Update on Mountain Accord

Rory Murphy, “The King of Park City,” was asked in an interview over the phone to describe Mountain Accord in 75 words or less.

He answered, “Mountain Accord is a group of organizations that assembled to try to map out a plan for the future of the Wasatch Mountains. The process that started out as a noble effort has been corrupted by special interests from various parties that want to use the Mountain Accord process to further their own economic interests in their particular jurisdictions.” 

He hopes that Mountain Accord will work on current transportation problems on Highway 248 and Highway 224. If they do, he says, the fixes could have a very positive impact. If they choose to tunnel through the mountains at billions  of dollars, however, he simply cannot foresee any benefit to Park City whatsoever.

Mr. Murphy believes that if they resolve the transportation problems on I-80, particularly coming from the airport, and attempt to fix transportation problems coming from Wasatch County, there could be possible benefit for Park City.

In conclusion, he simply stated that he would “like to see the process be a lot more transparent.”

Julie Hooker, local teacher, also argued for transparency, the need for the public to be aware of the process, when her leadership class visited the State Capitol.  She asked the President of the Senate, Senator Neiderhauser, “Who owns the property on Wasatch Blvd. that will be part of Mountain Accord?” He claimed he did not know, even though he signed a “Conflict of Interest” statement with the Utah State Senate acknowledging his ownership.  

Neiderhauser is on the Executive Committee for Mountain Accord and advocating for $5,000,000 to be appropriated for “further study.”  There is a blatant and bold-faced lack of transparency.

In regard to transparency, Summit County Council members are split on whether to sign the Mountain Accord Interlocal Agreement and whether they should even continue to take part in discussions. If they stay in the game, they would spend a projected $150,000 over the next three years, already having spent $50,000 between 2013 and 2014.

“I’m not sure what the direct benefit to Summit County is,” said Council member Roger Armstrong. Members believe that continued participation could be interpreted as reluctant acceptance. While some are reluctant to leave the project, others want to wait it out just to see what they can get from the meetings. Still others are on the fence.

The Council wants to make it clear, if they stay with the project, that they do not agree with all aspects of the blueprints. In fact, the Council in general has issues with large, important elements of the Blueprint. The connection from the Wasatch back to the Salt Lake Valley, for instance, and the fact that there has been no discussion on Little Cottonwood Canyon, which has “very real problems” and “deserve to be able to find solutions and have some assistance,” are just a few of the major turn-offs for the Council.