which is about half the size the proposed new grocery. If this moves forward, it is likely that building will join the ranks of the other completely half-empty buildings in Redstone.
Right now the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission is introductory talks with the developer about the proposal. The developer never formally named Whole Foods as a tenant but documents filed with the Summit County Planning Department indicate the building will house a Whole Foods. Previously the developer had the rights to build more buildings on the site, each with a smaller footprint than the new proposal. They want to amend that proposal and add 7,000 more square feet but with fewer buildings. It appears the developer wanted to see what potential issues there could be with the change.
So, we are at the beginning of the process but it could have big implications for the area. We’ll let you know as we hear more.
If You Are Against Mountain Accord … You Had a Small Victory This Week
This morning on KPCW, Summit County Council Member and Mountain Accord Executive Member, Chris Robinson announced that Mountain Accord was keeping open public comment on the Mountain Accord through June. Public input was scheduled to end in mid March, with a plan to move forward being implemented shortly thereafter. It appears that schedule is no longer on the table.
While KPCW guests Mr Robinson and Park City Senior Policy Advisor Ann Ober couched the change as providing an opportunity to get more input from citizens, it really is a temporary victory for opponents of Mountain Accord. KPCW’s Leslie Thatcher asked the duo what the response from citizens was on the Mountain Accord. They both said that the comments had been “split.” We feel a bit like we are listening to Hillary Clinton tell us about her email scandal. Words are being parsed.
The word “split” implies 50/50 but really means two or more parts. We can’t imagine that the Mountain Accord really received equally positive and negative comments. That’s not because of anything to do with Mountain Accord but because few people email to say they are happy with something. So, we are guessing split in this context means 90% against and 10% for.
Regardless, a delay isn’t good for the proponents of Mountain Accord. It was likely their hope was to push this through as quickly as possible. They are likely now in damage control mode and trying to figure out the next steps on how to rebrand the message. There is also likely the hope that “further study” and “allowing additional public comment” gives them high ground in June to relaunch the concept. They will of course hope that the opposition has softened by then, too. It’s seems like a textbook play.
So, if you are against the Mountain Accord, you appear to have won the battle. The public consensus is behind you. However, your powerful enemy is tactically retreating and getting retrenched for the war. You have more work to do this summer.
If you are for the Mountain Accord, save your ammo. Your next battle comes in June.
The only thing for certain is there is another fight on the horizon. The question is whose armies show up.
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.