in Schools
School Board Bond Frequently Asked Questions
The Park City School Board provided the Park Rag with a list of their frequently asked questions and answers. I think the board feels there is a disconnect between what they believe they are trying to accomplish given constraints and what others believe they are trying to accomplish. I believe they hope by providing enough information they can help people understand where they are coming from.
If you haven’t seen this FAQ in other places, I would recommend reading it:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: PCSD PROPOSTION 1
Why do we need a bond for our schools?
The proposed bond will provide our growing school district with much-needed remodeled schools, new facilities and important athletic and performing arts space to ensure our students receive the education they deserve. Proposition 1 is designed to:
• Fund essential school needs for our growing district, with more than 80 percent of the funding going directly to much-needed classroom space.
• Fund important safety modernizations to our schools and improve traffic flow around our school buildings.
• Ensure students have the academic, performing arts and athletic facilities they need to become well-rounded adults.
• Be a cost-effective investment in students and their education, and allows the district to responsibly plan for the future.
What was the process followed by the Board of Education in weighing the input of the community and the Master Planning Committee recommendation?
The Park City School District (PCSD) curated an expert steering committee to study facilities needs, future growth potential and best practices in educational trends. The group included teachers, parents, Administrators and board members. This Committee began work in the fall of 2014 and were instructed to engage community at every opportunity. The steering committee delivered a recommendation to the board in August of 2015. More than 400 people attended and added important input at more than 30 community meetings. For 5 months (March-July 2015) 3 workshops, 5 community forums, 2 Town Hall meetings were held to collect input on working plans. In addition a third party community survey queried 500 PCSD residents to understand values and priorities. Finally, the district had feedback and recommendations from city, county, UDOT and recreation experts. These meetings represent more that 1100 (wo)man hours on how best to meet the needs of Park City students. Board members attended all of these sessions to deeply understand ideas considered. Inclusion of community feedback resulted in numerous working plans. The board reviewed the community input and the committee recommendation. Options were vetted through the application of best practice standards and choices that were fiscally responsible. The Master Planning Committee recommended expanding and remodeling the high school to accommodate the 9th graders and updating the athletics and performing arts which were not finished in the last remodel, building a 5th and 6th on the Ecker campus, budgeting for student safety and expanding at McPolin, and tearing down Treasure Mountain Junior High. Two options on the high school expansion were presented – to the south and to the west. The Board accepted all the elements and determined the west was the better option. The elementary school numbers do not show the need to add classrooms at McPolin yet, but it is being set up as the next school to be expanded when needed. Finally, the board concluded the urgency for indoor practice and multipurpose space of a field house were important student needs to address. Accordingly we adopted the prioritized project list and associated costs that are part of the bond referendum.
What are the projects included in Proposition 1 on the November 3, 2015 ballot?
Park City High School Expansion and Remodel $27,500,000
New 5th and 6th Grade School at Ecker Campus $24,800,000
McPolin Student Safety Improvements $1,400,000
Treasure Mountain Junior High Demolition $606,336
Athletic Facilities $12,000,000
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.
Comments
5 Comments
Thank you for your clarification.
Now there is another required clarification.
The Board lists $12 million in costs for athletic facilities. According to Todd Hauber, they are broken down this way –
1) Move Dozier Field and new stadium – $3,855,000
2) New Field House – Undetermined since programming has not been completed; however, $12 million is identified in the bond proposition for athletics. Subtracting Dozier Field, track, and stadium leaves $6,860,000.
3) New track relocated to North 40 – $1,285,000
This adds up to $12 million or 18% of the full $66 million project.
However, these are not all of the athletic facilities in the project. Add $6,360,750 for the gym remodel, new locker rooms, and sports offices in the high school to the $12 million.
Now the total is $18,360,750 divided by $66 million and the new percentage is 28% of the project.
No wonder there is voter confusion!
Below is the response provided to your after you voiced your concerns and certainly well before you decided to present them in this forum.
Julie Eihausen
Oct 18 (3 days ago)
to Bill, pkaplan, Tania, ngarrison, jehlers, Ember
Thank you Bill.
The money budgeted for athletic facilities is $12 million. The gym remodel/update from 1977-80 facilities and the creation of a competition gym is included in the total for the HS expansion ($5.5 million), along with performing arts improvements. Where the competition gym will be located is still in discussion. It may be in the HS and it may be in the field house. The athletic design team will be researching and determining a recommendation for the Board. While estimates can and have varied from $5 million to $20 million, the Board is looking at providing adequate facilities, period. The current mock-ups we have received show us that we can have a field house for a little more than the lowest estimate, but well below the highest. While you prefer funds spent on performing arts, there are plenty of others in this community who prefer funds spent on athletics. We are working toward funding the long ignored facility needs to create a whole child learning experience for all of our students. Our budget for all of the projects is $66.3 million. We are asking to finance $56 million via bond and we are bound by law to not exceed that budget.
It is unfortunate that a small group of folks who do not want Dozier relocated closer to their households and an even smaller group who do not want their children integrated with the rest of the PCSD students have chosen to exert their efforts to confuse taxpayers and potentially create a situation where everyone has to pay more for the necessary facilities. Personal agendas. Very unfortunate.
Julie Eihausen
It is unfortunate that the school board continues to portray the citizens opposed to the school bond as only those who don’t want changes to Dozier field or those who don’t want children integrating into PCSD. I don’t fit into either of those classifications yet oppose the bond due to the cost of athletic facilites that are “wants” vs. “needs,” questionable growth projections (justification for bond monies based on highest possible growth number not the median) and the fact that PCSD does not have a plan for how the district will handle extra capacity if the growth numbers don’t materialize. We are currently spending $1.47M annually to educate out of district students. If growth doesn’t materialize, I foresee our board local levy tax increasing yet again ( was increased in Nov 2014 to support a $3M shortfall in annual budget).
I think it’s fair to say the opposition is a bit of a random coalition of “no to everything” folks, people who didn’t do any research or go to any meetings but now want more time for public input, and then the folks who don’t want various specific facilities moved an inch. I haven’t seen any reason to believe that further debate would get us anywhere all that different. But it may be that we’ll just be back to square one in a year, and the solutions at that point will probably be a lot like the solutions now, but more urgent.
Interesting general comment without being informed. I attended the Master Planning meetings from April on. I also attended school board meetings in August. Additionally, I spent extra time getting up to speed on the issues surrounding the bond.
The question is not “debate” over the next year. The reason I support athletics in education is great coaches teach student athletes to collaborate with each other. Remember, I was the person that alerted the school board that the district was not Title IX compliant.
Todd Hauber gave me the numbers for a gym remodel. Now I see a new number. No wonder voters are becoming confused. The gym remodel was in the high school. Now we see it may be in the Field House.
I asked specifically what the costs were for athletics. Above were the numbers I received from the district. Julie’s numbers are different again.
We need to slow down, collaborate, and create a plan that is not confusing to anyone; and benefits everyone – Especially the children.
For instance, at the Master Planning meetings, there was concern that 9th graders were walking back and forth in front McPolin Elementary school (not sure why there was concern). With this new plan, Every high school student has to travel back and forth to the Field House.
The cost of athletic facilities is listed at $12 million but we found out it is over $18 million.
Unfortunately we have not felt collaboration with this school board.
The District has $10 million that it will spend for these improvements (please note the school board obviously is not listening – I never opposed Dozier moving. I questioned the cost and the fact they are wasting $800,000+ of our money by doing so). Use that money for planning over the next year.
The messaging on the “trailers” is laughable. In Maryland we called them “portable classrooms.” Both of our daughters enjoyed those classrooms.
It didn’t seem to negatively Impact their education. One daughter has 2 Masters Degrees in Education (1 of which is School Administration) and the other daughter earned her doctorate.
Hmmm, maybe we need to consider just using “trailers”? Kidding!
Leave a Comment