OCR Text |
Show A-16 Sat/Sun/Mon/Tues, January 4-7, 2020 The Park Record Meetings and agendas More dogs on Main TO PUBLISH YOUR PUBLIC NOTICES AND AGENDAS, PLEASE EMAIL CLASSIFIEDS@PARKRECORD.COM 2020 off to a big start 30 Day Comment Period: Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance December 3, 2019 – January 6, 2020 The Summit County Health Department is issuing a 30-day formal notice and comment period during which the public can provide input on the proposed Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance to the Summit County Code of Health. Public notice is hereby given that the Summit County Board of Health (“Board”) in accordance with UCA §26A-1-121, will conduct a public hearing to discuss and possibly take action regarding Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance by the Summit County Health Department. The Hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 6, 2020; Beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the Summit County Health Department; 650 Round Valley Drive; Park City, Utah 84060. The Board seeks comment by members of the public on its proposed changes to the Summit County Code of Health. The proposed changes can be viewed online at http://summitcountyhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Proposed-O rdinance_Summit-County-Groundwater-Source-Protection-.pdf Comments must be postmarked or received at the Summit County Health Department by 5:00 pm Mountain Standard Time on Friday, January 3, 2020. Comments may be emailed to dsiddoway@summitcounty.org. Public comments will also be taken at the Board of Health meeting held on Monday, January 6, 2020, at 4 pm at the Summit County Health Department Office located at 650 Round Valley Drive, Park City. Or by mail to: Derek Siddoway Summit County Health Department 650 Round Valley Drive, Suite 100 Park City, Utah 84060 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance Public Notice is hereby given that the Summit County Board of Health, in accordance with the Summit County Health Code, will conduct a public hearing to discuss and possibly take action regarding establishing a Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance in Summit County. Monday, January 6, 2020 Beginning at 5:00 pm Summit County Health Department 650 Round Valley Drive, Park City, UT 84060 For more information please contact Phil Bondurant, at the Summit County Health Department, 650 Round Valley Drive, Park City, Utah 84060; call at 435-333-1584; or email at pbondurant@summitcounty.org. The proposed changes can be viewed online at: http://summitcountyhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Proposed-O rdinance_Summit-County-Groundwater-Source-Protection-.pdf Child care remains a hurdle for women seeking office States pass laws to ease burdens on candidates LINDSAY WHITEHURST CHRISTINA A. CASSIDY Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY — When Kimberly Dudik ran for her fourth term in the Montana House, state officials told her she could not use campaign money to pay for child care for her four young children. She is now running for attorney general and is trying to visit a big chunk of the sprawling state, spending hours on the road. That means she needs even more help picking up her kids at school and day care when she’s away and her husband has a late night at the office. “It just seems behind the times,” Dudik, whose family is living off her husband’s income and savings from her work as a lawyer. “When it was a man campaigning, the woman was traditionally the one to stay home and take care of the children. There is not someone home just taking care of the kids.” Experts predict a large number of women will again run for office in 2020 like they did in 2018, and child care remains a hurdle for many of them. A congressional candidate in New York successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission in 2018 to allow campaign money to help cover child care costs. But it applies only to those running for federal office. That leaves women in many states who are running for the Legislature, statewide positions like attorney general or local offices to find another way to pay for child care as they campaign, which often requires night and weekend work. Only six states have laws specifically allowing campaign money to be used for child care. Five states are considering it. In most states, including Montana, the law is silent on the issue and up to interpretation by agencies or boards. Agencies in at least nine states have allowed child care to be a campaign-related expense, but those decisions are not law and could be reversed. Utah is among the states that passed a gender-neutral child care expense law, which went into effect last May. Sponsored by Republican state Rep. Craig Hall, it easily passed the GOP-dominated legislature. Luz Escamilla was one of the first candidates to use it as she campaigned to become the first Latina mayor of Salt Lake City. Escamilla had to take time off from her full-time banking job to knock on doors and shake hands as she made her case to voters. Without a paycheck, it was hard to cover the cost of child care for her two youngest daughters. After the law was passed, she used about $1,500 in campaign cash over two months to help pay for it. The extra time she could spend campaigning helped propel her to a spot in the general election, though she lost in November. “Full-time campaigning during the summer with toddlers, it makes it really difficult,” Escamilla said, adding of the law: “It was a great tool in our toolbox.” Lawmakers in Minnesota added child care as an allowable expense in 2018, while Colorado, New York, New Hampshire and California passed laws in 2019. Before Colorado allowed campaign cash to be used for child care, Amber McReynolds, a former chief elections official in Denver, was contemplating a bid for statewide office in 2017. The costs of child care were a considerable concern as a single mother of two young children. For that and other reasons, McReynolds decided against running. “When we look at the statistics in terms of representatives in Congress or statewide office and you don’t see single moms in that category, that’s why,” said McReynolds, who’s CEO of a nonprofit. “The circumstances are just that much more difficult when you are in politics.” The policy also can help fathers running for office in families where both parents work. Jean Sinzdak, associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said the record number of women who ran for office in 2018 has helped drive the issue. Still, lawmakers in a number of states have resisted the change. In Tennessee, the sponsor of a measure to add child care to the list of approved campaign expenses faced a skeptical audience during a subcommittee hearing last spring. “If they aren’t running for office because they can’t find child care, how are they going to do the job down here?” asked state Rep. John Crawford, a Republican from Kingsport, Tennessee. The sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Jason Powell, said he introduced the proposal after people he tried to recruit to run for City Council in Nashville declined because child care needs kept them from campaigning. “I hate that people in our state feel like they can’t run for office because they may or may not be able to use their campaign funds for a child care expense,” Powell By Tom Clyde said. The measure failed to advance after a split vote of the all-male subcommittee. In Louisiana, Democratic state House candidate Morgan Lamandre had her request denied by the state ethics board even though it allowed a Republican man to claim campaign-related child care expenses in 2000. Members, who were not on the panel two decades ago and didn’t have to follow the previous decision, said they were concerned it could be abused. After a backlash, the board reversed itself. While she’s used campaign funds to pay for child care a few times, Lamandre said it’s not a panacea for smaller races where candidates might have to choose between paying a baby-sitter or buying basics like lawn signs. “It’s helpful, but it’s not a slam-dunk,” she said. Liuba Grechen-Shirley, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress on eastern Long Island and whose FEC petition led to child care expenses being allowed for federal candidates, started a group called Vote Mama to help mothers running for public office and hopes one day the expense is allowed in every state. States now considering proposals include New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Caitlin Clarkson Pereira tried a similar approach to Grechen-Shirley’s, but ended up suing Connecticut after a board denied her request. She was told she couldn’t use campaign money to pay for child care for her young daughter during her state House race in 2018, which she ultimately lost. Connecticut officials cited a program that allows candidates to tap taxpayer money after they raise a certain amount on their own. With public money involved, the state says child care should be considered a personal expense. Pereira argued that it should be considered as necessary as meals or travel. “This is the time to remove the roadblocks that are clearly in the way of parents and families being able to run for office,” she said. Despite an eleventh-hour push last year by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, lawmakers failed to pass the policy. Dudik, the Montana candidate, said the lack of these laws shows the need to have more women in power so policies can be changed. “If we want more women running for office, we need to make allowances to make that a reality and not just give lip service to it,” she said. Here we are at the dawn of the new year, and of the new decade. It’s close enough for my purposes, though the killjoys from 2000 are still out there squawking about there wasn’t a year “zero” so this is the beginning of the final year of the decade, not the beginning of the next decade. Nobody cares. It’s math. We’re living in a fact-free world now, liberated from the frustrations of objective truth. If you want it to be the beginning of the next century, that’s entirely up to you. I’m still struggling with the altered reality that garbage day has switched from Thursday to Friday at my house, at least on one side of the bridge. On the other side of the bridge, it’s Wasatch County, and garbage day is unchanged. There’s some benefit in knowing that I now have two chances of getting the trash picked up. If I miss one, I can push the can across the bridge and get it dumped the next day. But I still feel unmoored because of it. Then throw the holiday schedule into the mix, a substantial snowstorm, and the only thing I know for certain is that a lot of trash is going to get spilled because no matter what day of the week it is, UDOT’s snowplow doesn’t slow down. It’s hard to know what to predict in the new year. I’m going to go way out on a limb and predict that the new tunnel under 248 by Park City High School will be open in time for the start of the school year. I’m sure there will still be a few details to sort out, and the temporary traffic light that stops traffic even if there isn’t anybody in the cross walk will probably become a permanent fixture. But with diligent effort, the contractor will wrap things up. By the time they get it done, it’s safe to assume that UDOT will have found some footnote in the appendix to a supplement to the Federal Highway Regulations that will prohibit them from re-striping the highway to make 2 lanes inbound. Instead of a new 5-year environmental assessment on the land markings, they will revert to the widening project that everybody hated for every possible reason. So the project to extend the tunnel under the new, widened, road will begin. It’s a safe bet that there will be no measurable improvement in traffic flow in 2020. The city will study it some more. It’s a safe bet that there will be no measurable improvement in traffic flow in 2020. The city will study it some more.” In Kamas, where the South Summit school bond proposal failed for the second time, the School Board is trying to figure out what to do next. The schools are jammed and there are some huge growth pressures looming. They need the space. The Board sent out a mass mailing basically asking constituents, “Now what,” because they are pretty much out of ideas. I don’t know the solution, but they probably ought to try a different plan, maybe adding on to the existing South Summit High School even if they have to move the bus garage. A whole lot of the opposition was the location of the proposed new school. But I predict the option of merging the three school districts in Summit County into one won’t be considered by anybody but a few cranks like me. I think it’s a good idea, and not only because it would be great fun to watch a unified school board dealing with funding for lacrosse and rodeo in the same meeting. It’s a safe bet the bond issue is back on the ballot in November. Because Sundance isn’t disruptive enough, the city and Festival sponsors will work to ensure that the gridlock lasts the full 11 days. The past several years, it’s more or less over after that first weekend when the Kardashians go home. Things are still busy, but not the insanity of that first weekend. So to extend the event, there is a big bonfire planned for the parking lot north of the Marsac building for the final weekend. It’s a good way to get rid of all the left over brochures and sponsor swag (and a few bad films). Sundance being Sundance, I’m sure it will be a well-produced event, and not some frat party burning a pile of shipping pallets and melting the asphalt. Attendees should be able to buy carbon offsets, and only the best soot-free hardwood flown in from Madagascar will be used for the fuel. And the Kardashians still will have gone home, but it will generate one last colossal traffic snarl to remember it by. It’s an election year, and while my Aussie shepherd could beat Trump in Summit County, there is a sinking feeling that the Democrats will do something entirely in character and nominate George McGovern, guaranteeing four more fact-free years. My dog would do a really good job, likes everybody, and doesn’t tweet. Oh, well. Tom Clyde practiced law in Park City for many years. He lives on a working ranch in Woodland and has been writing this column since 1986. New dispensary elevates tourism to West Wendover Highway Patrol says no increase in checkpoints BRADY MCCOMBS Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY — The first recreational marijuana dispensary opened Monday in a northeastern Nevada border city known for its casinos, but Utah residents considering making the 90-minute drive to West Wendover will have to be careful about where they use the pot if they go. Nevada laws prohibit using marijuana in public or hotel rooms, and U.S. laws prohibit people from taking it across state lines to Utah, where only medical marijuana is legal. The new dispensary in West Wendover, Nevada, called Deep Roots Harvest, figures to get plenty of business from Utah residents waiting for Utah’s new medical marijuana program to roll out next year, said Christine Stenquist, the director and founder of advocacy group Together for Responsible Use and Cannabis Education, or TRUCE. She said she’s already getting requests for carpools to West Wendover, which is about 125 miles (201 kilometers) west of Salt Lake City, making it the closest marijuana dispensary for people who live in northern Utah. Previously, people traveled nearly twice as far to cities in Colorado or southern Nevada, she said. She is cautioning people to be careful and not to answer any questions until they have a lawyer if they are stopped on the highways. Utah’s law allows using medical marijuana in certain forms with a doctor’s note of permission, but there’s murkiness until the state issues patient cards and opens dispensaries. That’s scheduled to happen in the spring of 2020. “We’re in a quasi-legal state right now,” Stenquist said. “They need to be wise. This is federally illegal.” Utah Highway Patrol troopers are aware the dispensary opened but the agency hasn’t arranged any extra patrols or checkpoints and doesn’t plan to arrest people who have a doctor’s note and marijuana oils, tablets or other forms of the drug legal under state law, said Utah Highway Patrol Sgt. Nick Street. But they will remain alert for impaired drivers who are coming back from West Wendover on Interstate 80, he said, and the law does prohibit smokable marijuana. “It’s definitely on our radar. We’re concerned. It’s an impairing substance that is now recreationally available,” Street said. “We’re worried people will go over there and consume it and try to hoof it home without letting the effects wear off.” West Wendover officials are excited about adding a new draw to the city other than casinos, but they want their neighbors in Utah to be careful, said Mayor Daniel Corona. “They really need to think about it before they come over,” Corona said. “You would have to go someone’s house (to use it), that’s about your only option.” After weighing the pros and cons, the West Wendover city council voted to approve a facility in November 2018. That sets up the city of 5,000 residents to get a nice budgetary boost from the 3% tax on all purchases at the facility, Corona said. He said they don’t have any estimates on how much they’ll get. Nevada voters approved recreational marijuana in 2016 and the state’s medicinal pot dispensaries reported nearly $640 million in total sales for the fiscal year that ended June 30. The state took in a little more than $99 million in taxes from medical and recreational sales and another $9.9 million in licensing and application fees during that time. “I think it’s definitely going to be a good thing,” Corona said. “We’ve been trying really hard to diversify our economy. It’s a step in that direction.” Deep Roots Harvest started growing medical marijuana in 2015 in Mesquite, Nevada, according to the company’s website. A phone message left with store managers wasn’t immediately returned. Parents sue over dog attack Huskies bit boy’s hand off when he reached under fence BRADY MCCOMBS Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY — The parents of a Utah boy whose hand was bitten off by two dogs while he was playing in his backyard are suing the neighbors who they contend should have known their dogs were vicious and unsuitable for a residential neighborhood with children. The lawsuit from Hope and John Brown of Layton was filed Monday in Utah state court against three people who were living in the neighboring home on March 3, 2019, when the two Siberian Huskies bit then 3-yearold Austin Brown’s arm. They are also suing the property owners and property managers. No attorneys were listed in court documents for any of the defendants. Phone messages left with to the property owners and property managers weren’t immediately returned. The lawsuit alleges the dogs pulled the boy’s arm under the fence and “viciously attacked and mutilated the child,” causing Austin to lose his arm nearly up to his elbow. Authorities said after the inci- dent the boy had put his hand under the fence and that’s when the dog bit him. The Browns accuse all the defendants of being negligent by having the dogs in a residential neighborhood where many small children live. They say their son and his dad, who rescued his son, suffered severe emotional and psychological distress. Animal-control officials dropped citations against the owners as part of an agreement that sent the huskies to an animal-rescue facility. A dog bit off the hand of a 4-year-old Utah boy after he stuck his arm underneath a fence to try to play with the animal, authorities said Monday. |