Airport EXPANSION is Back??

*** Updated 2 Dec '15:  The agenda item proposed for the land purchase was removed from the agenda and postponed to a budget modification hearing (to fund the project, it was 'thought' -but apparently, someone thought better of the idea and merely proposed $30K for a study of the issue and an appraisal - stay tuned.) 

Many years ago when we moved to this lovely rural valley, there was an airport that seemed mainly a glider and small airplane operation. Of course that was back in the time that Deer Creek reservoir was covered with sailboats and the valley was filled with alfalfa fields, dairy farms and low density housing.

But, times change. It seems only a decade or so ago that the last proposal to expand the airport was soundly trounced by local residents in public meetings. Well, apparently that expansion plan never really died and appears to be back. 

An interesting scenario is developing.  A few weeks ago the Heber City Council, KPCW report, in a work meeting“discussion,” found a “consensus” to “Acquire Land on Heber Parkway for the Heber City Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).”    Current RPZ map 

Audio of complete meeting          (Meeting Video WTPA)

BUT, that property is under contract, or has been sold, to Maverik for a new gas station and last week, the Heber Planning Commission (Agenda) found that all of the requisite rules had been met and gave “Final Approval” to build and operate the facility.   This location may not be within the current Runway Protection Zone (apparently it IS, after further research, however. . . ) and the Planning Commission has the authority for 'commercial' approval.

However, this Thursday, 19 Nov, Heber City Council's regular meeting has this agenda item: “#11. Approve the Purchase of a Parcel of Land Located on Heber Parkway for the Heber City Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).”    

If the gas station did go into operation, there is a possibility that it would be within the RPZ, IF THE AIRPORT WERE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE LARGER AIRCRAFT.

The price of the property is, reportedly, $1.5 million, and Heber has a vague Email “promise” that the FAA will refund the purchase price under the “Uniform Relocatíon Act appraisal,or reappraisal,” if the money is available, next year.

Before Heber City puts the purchase price upon its taxpayers for the benefit of “The Premier Airport In Utah Serving Park City and Deer Valley,” many questions should be answered:

As the Maverik proposal has received FINAL Approval from the Planning Commission meeting, does Heber City have the authority to override that decision?(click the link below to continue)

'Inappropriate" Bond Promotion

Has anyone in the school district ever used 'deceptive' (or illegal) tactics before?

2006 'First' school bond for $46 M high school  (aka, give us the money, trust us)  School children were used to bring home flyers to encourage a YES vote

2006 In a private Survey to ascertain public opinion on the school bond:
"The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.

Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?

Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it."

Where did nearly all the respondent comments originate?  The  "Utah Educator Network IP" 
Read more here

2007:  TnT for 50% TAX Increase   "We're raising teacher salaries."  No, the Legislature did that.
"we, the truth seekers were informed that the school district was awarding a 3.5% pay increase to the school teachers at a cost of $2.6 million to the district. State legislative officials at the meeting were unclear if the district was taking credit for the pay increase mandated and funded by the state or if the local district had funded an addition increase. However, when asked for an estimate of the total payroll, (10, 20 or 80 million??), school officials were unable to come up with an a ready estimate. The figure, according to the 2007 budget, was $10,669,428. (Page 5, item 131) 3.5 % of that is $373,000 NOT $2.6 million."
 
2008:  In the campaign for the second try for a High School  ($59.5M, this time).  A local radio program was promoting the "fiscally responsible" - "let's be serious" concept.   Being offended by the opposition, two gentlemen from the School District arrived shortly after nearly ever program with a pre-recorded program promoting the virtues of new edifice.  (apparently prepared in the school, during school time and by school employees - who often arrived in a school driver ed vehicle.   (aka expending tax money to promote a bond election)

There's more,  (did we ever report being called to the 'Principal's (aka supt) office) . . . . . .  but, we just had another election;  maybe the 'tricks' will be reported, but it might sound like sour grapes for a loss.  (robo-calls to selected individuals, push survey, interesting donors, activities)   

School Enrollment Projection by Grade

Addendum: Census figures indicate growth may slow in future due to decreasing percentage increase for 0 to 5 age group:
 

	Total	%	number	avg
2014	27,714	7.9%	2,189	438	0 to 5
2010	23,530	9.9%	2,329	466	0 to 5
2014	27,714	32.9%	9,118	507	0 to 18
2010	23,530	33.9%	7,977	443	0 to 18
2014	27,714	25.0%	6,929	533	6 to 18
2010	23,530	24.0%	5,647	434	6 to 18

Notice the actual number for the youngest age group, as well as the % of population, DECREASED from 2010 to 2014 .  These may have been reflected in the kindergarten enrollment last year of 420.  These relatively lower figures flow through the education years.  (note also grade 7 at 422, as another anomaly.)

****Click here for an School Enrollment Calculator***, to allow YOU to predict the growth and incoming Kindergarten enrollment, based on entered 2104 enrollment figures. (and these figures will also change)

Projection of growth are NOT simply 'if we have had a 3% growth in the past, it will continue at 3%' It, obviously, varies year to year and grade to grade. Certainly, the school district has a more sophisticated system, than simply the graph presented, which is not a straight 3%.  

But a table is far more illustrative.  Notice the enrollment figures for last year (base), while the average grade enrollment may be 460, or so, the range goes from low 420's in 1^st and 7th grade to 498 in tenth.  
Even with assuming a 3% (or any number you'd like to put in the calculator) the annual increase varies from 4.7% to to 0% over various years – depending on the individual grade size as it flows through the years.

We can guess (or forecast) the incoming Kindergarten, but, generally the grade enrollment flows through the years.   BUT, as usual, please remember that Efficient Utilization of schools is a far better, quicker and SAVES a great deal of Taxpayers Money (Fiscal Responsibility)

-->

Growth Rate		3.0%	Enter YOUR guess
	You can also modify the Kindergarten enrollment, if you have a crystal ball
		Any changes made will remain, until the next change
Grade	base	next yr.	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8	Year 9	Year 10
K	450	450	400	475	470	450	480	485	500	485	485
1	421	434	464	412	489	484	464	494	500	515	500
2	474	488	447	477	424	504	499	477	509	515	530
3	495	510	503	460	492	437	519	514	492	525	530
4	436	449	525	518	474	506	450	535	529	506	540
Elem	2,276	2,331	2,338	2,342	2,349	2,382	2,411	2,505	2,529	2,546	2,585
		2.4%	0.3%	0.2%	0.3%	1.4%	1.3%	3.9%	1.0%	0.6%	1.6%
5	477	491	463	541	533	488	522	464	551	545	522
6	495	510	506	476	557	549	503	537	478	567	561
Mid	972	1,001	969	1,017	1,091	1,038	1,024	1,001	1,028	1,112	1,083
		3.0%	-3.3%	5.0%	7.2%	-4.9%	-1.3%	-2.3%	2.7%	8.1%	-2.6%
7	422	435	525	521	491	574	566	518	553	492	584
8	495	510	448	541	537	505	591	583	533	570	507
Int	917	945	973	1,062	1,028	1,079	1,157	1,101	1,087	1,062	1,091
		3.0%	3.0%	9.2%	-3.3%	5.0%	7.2%	-4.9%	-1.3%	-2.3%	2.7%
9	461	475	525	461	557	553	521	609	600	549	587
10	498	513	489	541	475	574	570	536	627	618	566
11	439	452	528	504	557	489	591	587	552	646	637
12	464	478	466	544	519	574	504	609	604	569	665
High	1,862	1,918	2,008	2,050	2,108	2,190	2,185	2,340	2,384	2,383	2,455
		3.0%	4.7%	2.1%	2.8%	3.9%	-0.2%	7.1%	1.9%	-0.1%	3.1%
	6,027	6,194	6,288	6,472	6,575	6,688	6,778	6,947	7,029	7,102	7,214
		2.8%	1.5%	2.9%	1.6%	1.7%	1.3%	2.5%	1.2%	1.0%	1.6%
Line 2 is the estimated growth Rate for the entire period
Line 6 is the estimated size of incoming Kindergarten class
Col B is the enrollment from the previous year, moved up one grade
Col D – L automatically moves each grade enrollment up one year.
Projections are automatically calculated from the previous year, adjusted for the growth rate