Is Summit County Representative Kraig Powell Out of Touch on Mountain Accord?
This morning on KPCW, Utah Representative Kraig Powell was interviewed by Leslie Thatcher on a number of topics. However, what caught our attention was a response near the end of the interview about Mountain Accord.
Leslie Thatcher: Apparently there is a bill or it is part of the appropriations bill that would fund Mountain Accord up to $5 million. Is that something you are in support of?
Representative Powell: I’m sorry that I’ve been in the legislative session and it’s take a real turn recently and I’ve been reading the Park Record and listening to your program. It is very unusual for any group in society that are working on something that would say we don’t want funding from legislature. That’s the thing that puzzles me about this. If my constituents on the Wasatch Back actually want me to vote against a funding bill that’s providing funding, it would be the first time in my legislative career. But I need to hear that directly from the leaders of the municipalities and counties. They haven’t been calling me directly. Although I have had some citizens write to me saying that.
This concerns us on a number of fronts:
- To Park City and Summit County residents, this isn’t just some funding bill. Mr Powell acts like this is some bill to fund a swimming pool. To us, Mountain Accord could fundamentally alter who and how PCMR, Canyons, and Deer Valley are used.
- While we understand that the legislature session is important, almost 400 people showed up to a meeting at Park City High School regarding Mountain Accord. So, it’s a big deal to us. His response above shows a complete lack of understanding of the public’s view of importance on this issue.
- This perhaps confirms County Council person Dave Ure’s comment that probably not more than a handful of people on the hill know what is being spent on Mountain Accord. It appears Mr Powell is not in that handful.
- Mr Powell says he needs to hear directly from “leaders of municipalities and counties” in order to know whether he should vote against appropriations for Mountain Accord. We didn’t realize that the Park City City Council had elected him. That’s good to know. We guess we won’t have to waste all that time voting next time.
We do realize this is one interview and one sound byte out of a thousand. We also don’t follow the legislature much, so we don’t know if Mr Powell’s attitude is typical. What we do know is that from a casual citizens point of view his comments were very disappointing.
We Hope You Love Billboards
While this doesn’t immediately impact Park City (yet), this Salt Lake Tribune article about Utah Representative Mike Noel changing a Scenic Byway law is interesting. Effectively right now, billboards can’t be placed along scenic byways if the local government opposes it. This change would prevent local governments from controlling that. Therefore, land owners could put billboards where they like.
Scenic byways are official areas designated like Little Cottonwood Canyon, Scenic Highway 12, etc.
If this were implemented at a State Highway level, just imagine how pretty 224 would look!
h/t to a concerned citizen who forwarded us the SL Trib article
in Skiing
Fake Snow, Real Money: The High-Tech Fight to Save California Skiing
Among the interesting facts presented:
- In Sochi, for the 2014 Winter Olympics they used Finnish snow making equipment that let them make “snow” up to 62º F.
- In ideal conditions, snowmakers can fabricate winter at the rate of a foot of snow over 43 acres in just 12 hours at Heavenly.
- Among the 19 cities that have hosted the winter Olympics—including Calgary, Chamonix, Nagano, and Oslo—the average February temperature is up to 46 degrees, up from 32 in the 1920s.
- Within a decade, 300 of the 470 U.S. ski resorts could be gone.
That last point is interesting. If the number of ski resorts dwindles, the survivors probably prosper — and it’s usually the big guys who survive. Hello Vail.
Looks like it’s time to double down on that 3rd home you’ve been looking at in The Colony.
in Schools
Park City School Superintendent Taking Over Grade Realignment Decision
For the past few months, the Park City School District Master Planning Committee has been discussing the issue of realigning which grades are in what buildings. In yesterday’s Park City School District Master Planning Committee meeting, school superintendent Ember Conley announced that she had decided that the realignment was really an “academic” issue and she personally felt realigning grades was right for our students. Therefore, the issue of whether to realign will no longer be a Master Planning issue and will fall to her.
Ms. Conley plans on holding meetings with community members on April 2nd and April 3rd to answer questions and get public input. Her decision will likely follow shortly thereafter. Currently the thinking appears to be that Pre-K to 4th grade will be at the existing elementary schools, 5th and 6th grade will be at a new school (to be built), 7th and 8th will be at Ecker Hill, and 9th through 12th will be at the high school.
Once Ms Conley receives public feedback and officially charts a course, the task of making sure facilities are available will fall to the Master Planning Committee.
There is a palpable sense that there isn’t a lot of time to do accomplish everything officials are aiming for. This is an example where an expeditious path is being taken. In this case, it probably makes sense that this decision falls to the head of our school district, as it really is a decision that should be based on what impacts our students’ achievement and not what buildings are available.
in Trains
Your Vision of Riding Rail up Little Cottonwood Canyon is Likely Different From Reality
We were driving up Little Cottonwood Canyon to Snowbird and we had forgotten just how steep that climb can be. This reminded us of a comment that Summit County Council member Roger Armstrong made during a meeting, upon his return from a Mountain Accord trip to Switzerland. He had commented that the pitch in the Cottonwood Canyon was likely too steep for light rail. Therefore COG Rack trains would be needed.
We didn’t understand the significance of that comment until we were speaking with a neighbor. He confirmed that COG Rack trains were probably the only thing that would work due to the grade. He also asked the question whether we knew how slow they were?
So we decided to Find out. It appears that the maximum speed of a COG Rack train is 15 miles per hour, or they run the risk of “dislodging from the rack.” The COG Rack train servicing Pikes Peak goes 9 MPH. While we would guess the Pikes Peak Route is steeper, we can’t imagine the train going much faster than 10 MPH. That would be about a 2/3 slower than we drove the canyon today. That also means a ride from the bottom of the canyon to Brighton would take an hour, without any stops. Likewise going all the way to pcmr would tack on at least another 15 to 20 minutes, making that a long, slow ride
We were also wondering how their avalanche control would fit into a world with a train. Many times the canyon is closed because they have to move the snow off the road, after they’ve done control work. How does that work getting snow off the Rack Rail?
While there are likely benefits to a train up the canyon and many times cars aren’t going fast up the canyon, reality probably isn’t quite what we pictured. We envisioned the light rail train, flying up the mountain… much like we see it going out to the airport.
If built, this railway will likely be much different than that.
Would You Ride Rail From Park City to Snowbird?
We went skiing today at Snowbird, in Little Cottonwood Canyon. As we were driving down I-80, we commented that it may be nice to just hop on a train at PCMR and ride it over to Snowbird. Our friend said, “you mean drive through traffic into town, go to PCMR, find the parking lot full, then park in a satellite lot somewhere, find a bus stop, wait 20 minutes for the bus, drag all our gear on it, get off, drag all our gear from the bus stop to the train, and ride for 30 minutes … and then do it all in reverse on the way back? Sure.”
The idea sounded kind of romantic until reality was pointed out.
Should Park City Buses Cost Money to Ride?
A Friend of the Park Rag had read a column in the Park Record about buses being free and “asked” us whether buses should actually cost something to ride in Park City. Her reasoning was:
- If we made revenue from the buses they could offer more amenities
- If we charged $1-$2 we may be able to have more frequent buses
- With more funding, they may be able to do more point to point solutions
It’s an interesting point. Obviously free buses are not solving our transportation issues. Would we get more people to ride buses if we had a different pricing strategy? When things are free they aren’t valued much. If we charged a dollar or two, and improved service would people ride?
We aren’t convinced that it would make a difference but we think its worth, at least, considering.
in Schools
Park City School District Is Considering Revamping Their Approach to Public Comment
Have a question for the Park City School Board and decided you’ll show up to a School Board meeting to ask your question? You better relish the story of the Battle of Marathon. That story highlights how the Greeks defeated the Persians in a city called Marathon and a runner ran 26 miles to Athens to deliver the news. However, instead of waiting hours for the runner to arrive, you’ll wait days for your response from the Park City School Board.
From what we’ve witnessed, concerned students, faculty, and parents attend school board meetings to ask questions of the district. You may think that when you ask a question you’ll get an immediate response. Instead, that response comes days (perhaps weeks) later on their website. It’s frankly not a good way to engage in public dialogue.
The Park City School Board seems to understand that. According to an interview this morning with KPCW’s Lynn Ware Peek, the Park City School Board President, Tanya Knauer, says they are looking to improve the process. She said they are looking at the ways Park City and Summit County answer public comment for guidance. They want to improve their process.
When we have asked questions of the Park City or the Summit County Council, the processes have been similar. The Council will listen to what you say and various members of the boards will tell you what they think immediately. When you ask a question of the school board, they sit quietly and then don’t answer the question. You then check their website and a written paragraph gives the official “answer” of the school board days or weeks later. While we understand that the approach is “tidy,” it is often lacking.
One of the key problems, that we have addressed before, is that we think the current school district process violates Utah Open Meeting laws. According to Utah law, policy decisions must be made in the open so that the public understands how decisions are made. In many cases with public comment, we feel the school board violates that rule.
For instance, say you ask the school board if they will start Park City High School classes 1 hour later. A week later you may read a response on the website. It will be a simple paragraph explaining what has been decided.
Yet, how does that response come into existence? How did school board member JJ Ehlers feel about it? What did Moe Hickey think? Did everyone agree? Who had a different opinion than the majority? You will never know. Policy is effectively being made and the public doesn’t know how it happened.
That is the problem.
So we hope the Park City School Board will decide to continue their efforts at increased transparency and have a discussion in front of the person asking a question. If there is something worth voting on, then it can be scheduled for a later session. If there are items requiring a “closed” session like personnel or land acquisition they can handle that separately and stated explicitly. Otherwise, the school board members can each honestly answer the question that has been asked by the citizens … and on the record.
When you look at Park City Schools, they are one of the most transparent government groups in Summit County. They have videos of meetings online within a couple of days, minutes of meetings are posted almost immediately, and they endeavour to include other government groups in their thought process.
They do many things better than most.
Public comment is one gaping hole that has been left open. If they are willing to address that issue, it is nothing but positive for the people of Park City and Summit County… and the Park City School District.
Changing Park City’s Idling Law is Worse than Worthlesss
Currently cars in Park City can lawfully idle for 3 minutes. Park City officials are discussing reducing this limit to 60 seconds. On the surface that sounds great. However, there is a state law that requires three warnings to be given before ticketing for idling ordinances. The Park Record’s Jay Hamburger wrote a good article about this stating that Park City has never issued a ticket with their 3 minute limit.
So, on your fourth offense you will be ticketed? It makes us almost want to try and get caught 4 times to see if we get the $30 ticket.
Fundamentally, the Park City officials pushing this are correct. Studies have shown that the break even time for idling is 10 seconds. If you idle more than 10 seconds, you should turn off your car in order to save gas and cause less harm on the engine.
So, if we are really going to do it, let’s make it 10 seconds. Sounds absurd, right? So is 60 seconds.
The problem with 60 seconds, or 10 for that matter, is that it makes every day actions mentally uncomfortable. Dropping off your kids and there is a short line… should I turn off/on the car 7 times? Dropping off friends at Deer Valley… will it take more than a minute? It just makes it less pleasant and doesn’t really benefit anyone.
What we want to do is make sure that the person we heard about on KPCW this morning, who was witnessed idling for 45 minutes, doesn’t do that. If you idle for 60 seconds or 3 minutes, what’s really the difference?
Our point is that spending this time making an ordinance that reduces time to 60 seconds will likely not change behavior. What it does do to the visitor seeing a sign that says, IT IS ILLEGAL TO IDLE MORE THAN 60 SECONDS is make it miserable for them. They are going to worry about it, wonder WTF, and probably not alter their behavior anyhow.
… And just like we could have better spent the 15 minutes it took to write this article, pointing out the fruitlessness of changing the ordinance, the Park City City Council and staff could likely spend their time more productively.
Worse than worthless.
Park Record Editorial on Mountain Accord Is Misguided
In Saturday’s Park Record, the editorial staff say that “abandoning the Mountain Accord would be an unpardonable mistake.” So what they are saying is that our leaders could never be forgiven if they sit out the Mountain Accord. Those are strong words, so let’s see what their justification is:
- Our watersheds, moose, eagles, and playgrounds are endangered
- People have said that the process has been hijacked by Salt Lake City interests and are detrimental to Park City and therefore it is more important than ever to stay in the Mountain Accord
- If we walk away, we forgo having any say in the Salt Lake side’s resort and transportation expansion
To help Roger Armstrong, et al. escape from Park Record’s Prison, we’d like to look at the Park Record’s reasoning a bit more.
Watersheds, Moose, and Eagles:
They almost had us here. We love moose. The site of a baby moose with her mom is adorable. We also love eagles — they are our national bird after all (and Russia’s and 32 other countries for informational purposes). Oh, and watersheds, yes water is important.
Yet, we can’t help but feel like we are being played a bit here.
Moose and eagle populations will flourish because of Mountain Accord? Uh, we hadn’t heard that before. We’d love to go and research that but frankly we don’t know where we’d start. So, we’ll leave that as a maybe.
That leaves us with watersheds on this point. We do think water is our most important resource. We understand that some land will be donated from the ski resorts to the public as part of Mountian Accord. We suppose this could contribute to more, pristine water. Yet we also see that the resorts will be given more water for snow making. So, how much more net-usable water will come from the Wasatch under this plan? Will more water be available to the citizens of Park City and Salt Lake or will the resorts take more, thus leaving a net negative return? We haven’t seen specifics on that.
Finally, not to be selfish… but whether Park City is part of the Mountain Accord or not, won’t this land, and thus water, be preserved either way?
Project Controlled By SLC, Thus We Need to Stay in the Accord to Fight:
County council member Roger Armstrong had an interesting take on a similar issue. Another council member said we should stay in the Accord in order to find out what may benefit Summit County. Mr Armstrong said they had a year to show us the benefits and we hadn’t seen them.
We find it hard to believe that our miniscule investment will influence the powers behind the Mountain Accord. We also believe we would have seen the benefits by now. We still believe that the only real benefit to us could come from some crazy, desperate bargain (i.e. a train around the Snyderville Basin is paid for by someone else or school equalization ended). If that’s the plan, let’s just walk away and await the offer.
The other reason this reasons rings hollow is that either Chris Robinson or Andy Beerman (sorry we can’t remember which) said at the Mountain Accord meeting that the Mountain Accord could not violate the decision of the locality. We took that to mean that they couldn’t force something on us. So, if we are to believe that, we really do control our land — and destiny, even if we choose to not continue with the Mountain Accord.
Forgo any say in SLC’s resort and transportation plans:
Do you think we really have any say in those? Also, as far as we can tell their transportation plans are to make Sandy a hub for transportation. As for resorts, it looks like a few Wasatch-front resorts will have more skiable terrain. We don’t see our influence in that or why it matters all that much to us.
**********
So we don’t buy the Park Record’s arguments. The more and more we hear, a line from an old John Denver song keeps getting stuck in our heads:
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
… And staring at the Park Record editorial, all we see is this:
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.