Author: Jesse

A key link to the Granary District’s past is now just a pile of bricks.

The historic Utah Pickle Company building was toppled this week. Constructed in 1894, it sat about a block west from what is now Fisher Brewing and was supposed to be preserved, according to a March deal between developer Blaser Ventures and Salt Lake City’s Community Redevelopment Agency.

Through the deal, Blaser Ventures was to receive $6 million in tax reimbursements on its real estate development project, known as “Pickle & Hide,” planned for the site at 739 S. 400 West.

The project calls for a public plaza, some affordable housing and restaurant space — incorporating both the pickle building, which the deal required Blaser Ventures to preserve, and the neighboring Bissinger Company Hides edifice.

But crews were tearing down the dilapidated pickle building as early as Wednesday, as shown in photos shared by The Granary District Alliance, a nonprofit group of neighborhood business owners and residents who advocate for thoughtful growth.

“We are deeply saddened to hear about the demolition of the beloved Utah Pickle Company building today,” the group wrote on Instagram. “… We are hopeful that the integrity of the Granary can be preserved for the future.”

On Thursday, Blaser Ventures’ president Brandon Blaser said the firm plans to rebuild the former pickle company warehouse on the same footprint “utilizing significant portions of the original material.”

The reconstruction will include 30% of the old facade’s bricks, 50% of the foundation, some wood beams and columns, and parts of its cornice moulding — all in a way that “closely replicates the original building’s scale, shape, and architectural character,” according to a company statement.

In an Instagram comment, Salt Lake City Council member Eva López Chávez explained why the building needed to be rebuilt.

“The analysis showed the sandstone foundation needed to be replaced,” López Chávez wrote in response to the Granary District Alliance’s post.

Blaser Ventures confirmed Thursday afternoon that the pickle building had been damaged in the 2020 earthquake that struck the Salt Lake Valley, structural analysis showed.

“It became clear that the pickle building could not stand on its own and did not meet safety requirements,” Gretchen Milliken, Blaser Ventures’ planning director, said in a statement. “It was a last-resort decision that we did not take lightly.”

In another Instagram comment, López Chávez added that she fears other remaining buildings “will also show similar seismic determinations,” so the city could see more demolitions. She added that Utah’s capital has “very few historic areas left that must be preserved without rebuild.”

Work has already begun on the Bissinger building next door, where an addition will hold the project’s planned apartment units. That property’s facade and other parts of its exterior will be preserved, according to the March agreement.

The simple two-story, red-brick Utah Pickle Company building was first managed by the Grant family, including Heber J. Grant, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There, they operated a soap company.

By 1911, the Mount Pickle Company was running its operation inside instead. The building sported a large yellow Utah Pickle Company sign on its roof for decades.

In 2017, Salt Lake City won a $50,000 grant to help preserve both buildings. At the time, local creative agency Ori Media and photography studio Studio Elevn planned to turn the pickle building into a studio and event space for artists.

Whether the new project will still receive tax reimbursements is up in the air now that demolition is underway and the agreement has yet to be executed, according to redevelopment agency spokesperson Tauni Barker.

“That step could impact the CRA’s next actions, including a slowing of the contract process and, possibly, eligibility for funding,” she said. “At this time, the outcome is unclear, but we’ll continue evaluating the situation as more information becomes available.”

For her part, Milliken said the company believes the updated reconstruction plans for the pickle building uphold “the spirit of that commitment.” Blaser Ventures plans to complete construction on the development project by the end of 2026.

Blaser Ventures also acquired iconic concert venue Kilby Court — just east of this property — last year, where it plans to build a public walkway through to the venue in the future.

The Orlando Pride have looked shaky in recent weeks, losing to the Kansas City Current last weekend and dropping down the league standings. They have a chance to get right this weekend with a road trip against a languishing foe.

Third-place Orlando (5-3-1, 16 points) travels to take on the Utah Royals (1-6-2, 5 points) on Friday night in search of a much-needed win.

“At this point, after winning a championship last year, you’re going to get everyone’s best game,” Orlando defender Carson Pickett said. “We just have to continue to be us and play how we know how to play and break teams down.”

Orlando’s defense was its strength last season, but it has struggled in the previous five matches. The Pride have not kept a clean sheet since a 1-0 victory over Seattle Reign FC on April 12. Leaking goals at the back has hurt the Pride, and they have lost three of their past five matches.

The good news for Orlando is that Utah is only scoring an average of 0.78 goals per match. The Royals have only scored seven times in nine matches, and no player has scored more than one goal this season. It is the perfect opportunity for Orlando to earn a clean sheet and rebuild confidence.

However, Orlando has also been lacking in attack. The Pride have only scored four goals in their past five games, with three of them coming in the 3-2 victory over Angel City FC. Marta (3G, 1A) and Barbra Banda (4G, 1A) lead the team in scoring, and they will be looking to take advantage of a Utah defense that has allowed 16 goals this season.

“I think we can do better in the final third, finishing,” Pickett continued. “The momentum’s there, we haven’t been outplayed or anything, we’ve had most of the possession in every game. [We need to] just continue to do what we know best and get the result no matter where we’re at.”

Up next …

Orlando at Utah

WHEN: Friday, 9:30 p.m.

TV: NWSL+

Molly Hart has been named Utah’s next state superintendent.

Hart, from Sandy, currently sits on the Utah State Board of Education. Her appointment late Wednesday followed a three-hour public interview session, where the board pressed both her and another finalist on everything from how they would work to close student-achievement gaps to their thoughts on navigating the leadership role in a politically charged climate.

After, board members convened for another more than three hours in a closed session. When they emerged at about 9:45 p.m. Wednesday, they voted on a motion to appoint Hart.

The vote passed 12-2, with Emily Green and Christina Christina Boggess opposed. As a candidate for the position and the board’s 15th member, Hart did not participate.

“Education is the promise we make to the future,” Hart said in a statement late Wednesday. “As I step into this role, my mission is clear: to ensure every child in Utah, no matter their background or circumstance, has access to an excellent education. That work begins with listening — to students, to educators, to families — and building a system where every voice matters and every student can thrive.”

Apart from her USBE role, Hart currently works as executive director of Summit Academy, a K-12 charter in Bluffdale. She has more than 20 years of education experience, ranging from teacher to principal, according to a news release. She earned a doctorate in educational leadership from Valdosta State University in Georgia and has received the Utah PTA Outstanding School Administrator Award.

Hart won her second bid for the District 7 USBE seat — which covers the southeast portion of Salt Lake County — last November. She defeated Democratic challenger John Arthur with 52% of the vote.

She succeeds Sydnee Dickson, Utah’s current state superintendent, who announced in January that she plans to resign at the end of June. Dickson has been overseeing Utah’s public K-12 education system for the last nine years.

Hart will officially begin her duties June 2, allowing for a period of overlap with Dickson to ensure a smooth transition, USBE officials previously told The Salt Lake Tribune.

During the interview process Wednesday, Hart was asked about holding USBE employees accountable and managing the demands of the Legislature, among other questions.

Hart emphasized the importance of setting clear expectations, providing consistent feedback and maintaining high standards. She discussed the need for better compliance and accountability within USBE, particularly when it comes to school construction after a legislative audit released Tuesday found the board has failed to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

She also argued that improving student achievement should focus on individual student needs.

“[It’s] important that every student in Utah gets an opportunity for a high, high quality education,” Hart told the board Wednesday afternoon. “I want an education system that is excellent.”

Hart was in the running for the position Wednesday alongside L. Ben Dalton, who has served as the superintendent of Kane County School District since 2016. The two were selected as finalists last week among 22 applicants for the position.

To fill Hart’s soon-to-be vacant seat, Gov. Spencer Cox will need to appoint a successor from the same political party as Hart, according to Utah code.

Because Hart is a Republican, the Republican Party’s state central committee will submit three names for the governor to choose from to fill the vacancy, USBE officials said. The appointed person will then serve the remainder of Hart’s term, which runs through 2028.

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s northern half landed an average snowpack this winter, which helped ease some parts of the region out of a drought that had formed the summer before.

That wasn’t the case in central and southern Utah, which account for more than 40% of the state that is either in severe or extreme drought. However, the near-record-low snowpack in some parts of the state could help draw in monsoonal moisture this summer, potentially easing the drought and some associated impacts, such as wildfire risk.

Despite these differing trends, both northern and southern Utah could be in for an active fire season this summer, said Basil Newmerzhycky, a meteorologist for Great Basin Predictive Services, which helps forecast risk in the state.

“(We’re) definitely looking at a really good potential for a much busier fire season than we’ve had the last two or three years,” he said, standing in front of maps projecting Utah’s expected fire danger over the next three months taped to the side of a firetruck.

This possibility is why state leaders gathered alongside local, state and federal firefighters Tuesday to address the upcoming fire season ahead of the unofficial start of summer.

“I worry that we’ve gotten a little complacent when it comes to — as a public — when it comes to fire danger,” said Gov. Spencer Cox. “We’ve been pretty fortunate the past five years. … That being said, I’m not convinced that’s going to continue — at least the piece of us getting lucky with Mother Nature.”

Utah’s fire outlook

Utah’s fire outlook hasn’t changed much in recent weeks. Fire potential is normal statewide, but southern Utah risks are expected to increase to above-normal by June, as mid- and high-elevation areas that received some precipitation this winter dry out. Newmerzhycky estimates many of those areas could dry out by the first week of June, depending on how many late-season storms form.

Those conditions could last through July across south-central Utah before potentially dropping back to normal statewide by August, according to Great Basin Predictive Services.

Fire risk could drop back to normal because long-range outlooks favor summer monsoon returning to the region by the second half of meteorological summer.

Experts point out there is often a correlation between poor snowpack and productive monsoons, which would benefit southern and central Utah should that come to fruition this summer. However, Newmerzhycky cautioned that more cold and wet storms like the one that passed through the region this weekend could disrupt monsoon timing.

“It’s actually a mixed blessing. It’s good in the short term, but that kind of weather pattern eventually leads to a potential delay of the monsoonal formation,” he said of the recent storm activity. “If we get one or two more cold fronts, some showers and cool temperatures … through the end of May and early June, that could delay the onset of the monsoon.”

It’s even possible that the state could lose out on monsoon moisture, as it did in 2020, something that he calls the “nonsoon.”

Conditions aren’t as dire in northern Utah because of the snowpack, but long-range outlooks suggest parts of the region could miss out on the monsoonal moisture. While it’s not enough for above-normal conditions to emerge, Newmerzhycky added that fires can still consume “tens of thousands of acres” even when conditions are normal in July and August.

“It looks like the way things are staged, everybody gets a little bit — starting with the south and progressively going to the north,” he said, summing up the outlook.

Preparing for a potentially ‘busier’ season

Utah’s wildfire season is off to a slow start. There have been 157 wildfires that scorched 1,086 acres of land since the year began, according to data collected by state and federal firefighting agencies. It follows a few consecutive seasons of less-active fire seasons, largely because firefighters have been able to extinguish most fires before they reached 10 acres.

That’s the good news. The bad news? State and federal land managers say there are plenty of “carryover fuels” from the past two years of productive winters, before this winter’s mixed bag, that they are concerned about.

Most of this year’s largest fires to date are prescribed burns, which were conducted on top of other offseason projects seeking to reduce the state’s fire risks.

“Our crews are still fighting fires, just not the ones that have not started yet,” said Chris Delaney, state fire management officer for the Bureau of Land Management.

However, firefighting agencies are concerned that 86% of this year’s fires to date were determined to be human-caused. They’re calling on people to take steps to reduce human-caused fires as outdoor recreation picks up beginning Memorial Day weekend.

The governor also issued an executive order to prepare for the potentially active season before it starts. Despite federal cuts, he said he expects the state to be “fully staffed” when it comes to fighting fires, while a report that his order calls for will help outline ways to prevent the same types of catastrophic fires that ravaged California in January.

“It really is, ‘Hey, let’s look at everything. Let’s imagine the worst-case scenario and prepare for that,’” Cox said.

Earlier this year, wildfires raged across Southern California, spurred by winds and drought conditions. Dozens died and thousands lost their homes as the fires burned.

“We want to make sure that doesn’t happen here,” said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox on Tuesday, “but let me assure you that it could happen here if we aren’t careful.”

The governor, alongside other state and federal officials, on Tuesday asked Utahns to prepare for what is likely to be an active wildfire season throughout the state.

Southwestern Utah is mired in extreme drought, while most of the rest of the state is drier than usual for this time of year, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Cox in late April declared a state of emergency due to drought conditions in over half of Utah’s counties, the first such declaration in three years.

Utah, and much of the West, saw above-average snowpack and precipitation in recent years, which helped assuage severe wildfire concerns. But after a dry winter, the state’s leaders are preparing for the worst this summer.

“I worry we’ve gotten a little complacent, not in firefighting, but as the public, when it comes to fire danger,” Cox said.

“The piece of us getting lucky with Mother Nature isn’t going to continue,” he added, “and we need people to really be careful this year.”

Southern Utah is predicted to see above-average fire potential in early June, said Basil Newmerzhycky, a fire weather program manager for the BLM. In July, fire potential will increase for across central Utah, including parts of the Fish Lake, Dixie and Manti-La Sal national forests. He reported that August is likely to be “busy” for the northern half of the state.

While much of the state is predicted to experience “normal” fire potential this summer, Newmerzhycky said, “normal … is tens of thousands of acres burning.”

Over half of Utah’s wildfires are caused by humans, said Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands Director Jamie Barnes. Common causes include unattended campfires, dragging chains and target shooting.

Barnes reported that last year’s wildfire season was more active than 2023 and 2022, and that four out of the five largest wildfires in the state last year were “preventable.”

The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and National Park Service will work with state and local entities to put out wildfires, said Chris Delaney, the state fire management officer for the BLM.

“We may wear different shirts, we may drive around in different trucks, but we represent this unified force that is committed to protecting lives and property and landscapes that bind us together,” he said Tuesday.

“The response isn’t about who wears the patch,” Delaney continued, “it’s about who’s the closest and who can get there the fastest.”

State and federal firefighters have worked together in the off-season to make Utah’s land less susceptible to wildfires through prescribed burns, thinning and other types of hazardous fuel treatment, Delaney said.

Cox said that though hiring at the federal level has been “bumpy,” “it looks like we’re going to be staffed up.”

Officials urged Utahns to check restrictions before starting campfires, secure chains on trailers and pick a safe backdrop without rocks or dry vegetation before target shooting. To report a wildfire, call 911.

Readers can learn more and sign up for fire alerts here.

It is perhaps the most pressing unanswered question from Los Angeles’ January firestorm: How did officials fail to issue timely evacuation alerts for residents in west Altadena, where all but one of 18 Eaton fire deaths occurred?

Nearly five months after the deadly fire decimated Altadena, two possible scenarios have emerged as to what went wrong that chaotic night. Either there was some human error along the chain of command issuing evacuations or there was some type of technical error in sending the alerts.

An independent investigation was launched after The Times revealed the lapse in mid-January. But it’s unclear what investigators have since discovered, and county officials have repeatedly declined to answer questions and have delayed responses to public records requests, often citing the ongoing inquiry.

But there is growing evidence that the critical shortfall — in which flames moved into west Altadena hours before residents received any evacuation alerts — stemmed from human error, likely during the decision-making process, inter-agency communications, or both.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) told The Times that human error appeared to be the cause of the delayed alerts in west Altadena. He spoke after releasing a report on evacuation alert issues during the firestorm, but noted his federal investigation did not look at the issues in Altadena. The probe initiated by L.A.’s congressional delegation focused primarily on a series of faulty evacuation alerts during the firestorm that erroneously urged millions of people across L.A. County — instead of a small group of residents near Calabasas — to prepare to evacuate.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena and has strongly criticized the delays, told The Times that she still doesn’t know exactly went wrong that night, but said she believes there was likely a “breakdown in the communication” among county fire, sheriff and emergency management officials — the agencies that jointly issue evacuation alerts.

Further pointing to a likely human failure, the chief executive of Genasys, the company that provides emergency alert software to the L.A. County’s Office of Emergency Management, told stockholders in March that the delayed alerts in west Altadena were not the result of a technological error.

County officials have not commented on that assertion — or others — citing the ongoing investigation being conducted by the McChrystal Group, an independent contractor that specializes in disaster management.

But as the probe has continued, there has been some quiet finger-pointing about what agency or issue may have been responsible for the delayed alerts.

An electronic evacuation order was not issued for west Altadena until around 3:30 a.m. Jan. 8, nearly nine hours after the fire broke out and several hours after smoke and flames threatened the area. Some neighborhoods in southwest Altadena weren’t ordered to evacuate until almost 6 a.m. Neighbors east of North Lake Avenue, located closer to the fire’s origin, received their first evacuation alert around 6:40 p.m. Jan. 7, according to a review by The Times.

Initially, officials mostly avoided speaking directly about what might have gone wrong with west Altadena. Instead, they described the night as pure chaos, struggling to keep ahead of a fire that quickly turned into a major urban conflagration, driven by erratic, hurricane-force winds that grounded aircraft early in the firefight. In the first few hours, the fire departments from Pasadena, L.A. County and the Angeles National Forest responded together to the brush fire that broke out in Eaton Canyon, not far from homes.

Within a few hours, officials entered into a larger unified command structure operating from the Rose Bowl as federal and state teams joined the response, as well as other local fire departments, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the county Office of Emergency Management. Officials described a joint process among county fire, sheriff and OEM officials to determine necessary evacuations and ensure they were implemented, through both wireless alerts that ping cellphones within a certain geographic area and on-the-ground patrols.

But from about midnight to 3 a.m. — as the Eaton fire starting making a frightening run west — no electronic evacuation alerts went out.

No one has yet to explain what went wrong.

While Sheriff Robert Luna called the evacuation process a collaborative effort, in February he downplayed his agency’s role in the decision-making part, explaining that firefighters typically take the lead because they are closely tracking fire behavior, the blaze’s movement and associated weather.

“We are included in the decision-making, but they’re the lead,” Luna said in a prior interview. “Even though it’s unified command, I depend on the experts.”

But there’s also some concern about a gap between the efforts of some deputies on the group and central commanders. Several west Altadena residents told The Times that there were some deputies in their neighborhoods assisting with evacuations amid fiery conditions around 2 a.m., before the 3:30 a.m. alert went out. It not clear if those deputies failed to relay their surrounding conditions and the need for increased evacuations, or if that update was ignored.

Later, reporting from The Times revealed that the county’s Office of Emergency Management had only recently started using the Genasys system to issue wireless emergency alerts, going through less training and testing than other counties that implemented the system. Public records also showed that during the night of Jan. 7, there was only one person sending out alerts for the three fires that raged across the county: Eaton, Palisades and Hurst.

However, anonymous sources within county government told The Times that the west Altadena error wasn’t the fault of OEM officials. The sources said the OEM team sent out the evacuation order to west Altadena soon after it was ordered to do so — a revelation that appears to rest the blame on county fire or sheriff officials.

Luna declined to comment further on the situation, citing the ongoing probe.

County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone confirmed this week that he has been interviewed by the McChrystal Group, as have many of his command staff. But he said he hasn’t yet been told what went wrong.

“I’m waiting to see what they find,” Marrone said. “This is such a complex issue that I think, collectively, we all have to do better.”

In a recent interview, Pasadena Fire Chief Chad Augustin echoed what other command center officials have told The Times: that he didn’t remember a moment or point in the night when they realized they had made a mistake or messed up evacuation alerts for west Altadena.

Augustin said he did remember a major shift in winds that required the fire commanders to adjust as quickly as possible. He estimated that around 2 or 3 a.m. command staff at the Rose Bowl started receiving “good intel” from teams on the ground that the winds were shifting and pushing the fire west, requiring more evacuations, but he didn’t recall exact timing.

“You’re trying to do your best with taking in the fire, the direction of travel, the wind conditions,” Augustin said, noting that the winds remained extremely erratic the first 24 hours of the fire. “You had a bunch of leadership who are trying to make real-time decisions based on the intel that they’re receiving.”

Augustin said he expects the after-action report will find that any shortcoming from that night were from a combination of the fire shifting so rapidly and some delay in how the evacuation alert went out on the county’s electronic alert system.

“In a large-scale disaster like that, when you have a wind shift, you’re receiving the information and trying your best to make the best decisions possible,” Augustin said. You’re “making as many notifications based on the resources you have.”

Whatever new information comes out of the investigation, some residents say it won’t make a difference: No matter the probe’s outcome, they say, the damage has already been done.

“I don’t trust that anything really will come from it,” said Marisol Espino, a lifelong west Altadena resident who lost her family’s home in the January firestorm.

Some experts worry that public officials risk alienating more residents across Altadena by not providing answers. They worry that could jeopardize future evacuation efforts.

“If we’re now four months out and we don’t know what the heck went on in Altadena, then that is a significant problem,” said June Isaacson Kailes, a disability policy consultant familiar with Los Angeles emergency planning. “It significantly degrades trust … and people will also be hurt because they won’t trust the messaging.”

Barger, the L.A. County supervisor who represents Altadena, said she understands there’s frustration over the lack of answers, but said it’s critical that investigators are thorough.

“While I wanted this to be real quick, it’s not as simple as that,” Barger said. “In order for us to get this right, I want to make sure that we leave no stone unturned…. I’m going to give them grace until I get the report.”

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors initiated the independent investigation in early February, and called for the report to be made public within 90 days. At the end of April, the McChrystal Group presented an update on its investigation, detailing completed community listening sessions and a count of 33 interviews done and 18 to go. It provided no substantive information on what happened that night.

“I think the fact it’s been four months and they haven’t just come out and said it means there’s something behind the surface — sensitive information associated with liability,” said Thomas Cova, a professor of geography at the University of Utah who specializes in emergency alerts during wildfires. “It’s strange, I guess, that it’s taking this long. … But it’s probably a report that needs to be reviewed by everybody. And it is California — a pretty litigious culture.”

The night of the fire, Espino’s multi-generational family ended up evacuating around 9 p.m. — well before any official evacuation order — which at the time she attributed to being overly cautious.

Now, she’s thankful they got out when they did. It’s since been devastating to learn about neighbors who waited for an order to leave, she said, and barely got out — or didn’t.

“There was nothing telling us that we were in danger,“ said Espino.

But she said it also came as no surprise that the evacuation failure affected this section of Altadena, where a higher concentration of Black and brown families live, compared to the eastside. West Altadena had become an enclave for Black homeownership, partially an outcome of redlining and discrimination in surrounding areas, including eastern Altadena. It had also became home to a growing share of Latinos, like Espino and her family.

A resident of a senior center is evacuated as the Eaton fire approaches Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025 in Altadena.

(Ethan Swope / Associated Press)

She said she grew up feeling like west Altadena and its residents were often overlooked or forgotten; this failure to issue timely evacuation alerts has only intensified that mistrust. Espino is now working with her displaced neighbors to recover, rebuild and prepare for future emergencies.

“I learned that we need to take care of our elder population — the community,” said Espino, now a neighborhood captain for the grassroots organization Altagether. “We’re going to put into place safety measures for ourselves.”

But for those who are seeking official answers, the next update on the investigation from the McChrystal Group isn’t due until late July. It’s not clear if the full after-action report will be complete then.

In a statement this week, the county’s Coordinated Joint Information Center, set up to respond to the fires, said that it has “answered numerous questions regarding our collective response” to the fires, but that it won’t speculate on the cause of the evacuation delays with incomplete information.

“McChrystal Group’s process is not only reviewing relevant information from first responders and emergency management professionals, but from members of the public who experienced the fires and the response first-hand,” the statement said.

Staff writers Terry Castleman and Rebecca Ellis contributed to this report.

The NBA announced the 2025 All-Rookie teams on Tuesday and though two Utah Jazz rookies received votes, they didn’t make the cut for first or second team.

San Antonio Spurs guard Stephen Castle, the 2025 Rookie of the Year, led the way in voting, with a unanimous 100 first-team votes. Joining castle on the All-Rookie first team was Zaccharie Risacher (Atlanta Hawks), Jaylen Wells (Memphis Grizzlies), Zach Edey (Memphis) and Alex Sarr (Washington Wizards).

Advertisement

Making the All-Rookie second team was Kel’el Ware (Miami Heat), Matas Buzelis (Chicago Bulls), Yves Missi (New Orleans Pelicans), Donovan Klingan (Portland Trail Blazers) and Bub Carrington (Washington).

The voting panel of 100 media members select five first-team players and five second-team players. For first-team votes, players get two points and players get one point for a second-team vote.

Jazz rookie Isaiah Collier just barely missed out on a second team bid. The Wizards’ Carrington had a total of 53 points (three first-team votes and 47 second-team votes). Collier had a total of 52 points (one first-team vote and 50 second-team votes).

The Jazz’s Kyle Filipowski was the second-highest vote getter that did not make an All-Rookie team with 19 total points from 19 second-team votes.

Advertisement

Collier averaged 8.7 points, 6.3 assists and 3.3 rebounds in 71 games (46 starts) for the Jazz through the 2024-25 season, shooting 42.2% overall and 24.9% from 3-point range.

Filipowski averaged 9.6 points and 3.1 rebounds in 72 games (27 starts) while shooting 50.2% overall and 35% from long range.

The Utah state school board is failing to adequately oversee school construction in the state, allowing Utah school districts to bypass building code and inspection requirements on new projects, state auditors found.

The poor oversight stems, in part, from the Utah State Board of Education’s lack of resources, staff and adequate document management systems, according to a new report from the Legislative Auditor General.

“While [schools] are responsible for their own compliance, USBE has not fulfilled its oversight responsibilities nor enforced compliance according to its authority,” the report states.

The report, presented Tuesday to the Legislative Audit Subcommittee, followed up on an internal audit of school construction in November 2022, which identified several similar issues, according to the report.

“This is very problematic, because we spend a lot of hours here in the Legislature talking about building code requirements,” Utah Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said Tuesday as the findings were shared.

As part of the audit, the Legislative Auditor General hired the company Building Code Solutions to independently review five Utah school building projects completed over the past few years to analyze how well districts complied with building codes and legal processes.

Compliance was inconsistent, according to the report, and inspectors identified multiple safety issues and building code violations.

USBE is not enforcing its own procedures

The report called USBE’s current oversight a “rubber stamp,” meaning school construction projects are being approved without adequate verification.

For instance, before any construction can begin, schools are required to submit a preconstruction checklist that USBE is meant to review. Once that is complete, USBE issues a construction permit.

However, the audit found that among 30 construction projects from 2017 to 2024, 87% began work before a permit was issued. Some never received one.

Schools told auditors that USBE hasn’t processed the preconstruction checklists its received in a timely manner and hasn’t generally enforced compliance with the form.

USBE is also responsible for verifying that school building inspections occur, but the state school board currently has “no way to verify that inspections are occurring, outside of trusting a building official’s attestation,” auditors found.

The board employs one school construction specialist, charged with overseeing all projects across the state. That person told auditors they did not “have the tools to adequately enforce compliance.”

“One position is reportedly insufficient to fulfill state requirements,” the report stated.

In many cases, the audit found, monthly building inspection reports were often incomplete and not consistently submitted to USBE.

“These occurrences should trigger enforcement actions,” the report said. ”However, as with the preconstruction process, the state board has never enforced these penalties to encourage compliance.”

Providing an annual training for Utah school building officials is another requirement USBE is failing to meet, according to the report.

“USBE has outsourced this responsibility to the Utah Facilities Operation and Maintenance Association (UFOMA),” auditors wrote. “This association is governed primarily by school district facilities officials and funded primarily by private vendors, which hosts semi-annual conferences.”

According to the report, USBE did not know how many of its officials, if any, have attended the conferences or how often.

Spotty finances

USBE also has inconsistent financial reporting practices when it comes to school construction, auditors found, meaning the actual cost of school construction in the state can’t be accurately determined.

“Because USBE does not require standardization of reported project cost data, state and local policymakers cannot make informed decisions about construction costs in the state,” the report stated.

USBE reports annually on the cost of all construction projects reported to the board, but auditors found those reported costs were based on preconstruction estimates, not actual construction costs “and cannot be relied upon for accurate comparison,” the audit states.

Auditors collected pay applications from each of the state’s 41 school districts for new builds since 2019 to identify a combined reported value of roughly $2.1 billion across 54 construction projects.

“However, due to differences in how [schools] classify construction costs, we were unable to generate useful cost reporting metrics, such as cost per square foot, with any accuracy,” the audit stated.

Auditors emphasized the need for a standardized cost reporting system.

Code violations in new builds

Independent inspectors discovered several code violations in new school buildings, the audit showed.

The findings included missing firewalls; mechanical, plumbing and electrical hazards; and incomplete plan reviews.

The audit noted these, in several instances, presented safety concerns for staff and students.

“Building codes are the minimum requirements to reasonably protect against risks to property, life, and safety,” the report stated. “ When construction projects don’t comply with adopted building codes, these risks increase.”

Auditors also found that many school building officials were either unqualified or inexperienced, with some waiving building code requirements without the qualifications to do so.

Just five of the state’s 41 school district building officials held any sort of building code certification, the report stated.

‘Concerning’ bid process

One school district, which the report did not identify, practiced what auditors described as “questionable” procurement processes that exhibited the “appearance of impropriety.”

Utah code requires districts to bid out all construction projects that exceed $80,000 and award work to the lowest “satisfactory” bidder.

However, this unnamed district worked exclusively with the same contractor on 18 school construction projects since 2014, the report stated. Across those 18 projects, only two bid solicitations were issued.

The district had bundled several millions worth of construction projects together, which is an uncommon practice for large projects, the report stated.

Based on what documentation was available from the district, auditors determined that the contractor seemed to offer services for a much lower price than other bidders, but auditors noted they couldn’t validate that, citing incomplete documentation.

In one instance, auditors found the project’s final cost was much higher than what was bid.

“Other factors such as inflation can understandably increase construction costs,” the report stated. ”Nevertheless, when project costs exceed bid amounts and budgets, the appearance of the district’s almost exclusive use of a single general contractor is concerning.”

The report noted that while auditors “did not establish undue bias nor illegal procurement methods,” the district did violate state document retention policies on some of the projects. District officials told auditors this was due to an “administrative error,” according to the report.

Recommendations and remediation

Auditors made several recommendations to rectify USBE’s lack of oversight, including a suggestion that lawmakers assign regulatory responsibility to a different state agency.

Other recommendations, should USBE keep its oversight role, included enforcing state statute concerning building codes and school construction processes, and outlining clearer expectations for schools to follow.

In a May 9 letter to Auditor General Kade Minchey, State Superintendent Sydnee Dickson wrote that USBE was aware that school construction was “an area of risk within the public education system” based on the 2022 internal audit.

Dickson said the board had been anticipating the new report and collectively responded to its recommendations by proposing an “alternative action” — taking auditors’ findings to board leadership for a discussion, which the board said would happen no later than Aug. 31.

From there, the board will establish a timeline and subsequent steps.

“The alternative action does not represent an objection to the recommendations directed to USBE,” the board’s response read. “The alternative action reflects inclusion of the Utah State Board of Education governing body in policy- and decision-making in collaboration with the Legislature.”