Some people have commented that education would be far better served by focusing on the educators (and students, of course) rather than the BUILDING.
I heartlily agree with that sentiment. By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets.
But some say a new school will draw "better" educators.
Granted teachers (and students) might love a NEW school as we all might like NEW cars, clothes, houses, etc. Fiscal conservative (private and public) try to follow the philosophy of "Use it up, wear it out; make it do, or do without." Rational financial advisors recommend avoiding debt. That, IMO, includes private AND PUBLIC debt. $60 million is a substantial debt - $3,000 (plus interest - about $37 million over 21 years) for every man, woman and child in the county.
Please do not be swayed by the "It's only a hamburger a day" type of argument. That's car salesmanship - "This car is only $299/month" (not $35,000) Don't fall for that appeal of the need to sacrifice: "in 1964, our people made a greater sacrifice" relative to property value. I think they may be comparing apples to oranges (see the next entry).
There is a well organized group promoting the "selling" of the bond (apparently, teachers and parents of students, who certainly have every right to do so) See "Vote Yes for a new High School" or the Wasatch School District, which even has a fancy presentation called "sellfolio" but regrettably little information about the new school.
These epistles are merely attempting to present a modicum of balance to the discussion. The school district and "Citizens for Better Education" do seem to have blinders on, IMO, and are simple selling the "car" by any gimmick possible and prefer to sell by emotion.
Most regurgitated poll responses follow the same emotional litany:
It's too old (Old is not bad, I'm considered old by some)
The roof leaks (Fix the roof - didn't we do that?)
crowded (not statistically, or that I could see)
no space (Why is a classroom being used for storage?)
outdated (Is Harvard outdated, Oxford is hundreds of years old - is it outdated? . . .)
need more computers (How many do they need, how many do they have?)
more science labs (that may be valid)
Costs too much to remodel (how does anyone know, no analysis was done?)
need "State of the art" (that changes daily, it seems)
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Is the new high school too expensive?
The Vote Yes for a new High School website has a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" (as the site is relatively know, how frequently could they have been asked?)
#9 Poses this question - and "answer." Is the new high school too expensive? In 1964, the bond passed to build the current high school cost 17% of the value of all property in Wasatch County. The 2006 bond is only 3% of all property value. The building is not elaborate, but it is a sound educational design.
So effectively they are saying, if you don't support this bond you are a cheapskate and not willing to support education the children. In actuality, this comparison doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. BUT, are the figures even correct?
An interesting little anomaly here. Cost, data and sources are not provided for their conclusion. According to the Wasatch County Offices the total property value for 1964 is not readily available, however the ASSESSED value record is available on microfilm (which was reportedly used to research the figures.)
However, from 1961 - 1978 the Statutory Assessment Level (% of Market Value) was 30 %. Currently it is 100% (with a 45% residential exemption). See Property Tax History
So, if assessed values are being used rather than market values, the cost of the 1964 school would have been more like 5% - if we compare apples to apples!!! What's that old adage - figures can lie, and . . . ?
What was the price of the 1964 school used in the calculation? No number or source is given.
What was the real assessed/ appraised/??? property values in Wasatch County in 1964?
What is it today? (2005 WASATCH $1,888,743,778) Today, indeed, $60 million is 3%
In 2000, total property value was $1,288,186,733
#9 Poses this question - and "answer." Is the new high school too expensive? In 1964, the bond passed to build the current high school cost 17% of the value of all property in Wasatch County. The 2006 bond is only 3% of all property value. The building is not elaborate, but it is a sound educational design.
So effectively they are saying, if you don't support this bond you are a cheapskate and not willing to support education the children. In actuality, this comparison doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. BUT, are the figures even correct?
An interesting little anomaly here. Cost, data and sources are not provided for their conclusion. According to the Wasatch County Offices the total property value for 1964 is not readily available, however the ASSESSED value record is available on microfilm (which was reportedly used to research the figures.)
However, from 1961 - 1978 the Statutory Assessment Level (% of Market Value) was 30 %. Currently it is 100% (with a 45% residential exemption). See Property Tax History
So, if assessed values are being used rather than market values, the cost of the 1964 school would have been more like 5% - if we compare apples to apples!!! What's that old adage - figures can lie, and . . . ?
What was the price of the 1964 school used in the calculation? No number or source is given.
What was the real assessed/ appraised/??? property values in Wasatch County in 1964?
What is it today? (2005 WASATCH $1,888,743,778) Today, indeed, $60 million is 3%
In 2000, total property value was $1,288,186,733
How Large should a High School be?
In addition to other information on School construction, the Utah State Office of Education provides a chart of Per Student Space Criteria.
The recommendation for Senior High Schools with a 1500 student enrollment is 145 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 217,500 sq.ft.
For 1,000 students they allow 155 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 155,000 sq.ft.
Wasatch School is proposing 308,000 total area or beween 205 and 308 sq.ft./student.
To further clarify, a note is added:
For purposes of this table, Gross Square Feet is defined as the sum of the area on each floor level, measured in square feet from the exterior walls. It includes all rooms, corridors and storage areas, etc.
50 % too large is 50% too expensive
The recommendation for Senior High Schools with a 1500 student enrollment is 145 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 217,500 sq.ft.
For 1,000 students they allow 155 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 155,000 sq.ft.
Wasatch School is proposing 308,000 total area or beween 205 and 308 sq.ft./student.
To further clarify, a note is added:
For purposes of this table, Gross Square Feet is defined as the sum of the area on each floor level, measured in square feet from the exterior walls. It includes all rooms, corridors and storage areas, etc.
50 % too large is 50% too expensive
Saturday, September 30, 2006
$60 Million & 308,000 Sq. Ft.
Is this reasonable for Wasatch High School?
Total Sq.Ft. - - - 308,000
# Students - - - 1,500 capacity
Cost - - - - - - - -$59,500,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - - - $193.18
$/Student -- - - - $39,667 at capacity, $59,500 at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - 205.3 at capacity, 308.0 at start up
The proposed Wasatch High is above the Medians by:
How does the proposal compare to other Utah High Schools?
Location---area------cost-------comp---enrollment---cost/sqft--cost/stud-ft/std
Logan-------9,700----$900,000--mar 99------? - - - - -$92.78-------?----------?
Parowan---17,964----$1,500,000--jun 99----366-------$83.50-----$4,098-----49
Cedar City-233,199--$20,000,000-Aug 00---896------$85.76-----$22,321---260
Tooele-----239,470--$16,736,000--aug 02---1824------$69.89-----$9,175---131
StGeorge---27,382----$2,300,000-jun 00------?--------$84.00-------?----------?
Total Sq.Ft. - - - 308,000
# Students - - - 1,500 capacity
Cost - - - - - - - -$59,500,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - - - $193.18
$/Student -- - - - $39,667 at capacity, $59,500 at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - 205.3 at capacity, 308.0 at start up
The 2006 School Construction Report (page 6) reports the following National Medians for High Schools:
Total Sq.Ft.- - - 120,000
# Students - - - -1,200
Cost - - - - - - - - $30,000,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - $150.00
$/Student - - - - - $25,333
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 162.5
The proposed Wasatch High is above the Medians by:
Total Sq.Ft.- - - 156%
# Students - - - -25%
Cost - - - - - - - - 98%
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - 31%
$/Student - - - - - 56% at capacity, 135% at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 26% at capacity, 90% at start up
# Students - - - -25%
Cost - - - - - - - - 98%
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - 31%
$/Student - - - - - 56% at capacity, 135% at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 26% at capacity, 90% at start up
How does the proposal compare to other Utah High Schools?
The Utah State Office of Education reports on school construction. Since 1999 they report the building of 15 High Schools, in Utah, as follows:
Location---area------cost-------comp---enrollment---cost/sqft--cost/stud-ft/std
Logan-------9,700----$900,000--mar 99------? - - - - -$92.78-------?----------?
Parowan---17,964----$1,500,000--jun 99----366-------$83.50-----$4,098-----49
Cedar City-233,199--$20,000,000-Aug 00---896------$85.76-----$22,321---260
Tooele-----239,470--$16,736,000--aug 02---1824------$69.89-----$9,175---131
StGeorge---27,382----$2,300,000-jun 00------?--------$84.00-------?----------?
Murray----255,000--$24,000,000-jun 03 --1527------$94.12-----$15,717------167
Granite -----58,000---$6,000,000-sep 02----?--------$103.45--------?---------?
Duchesne----51,666---$4,300,000-sep 03----299------$83.23-----$14,381-----173
Kaysville----321,344--$32,000,000-dec 04--2230-----$99.58----$14,350-----144
Kearns------119,456----Donated---spring 03---?----------$0.00---------?----------?
SLC----------71,273----$7,000,000-dec 03-----?--------$98.21--------?----------?
Granite -----58,000---$6,000,000-sep 02----?--------$103.45--------?---------?
Duchesne----51,666---$4,300,000-sep 03----299------$83.23-----$14,381-----173
Kaysville----321,344--$32,000,000-dec 04--2230-----$99.58----$14,350-----144
Kearns------119,456----Donated---spring 03---?----------$0.00---------?----------?
SLC----------71,273----$7,000,000-dec 03-----?--------$98.21--------?----------?
StG----------61,000---$5,800,000-aug 06-----?--------$95.08--------?----------?
Springville---30,805----$2,900,000-dec 04---1411------$94.14-----$2,055-----22
Syracuse ----383,000--$38,000,000-apr 07----?--------$99.22--------?----------?
Springville---30,805----$2,900,000-dec 04---1411------$94.14-----$2,055-----22
Syracuse ----383,000--$38,000,000-apr 07----?--------$99.22--------?----------?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Joint Wasatch County Heber City Meeting
On August 14, the county and the city held a joint meeting to discuss issues of growth, annexation and working together. The primary focus for the first half of the meeting was working together to facilitate the Red Ledges development as a joint project.
Below is a 'paraphrase' "transcript" extracts of the meeting - an interesting discussion. The numbers indicate the times from the beginning of the meeting on the recording. (No minutes of this meeting are found on the County website.) Phillips or DP = Dave Phillips, Heber City Mayor; Anderson or MA = Mark Anderson; Heber City Manager; Lange = Terry Lange, City Council; Price or JP = Jay Price County Council Chair; Davis = Mike Davis, County Manager and other members.
9:40 Philips; This is unique (working together) If Red Ledges makes sense and feels right - It’ll be a landmark . It'll benefit the county for a long time. If you are willing to consider we can take it to the next step.
11:30 Phillips: $1.2 million in property taxes to city on the whole project Red Ledges
Price: Cost to city?
Anderson; I can’t say that (have) figured it
??? Red Ledges says 40% second homes - I don’t trust those developers
12:30 MA: was 1800 ERU's down to 1400 their marketing says the number may go done more.
Davis: Could be different because it’s in the valley, most of secondary homes are out of valley
Phillips: They (RL and developers) say more secondary because not much service to secondary homes. (Italicized comments added)
Lange: some history
15:00 Phillips: We’ve shared our vision
Price; Questions from council ??
Farrell; With a joint planning impasse who has final say?
Phillips: We need a fall back plan - this is what we are going to do. We have differences on safety issues
17:20 DP; divide fees based on ERU’s Committee to work on it In the end we're living here, this is for the folks down the road. We’re not getting anything out of it.
JP; what are your fees?
(Most of the discussion seems to center on how much can be collected in fees - NOT how it affects the future)
18:20 City fees way low - Anderson: escrow actual costs.
Price: 5% for engineering 3% for water we get em for 8% Barely covering costs with that.
19:50 Anderson; we see our boundaries as being restricted this provides us with growth areas to west.
PC Zone City; 40% open space 5500 sqft lots 2 units per acre. (New) McCluskey (60 acres/120 units) nw of mcNaughtan (between McN and city)
Davis; Annex to collect city taxes? YES
Davis; You will annex Wasatch View acres. Illegal without that. Will you Annex Gary Conrad above greener Hills.
22:40 Anderson; Annexation plan dynamic. People might want to annex from twin creeks SSD
Davis; Draw a lIne ?
DP; what are you trying to say Mike - just say it.
Davis; we aren't trying to annex Twin Creek into Heber; we have a line at the city.
23:24 Phillips; Response to Jul 6 Co letter County wants TROZ (16.18) hard to do if you can't set city boundary
Phillips; what do want us to say? To annex Burns without view acrew would be a peninsula. (Illegal)
Davis; we need to know where the city will stop.
Phillips; Maybe I’m reading something into this - I apologize you are asking where do we stop.
25:45 Davis; will the city consider the next to the east
Price; Scott just bot that property and will want the same consideration
26: 15 Davis: TROZ offers higher density adjacent to city. M (meant P160) zone is 160 per home when adjacent to city becomes potentially M zone "with the density we are going to see in the Burns development" (RL & mountain Zone not in TROZ)
If it stays P160, $12 million is very expensive for 40 homes, (Actually $300K/ lot is not too exorbitant these days in the valley) If he is adjacent to city there’s a potential for m zone
Shari Lazenby; How big is the TROZ Davis; TROZ = 2 things Heber annexation and adjacent to that area (NO- not clear, seems to want to include RL as adjacent see 16.08.01)
28:49 Kohler; county trying to give comparative density next to city - you allow 4 per acre 1 acre looks good compare to what you’ve got. If the city was not annexing we would not give as much density than is being considering now. How do we get around that?
Lange; We stayed of ? annexation makes your property more profitable. (Why do we continue to worry about the profitability of empty land and not about the taxes caused on the current property owners) Why do we have to fill in Wasatch view acres they don't want in Behind there they may want to - Cove
31:52 Kohler; If the city keeps annexing up the hill how do we get open space anywhere? If we don't do something you will keep annexing.
Lange; Get a petition (for annexation) and let’s talk about it.
Kohler; The assumption is if we don’t do something, you will so we have to do something.
Farrell??; if we have successful joint planning on RL, I don’t know why you abandon it.
DP;. With PPD we can create open space, our PPD give open space - bring your 160 acres and will talk about it.
33:34 Kohler; The leverage is always there (annexation) they can always come to the city and get more. If the city continues to annex to increase revenue. We have two different ideas. (Open space vs. revenue??)
DP; I like the plan for McN because it has open space, not a grid square subdivision. The rest of the Burns property should be more open than that.
Kohler; He didn’t spend $12mill without expecting something We have to break that expectations that higher densities are available.
36:30 Anderson; philosophical differences. SLC, Summit and Wasatch are pro development. It would be nice to have areas to grow into. Avoid the competition, (between city and county) sit down and plan something for this valley rather than add a lot of density
DP; It terrible that you have to make the decision based on us. If all of the growth had gone from the city outward we wouldn’t be having this problem. 50 years from now we have x people maybe we'll say we should have done better. Maybe tonight is the beginning of the game. This may good for Burns but what problem will it create. Next people come along and change everything
Price; That’s a mistaken attitude. County hasn't gone out promoted development. People have come in and promoted development.
??? ; We haven't either.
39:45 Price; Apparently you aren't feeling the pressure that we are getting to slow development. What are Heber citizens saying?
Lange; Developers always want more development.
KC; people say shut it off
DP;: 95% say I’ve got my place - stop. they don't want more subdivision. They want their open space at someone else’s expense.
Price; Mark, you’re saying leave the open space in the county so we can expand into it. We're saying develop in the county at less density.
DP; Take that to RL and work together. They already given up some density since they started. (Actually they started out high). Then we go to the next guy west and say do you want to build something.
I‘d like to see that guy 6th south collaborate with neighbor. for open space. Maybe one acre is the best we can get.
44:00 DP; we need to work this out
Price; OK, How do we deal with the transition to county
DP; county is more open than city. Where does leave us in the city with the property owners that want to develop. If we say let’s develop everything in the county form this day forward where does that leave the city?
Davis; Is it the government responsibility to maximize the profit to someone that owns property or let them develop under guidelines that are socially compatible with the people that live here?
DP; By limiting them to one house per one or five acres we are taking away their property rights. If I’m saying something wrong, let me know.
Davis: City protested Jordanelle. If the guy wants to build on 40 and River Rd. why not let him, why not let him (under your philosophy?
DP; Because I’d like him to build a it out on 12th South.
Lange; back in the pre Davis days, Mathis came to city and asked for support for stopping commercial north of town. We agreed. I voted no on Southfield Rd annexation turned down. We turned it down many times and have been harassed.
49:15 My wife’s nephew wants to develop condos flowing north into north fields on 105 acres. I told him to stop talking. I ask Val and you what’s the density there, I’m still skeptical with the Bypass road thru that property. Because I thought you guys would protest.
50:54 DP; it's property owners right to annex, city makes decision whether to accept. (City has the right and responsibility to set the annexation zone and protect the welfare of the community)
52:26 Davis; we have no say in annexation.
Below is a 'paraphrase' "transcript" extracts of the meeting - an interesting discussion. The numbers indicate the times from the beginning of the meeting on the recording. (No minutes of this meeting are found on the County website.) Phillips or DP = Dave Phillips, Heber City Mayor; Anderson or MA = Mark Anderson; Heber City Manager; Lange = Terry Lange, City Council; Price or JP = Jay Price County Council Chair; Davis = Mike Davis, County Manager and other members.
9:40 Philips; This is unique (working together) If Red Ledges makes sense and feels right - It’ll be a landmark . It'll benefit the county for a long time. If you are willing to consider we can take it to the next step.
11:30 Phillips: $1.2 million in property taxes to city on the whole project Red Ledges
Price: Cost to city?
Anderson; I can’t say that (have) figured it
??? Red Ledges says 40% second homes - I don’t trust those developers
12:30 MA: was 1800 ERU's down to 1400 their marketing says the number may go done more.
Davis: Could be different because it’s in the valley, most of secondary homes are out of valley
Phillips: They (RL and developers) say more secondary because not much service to secondary homes. (Italicized comments added)
Lange: some history
15:00 Phillips: We’ve shared our vision
Price; Questions from council ??
Farrell; With a joint planning impasse who has final say?
Phillips: We need a fall back plan - this is what we are going to do. We have differences on safety issues
17:20 DP; divide fees based on ERU’s Committee to work on it In the end we're living here, this is for the folks down the road. We’re not getting anything out of it.
JP; what are your fees?
(Most of the discussion seems to center on how much can be collected in fees - NOT how it affects the future)
18:20 City fees way low - Anderson: escrow actual costs.
Price: 5% for engineering 3% for water we get em for 8% Barely covering costs with that.
19:50 Anderson; we see our boundaries as being restricted this provides us with growth areas to west.
PC Zone City; 40% open space 5500 sqft lots 2 units per acre. (New) McCluskey (60 acres/120 units) nw of mcNaughtan (between McN and city)
Davis; Annex to collect city taxes? YES
Davis; You will annex Wasatch View acres. Illegal without that. Will you Annex Gary Conrad above greener Hills.
22:40 Anderson; Annexation plan dynamic. People might want to annex from twin creeks SSD
Davis; Draw a lIne ?
DP; what are you trying to say Mike - just say it.
Davis; we aren't trying to annex Twin Creek into Heber; we have a line at the city.
23:24 Phillips; Response to Jul 6 Co letter County wants TROZ (16.18) hard to do if you can't set city boundary
Phillips; what do want us to say? To annex Burns without view acrew would be a peninsula. (Illegal)
Davis; we need to know where the city will stop.
Phillips; Maybe I’m reading something into this - I apologize you are asking where do we stop.
25:45 Davis; will the city consider the next to the east
Price; Scott just bot that property and will want the same consideration
26: 15 Davis: TROZ offers higher density adjacent to city. M (meant P160) zone is 160 per home when adjacent to city becomes potentially M zone "with the density we are going to see in the Burns development" (RL & mountain Zone not in TROZ)
If it stays P160, $12 million is very expensive for 40 homes, (Actually $300K/ lot is not too exorbitant these days in the valley) If he is adjacent to city there’s a potential for m zone
Shari Lazenby; How big is the TROZ Davis; TROZ = 2 things Heber annexation and adjacent to that area (NO- not clear, seems to want to include RL as adjacent see 16.08.01)
28:49 Kohler; county trying to give comparative density next to city - you allow 4 per acre 1 acre looks good compare to what you’ve got. If the city was not annexing we would not give as much density than is being considering now. How do we get around that?
Lange; We stayed of ? annexation makes your property more profitable. (Why do we continue to worry about the profitability of empty land and not about the taxes caused on the current property owners) Why do we have to fill in Wasatch view acres they don't want in Behind there they may want to - Cove
31:52 Kohler; If the city keeps annexing up the hill how do we get open space anywhere? If we don't do something you will keep annexing.
Lange; Get a petition (for annexation) and let’s talk about it.
Kohler; The assumption is if we don’t do something, you will so we have to do something.
Farrell??; if we have successful joint planning on RL, I don’t know why you abandon it.
DP;. With PPD we can create open space, our PPD give open space - bring your 160 acres and will talk about it.
33:34 Kohler; The leverage is always there (annexation) they can always come to the city and get more. If the city continues to annex to increase revenue. We have two different ideas. (Open space vs. revenue??)
DP; I like the plan for McN because it has open space, not a grid square subdivision. The rest of the Burns property should be more open than that.
Kohler; He didn’t spend $12mill without expecting something We have to break that expectations that higher densities are available.
36:30 Anderson; philosophical differences. SLC, Summit and Wasatch are pro development. It would be nice to have areas to grow into. Avoid the competition, (between city and county) sit down and plan something for this valley rather than add a lot of density
DP; It terrible that you have to make the decision based on us. If all of the growth had gone from the city outward we wouldn’t be having this problem. 50 years from now we have x people maybe we'll say we should have done better. Maybe tonight is the beginning of the game. This may good for Burns but what problem will it create. Next people come along and change everything
Price; That’s a mistaken attitude. County hasn't gone out promoted development. People have come in and promoted development.
??? ; We haven't either.
39:45 Price; Apparently you aren't feeling the pressure that we are getting to slow development. What are Heber citizens saying?
Lange; Developers always want more development.
KC; people say shut it off
DP;: 95% say I’ve got my place - stop. they don't want more subdivision. They want their open space at someone else’s expense.
Price; Mark, you’re saying leave the open space in the county so we can expand into it. We're saying develop in the county at less density.
DP; Take that to RL and work together. They already given up some density since they started. (Actually they started out high). Then we go to the next guy west and say do you want to build something.
I‘d like to see that guy 6th south collaborate with neighbor. for open space. Maybe one acre is the best we can get.
44:00 DP; we need to work this out
Price; OK, How do we deal with the transition to county
DP; county is more open than city. Where does leave us in the city with the property owners that want to develop. If we say let’s develop everything in the county form this day forward where does that leave the city?
Davis; Is it the government responsibility to maximize the profit to someone that owns property or let them develop under guidelines that are socially compatible with the people that live here?
DP; By limiting them to one house per one or five acres we are taking away their property rights. If I’m saying something wrong, let me know.
Davis: City protested Jordanelle. If the guy wants to build on 40 and River Rd. why not let him, why not let him (under your philosophy?
DP; Because I’d like him to build a it out on 12th South.
Lange; back in the pre Davis days, Mathis came to city and asked for support for stopping commercial north of town. We agreed. I voted no on Southfield Rd annexation turned down. We turned it down many times and have been harassed.
49:15 My wife’s nephew wants to develop condos flowing north into north fields on 105 acres. I told him to stop talking. I ask Val and you what’s the density there, I’m still skeptical with the Bypass road thru that property. Because I thought you guys would protest.
50:54 DP; it's property owners right to annex, city makes decision whether to accept. (City has the right and responsibility to set the annexation zone and protect the welfare of the community)
52:26 Davis; we have no say in annexation.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
The BIG BOX survey - May 2005
Talking about consistency of opinions, here a some from Heber City's "Big Box" survey. Many of the elected officials, appointed board members and associated bureaucrats are attempting to say that it was a clarion call for more retail stores, shopping and, of course, the ubiquitous BIG BOX.
When asked in for an open answer (#6) "What do you like best about living in the Heber City are?" about 60% specifically responded with terms like "rural," "small town," "peaceful," "remoteness," and "beauty."
When asked (#7) for desired "major improvements," 28 % said "more shopping facilities." Reading the comments, one finds that means "mom and pop" stores, restaurants, movies, small retail stores, etc. - a mere 4% suggested a Big Box.
In answer to (#42) "What projects or services would you like," only 12% called for "more retail shopping" and, again, a mere 4% (9 out of 236) indicated a desire for a Big Box.
"How important is it to you that Heber City have that small-town character?" (#43) gets an astounding 89% answering somewhat (27%) or very (62%) important.
Other interesting responses:
69% seldom or never buy groceries "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#58)
63% seldom or never buy gasoline "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#63)
49% seldom or never buy hardware "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#61)
61% supported an ordinance on retail store size. (#83, 84)
65% agree that "Large retail stores negatively impact local businesses." (#91)
55 % say "Large retail stores negatively the character of Main Street." (#93)
68% say Big Boxes will increase tax revenues, to which I respond Big Box Baloney.
Anyone wishing to read the entire results, the dusty archive of Heber City may be able to produce a copy - be sure to get the comments, too.
When asked in for an open answer (#6) "What do you like best about living in the Heber City are?" about 60% specifically responded with terms like "rural," "small town," "peaceful," "remoteness," and "beauty."
When asked (#7) for desired "major improvements," 28 % said "more shopping facilities." Reading the comments, one finds that means "mom and pop" stores, restaurants, movies, small retail stores, etc. - a mere 4% suggested a Big Box.
In answer to (#42) "What projects or services would you like," only 12% called for "more retail shopping" and, again, a mere 4% (9 out of 236) indicated a desire for a Big Box.
"How important is it to you that Heber City have that small-town character?" (#43) gets an astounding 89% answering somewhat (27%) or very (62%) important.
Other interesting responses:
69% seldom or never buy groceries "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#58)
63% seldom or never buy gasoline "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#63)
49% seldom or never buy hardware "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#61)
61% supported an ordinance on retail store size. (#83, 84)
65% agree that "Large retail stores negatively impact local businesses." (#91)
55 % say "Large retail stores negatively the character of Main Street." (#93)
68% say Big Boxes will increase tax revenues, to which I respond Big Box Baloney.
Anyone wishing to read the entire results, the dusty archive of Heber City may be able to produce a copy - be sure to get the comments, too.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The Cost of Growth
The Planning Department has a cost analysis program for developments which should provide breakdown of government cost numbers per family - at least per household. A minimal rough estimate was a $1000 increase in tax expenditures for every home built.
County portion of school costs are about $4,000 per student. The county budget will also provide the overall costs of government provide services, but it's difficult to allocate the costs by a per capita basis of increase in population. More people does not necessarily mean increase in use cost, in fact sometimes it may decrease per capita. - but you already knew that.
Admittedly I have not read the Wikstrom report, but according to Lisa Parkin's letter (very Pro BigBox) in the Wave today, we have a tax leakage on $29 million per year in sales. That amounts to an expenditure of about $6000 per year for every family in the county or $500 per month. Do you spend $500 per month on "groceries and general merchandise" outside of Wasatch? If so, would you stop because WalMart comes to town? Those figures, IMO, are grossly exaggerated. What is the actual sales projection for a Wasatch big box? How are those "tax benefits" computed. Personally, I'd be surprised if my family spent $20 last YEAR and I sincerely doubt that, WalMart was here that we'd spend $200 per year for some item of convenience that I could not get elsewhere. This is the same faulty logic used in the Airport economic analysis.
It is important to note that the sales tax goes mainly to Heber - not the county, Parkin quotes $77K to school (which would be offset by increased people moving in) and $89K to Wasatch.
County portion of school costs are about $4,000 per student. The county budget will also provide the overall costs of government provide services, but it's difficult to allocate the costs by a per capita basis of increase in population. More people does not necessarily mean increase in use cost, in fact sometimes it may decrease per capita. - but you already knew that.
Admittedly I have not read the Wikstrom report, but according to Lisa Parkin's letter (very Pro BigBox) in the Wave today, we have a tax leakage on $29 million per year in sales. That amounts to an expenditure of about $6000 per year for every family in the county or $500 per month. Do you spend $500 per month on "groceries and general merchandise" outside of Wasatch? If so, would you stop because WalMart comes to town? Those figures, IMO, are grossly exaggerated. What is the actual sales projection for a Wasatch big box? How are those "tax benefits" computed. Personally, I'd be surprised if my family spent $20 last YEAR and I sincerely doubt that, WalMart was here that we'd spend $200 per year for some item of convenience that I could not get elsewhere. This is the same faulty logic used in the Airport economic analysis.
It is important to note that the sales tax goes mainly to Heber - not the county, Parkin quotes $77K to school (which would be offset by increased people moving in) and $89K to Wasatch.
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Event Center Approval
Event Center History
Commission Minutes 3/25/02
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS CENTER
Commissioner Provost indicated that a public hearing is not necessary in this matter is because the building is allowed in that zone and a public hearing was held when the zone went into effect. Mike Davis, speaking for Tom Bonner, addressed the commissioners and indicated that there is a real need for this facility and this location was best suited for the building. Mike Davis also indicated that other facilities throughout the state were visited so that Wasatch County could get a comparison and ideas and indicated that this will be the largest indoor arena in the State of Utah of its kind.
Commissioner Provost then asked if there is anyone that has a problem with this matter please come forward and state your name. Commissioner Kohler indicated that he has visited with Dwayne Meeks , a neighbor to this project who has a problem with the location and the noise. He indicated that he will monitor it to see how it affects the neighborhood.
Fred Schloss addressed the commissioners and indicated that he does not live by where the new facility will be built but was here speaking for the people who lived in that area and was concerned about how it would affect the people in the neighborhood, noise, traffic, influx of people in their neighborhood, parking, etc., and would like to see the facility put in another location in Wasatch County. The commissioners indicated that money is an issue and that is why it can’t be built in another location. The commissioners indicated that the facility will be paid by an revenue bond that will be paid back with impact fees and restaurant tax money. Commissioner Duke made a motion that we go out for bids for the building on the Wasatch County Special Events Center. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
4/8/2002
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
OPEN STEEL BIDS FOR EVENT CENTER
Tom Bonner, Wasatch County Recreational Director, addressed the commissioners and indicated that he has received four bids. A.D. Construction for $438,400.00. Brownies Excavation $665,335.00. C0 Building Systems, $317,491.00. Atkinson Welding, $300,000.00. Commissioner Kohler made a motion that we approve them and to get Paul Wilson to help him review them. Commissioner Duke seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote: http://www.co.wasatch.ut.us/ma/commission/2002/04082002cc.htm
4/22/02
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND RELATED MATTERS (Resolution #02-10a)
Jon Bronson from Zions Bank addressed the commissioners and indicated that he is here regarding
a Parameters Resolution which lays out the proposed sales of bonds and in this particular case sales tax revenue bonds. John also indicated that this resolution is the first step in getting started for the issuance of a bond and the bonds would not be paid back with sales tax revenue. John also indicated that the Wasatch County Sales Tax is only being used for the collateral security for the bond issue. John indicated that this will just be the restaurant tax and impact fees, but not the TRRT tax. John also indicated that the collateral can be separated from the source of repayment. Commissioner Duke made the motion that we approve Resolution 02-10a, a resolution establishing parameters with respect to sales tax revenue bonds in the total amount of not more than $4,2000. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
5/13/02
A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More Than $4,200,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 of Wasatch County, Utah for the Purpose of (1) Refunding the Outstanding Municipal Building Authority of Wasatch County, Utah Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 and (2) Financing the Acquisition and Construction of a County Events Center and Related Improvements; Calling a Public Hearing and Establishing a Time, Place and Location for Said Public Hearing; Providing for Publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and Bonds to be Issued; Providing for a Pledge of Sales Tax Revenues for Repayment of the Bonds; Fixing the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of the Bonds, the Maximum Number of Years Over Which the Bonds May Mature, the Maximum Interest Rate Which the Bonds May Bear, and the Maximum Discount From Par at Which the Bonds May be Sold; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period; Expressing an Intent to Reimburse; and Related Matters
PUBLIC INPUT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000
Jon Bronson addressed the commissioners and indicated that there was an error in the document last time and this revision just adds both the elements of the sales tax in the document that was adopted last meeting. We can now go ahead and advertise for the sales tax issue. Commissioner Provost then asked if there was any public comment regarding the matter. Commissioner Kohler made a resolution that we adopt Resolution No. 02-03. Commissioner Provost seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
http://www.co.wasatch.ut.us/ma/commission/2002/05132002cc.htm
5/28/02
AWARD ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING FOR EVENT CENTER
County Attorney Derek Pullan indicated that the following three firms submitted bids for the architect and engineer for the event center:
Lythgoe Design Group, Inc.
George E. Bennett, Jr. Architectural Development
CD Design
Attorney Pullan stated that Lythgoe Design Group, Inc. was the low bidder, but their proposal included language of a cost plus arrangement which is unlawful. He indicated that the language would have to be eliminated and an exact proposed cost would have to be prepared. Commissioner Kohler made a motion to award the architect and engineering for the event center to low bidder Lythgoe Design Group, Inc. subject to making the language changes in the proposal as discussed above. Commissioner Duke seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
6/10/02
PUBLIC HEARING
TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000.
Jon Bronson from Zion’s Bank addressed the commissioners and indicated that this hearing is for the Commissioners to take any public comment and take it into consideration and no action is required other than to allow public comment on the bond issue. Jon indicated that the bond is being issued for two purposes, first is to refund a Series 1999 MBA Lease Revenue Bond on the issue to build a fire station and the other is to provide new money to build the new Events Center at the fairgrounds. Jon indicated that the bond is to be paid over 20 years. Jon indicated that the interest rate is in the neighborhood of 4.8 to 4.85 percent if the bonds were issued today. John indicated that the repayment will come from Transient Room Tax and basically the restaurant tax. Commissioner Provost then asked for any public comment.
Tish Dahmen from the Wasatch Wave commented that she understood that the Jordanelle Fire Station isn’t profitable, isn’t working at a profit and inquired about the bonds. Bronson indicated that the refunding of the bonds up at the Jordanelle Fire Station is to take advantage of lower interest rates. Bob Wren inquired about why put the two bonds together instead of having them separate. Jon Bronson indicated that it is better marketing advantage to put the two bonds together and also to obtain bond insurance and to a get a good rating on the bonds which right now they have a triple "A" rating. Tish Dahmen inquired if there was any donations made at this point. Commissioner Provost indicated that he wasn’t sure, but has been told that there has been some donations. He indicated he will probably be able to answer that in a day or two. Tish inquired about the bonding capacity of Wasatch County and what Wasatch County is in debt at the present time. Jon Bronson indicated that the county could issue approximately another 26 million dollars in general obligation debt. Jon indicated that the current debt of Wasatch County is 3.89 million and that is on the jail. Bob Wren inquired about whether the bond has to be paid off first before another bond can be issued. Jon indicated that the Non-Impairment Clause in the State of Utah takes care of the matter when the sales tax secures the repayment of the bonds. Bob Wren then inquired about putting the matter up for a bond election to find out what the people of Wasatch County wants to do. Commissioner Provost indicated that one of the reasons for not having a bond election is that the commissioners didn’t want to use property tax money because the bond was being run through sandwich tax money.
6/10/02 Unofficial Notes of Public Hearing on Bond issuance: Per Mike Kohler, the firepalace is being refinanced because Jordanelle Property Owners (JPO) were not keeping up with the 'promised' payments - of the 3 large payees, one paying slower, one went bankrupt (?) Jon Bronson (Zion's Bank Underwriter) responded to most of the questions. Refinancing will put the payments more in line with what is actually being rcvd. and get a lower interest rate (4.85%).
Q Is there a provision in the new bond saying JPO is responsible for repayment. A NO (If JPO fails to pay, responsibility falls to County (read taxpayers).
Q Why not hold an election on the bond? A We don't want to have to depend on the "whims" of the voters, and/or It costs money to hold an election.
Q There's an election on the library bond 6 Aug, why not vote then (no cost)? A They kind of skipped over that one.
Q Why not split the two issues (fire and convention)? A One bond issuance has lower underwriting costs or lenders do not want to deal with 'small' loans (<$ 4 to 5 million) or lower interest rates.
(Therefore we need to borrow more to save money.)
Q What is Wasatch current bonding capacity and debt? A $26 mill and $3.8 mill
Q Will the issuance of the bonds restrict future gov from using the Sales tax for something else? A NO, it only will require not canceling the sales tax.
Here's the law, what do you think it says? Are we protecting the taxpayers or the bank?:
UT code 11-14-17.5 (d) When any bonds payable from excise tax revenues have been issued, the resolution or other enactment of the governing body imposing the excise tax and pursuant to which the tax is being collected, the obligation of the governing body to continue to levy, collect, and allocate the excise tax, and to apply the revenues derived therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the authorizing resolution or other enactment, shall be irrevocable until the bonds have been paid in full as to both principal and interest, and is not subject to amendment in any manner which would impair the rights of the holders of those bonds or which would in any way jeopardize the timely payment of principal or interest when due.
Q Have there been any donations as suggested earlier for payment? A We think there's been some, we're not sure.
Q Where will the money for operating the convention center come from, general tax revenues or center revenues? A Parks and Recreation Budget
Q That's general taxes, right? A Yes
Q What is the operating budget and projected revenue? A We've already had public meetings on that, this is a hearing about the bond issuance.
Q You do have some figures though? A Yes
Wouldn't it be nice to have them presented publicly (newspaper, website, etc.) Later, Bronson said, 'these operations always cost the government money.'
6/26/02
The Board of County Commissioners met in a special session at 5:00 p.m. at the Wasatch County Administration Building, Heber City, Utah and the following business was transacted.
PRESENT: Commissioner LaRen Provost
Commissioner Ralph L. Duke
Commissioner Michael L. Kohler
Brent Titcomb, Clerk/Auditor
Jon Bronson, Zions First National Bank
AWARD BONDS AND ADOPT BOND RESOLUTION FOR EVENT CENTER (#02-16)
Jon Bronson from Zion Bank reported to the Commission the terms and repayment of the bond. The bond amount is $3,855,000.00. The money will build the event center and refinance the Jordanelle Fire Station. (See the Wasatch County, Utah $3,855,000.00 Sales Tax and Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2002 in the supplemental file). The commission acknowledged eighty-eight signatures of protest from citizens of the county. Commissioner Provost asked for a motion. Commissioner Duke made a motion to approve and adoption Resolution 02-16 that will approve the bonding of series 2002. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion
June 17, 2002 To the Honorable Brent Titcomb, County Clerk
WE, the undersigned persons in interest, residents and/or taxpayers of Wasatch County hereby contest the resolution or proceeding published in the Wasatch Wave on May 15 and 22, 2002 entitled "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND BONDS TO BE ISSUED" hereby reserve our right to any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause.
This resolution and debt issuance:
apparently removes, or minimizes, the obligation of property owners in the fire protection SSD which was provided in, or with, the previous bond.
removes, or substantially reduces, guarantees by the County Commission that the debt responsibility will not fall to the general taxpayers of Wasatch County.
inappropriately pledges Sales Tax allocation at a time of changing form and composition of county government, which will restrict their actions in issuance of further bonds and their choices of allocation of the excise tax. There is no apparent need for action prior to the institution of that new government.
does not offer any substantial savings to the taxpayers of Wasatch County.
is inappropriately tied to construction of Convention Center. Said issue is important enough, on its own, for more extensive study and public input.
We call for this debt issue to be postponed until the seating of the new government or, at a minimum, brought before the voters at the general election in November of 2002. The delineation of these items of contest does not exclude other deficiencies that might be found.
Commission Minutes 3/25/02
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS CENTER
Commissioner Provost indicated that a public hearing is not necessary in this matter is because the building is allowed in that zone and a public hearing was held when the zone went into effect. Mike Davis, speaking for Tom Bonner, addressed the commissioners and indicated that there is a real need for this facility and this location was best suited for the building. Mike Davis also indicated that other facilities throughout the state were visited so that Wasatch County could get a comparison and ideas and indicated that this will be the largest indoor arena in the State of Utah of its kind.
Commissioner Provost then asked if there is anyone that has a problem with this matter please come forward and state your name. Commissioner Kohler indicated that he has visited with Dwayne Meeks , a neighbor to this project who has a problem with the location and the noise. He indicated that he will monitor it to see how it affects the neighborhood.
Fred Schloss addressed the commissioners and indicated that he does not live by where the new facility will be built but was here speaking for the people who lived in that area and was concerned about how it would affect the people in the neighborhood, noise, traffic, influx of people in their neighborhood, parking, etc., and would like to see the facility put in another location in Wasatch County. The commissioners indicated that money is an issue and that is why it can’t be built in another location. The commissioners indicated that the facility will be paid by an revenue bond that will be paid back with impact fees and restaurant tax money. Commissioner Duke made a motion that we go out for bids for the building on the Wasatch County Special Events Center. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
4/8/2002
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
OPEN STEEL BIDS FOR EVENT CENTER
Tom Bonner, Wasatch County Recreational Director, addressed the commissioners and indicated that he has received four bids. A.D. Construction for $438,400.00. Brownies Excavation $665,335.00. C0 Building Systems, $317,491.00. Atkinson Welding, $300,000.00. Commissioner Kohler made a motion that we approve them and to get Paul Wilson to help him review them. Commissioner Duke seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote: http://www.co.wasatch.ut.us/ma/commission/2002/04082002cc.htm
4/22/02
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND RELATED MATTERS (Resolution #02-10a)
Jon Bronson from Zions Bank addressed the commissioners and indicated that he is here regarding
a Parameters Resolution which lays out the proposed sales of bonds and in this particular case sales tax revenue bonds. John also indicated that this resolution is the first step in getting started for the issuance of a bond and the bonds would not be paid back with sales tax revenue. John also indicated that the Wasatch County Sales Tax is only being used for the collateral security for the bond issue. John indicated that this will just be the restaurant tax and impact fees, but not the TRRT tax. John also indicated that the collateral can be separated from the source of repayment. Commissioner Duke made the motion that we approve Resolution 02-10a, a resolution establishing parameters with respect to sales tax revenue bonds in the total amount of not more than $4,2000. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
5/13/02
A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More Than $4,200,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 of Wasatch County, Utah for the Purpose of (1) Refunding the Outstanding Municipal Building Authority of Wasatch County, Utah Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 and (2) Financing the Acquisition and Construction of a County Events Center and Related Improvements; Calling a Public Hearing and Establishing a Time, Place and Location for Said Public Hearing; Providing for Publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and Bonds to be Issued; Providing for a Pledge of Sales Tax Revenues for Repayment of the Bonds; Fixing the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of the Bonds, the Maximum Number of Years Over Which the Bonds May Mature, the Maximum Interest Rate Which the Bonds May Bear, and the Maximum Discount From Par at Which the Bonds May be Sold; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period; Expressing an Intent to Reimburse; and Related Matters
PUBLIC INPUT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000
Jon Bronson addressed the commissioners and indicated that there was an error in the document last time and this revision just adds both the elements of the sales tax in the document that was adopted last meeting. We can now go ahead and advertise for the sales tax issue. Commissioner Provost then asked if there was any public comment regarding the matter. Commissioner Kohler made a resolution that we adopt Resolution No. 02-03. Commissioner Provost seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
http://www.co.wasatch.ut.us/ma/commission/2002/05132002cc.htm
5/28/02
AWARD ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING FOR EVENT CENTER
County Attorney Derek Pullan indicated that the following three firms submitted bids for the architect and engineer for the event center:
Lythgoe Design Group, Inc.
George E. Bennett, Jr. Architectural Development
CD Design
Attorney Pullan stated that Lythgoe Design Group, Inc. was the low bidder, but their proposal included language of a cost plus arrangement which is unlawful. He indicated that the language would have to be eliminated and an exact proposed cost would have to be prepared. Commissioner Kohler made a motion to award the architect and engineering for the event center to low bidder Lythgoe Design Group, Inc. subject to making the language changes in the proposal as discussed above. Commissioner Duke seconded the motion and the motion carries with the following vote:
6/10/02
PUBLIC HEARING
TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $4,200,000.
Jon Bronson from Zion’s Bank addressed the commissioners and indicated that this hearing is for the Commissioners to take any public comment and take it into consideration and no action is required other than to allow public comment on the bond issue. Jon indicated that the bond is being issued for two purposes, first is to refund a Series 1999 MBA Lease Revenue Bond on the issue to build a fire station and the other is to provide new money to build the new Events Center at the fairgrounds. Jon indicated that the bond is to be paid over 20 years. Jon indicated that the interest rate is in the neighborhood of 4.8 to 4.85 percent if the bonds were issued today. John indicated that the repayment will come from Transient Room Tax and basically the restaurant tax. Commissioner Provost then asked for any public comment.
Tish Dahmen from the Wasatch Wave commented that she understood that the Jordanelle Fire Station isn’t profitable, isn’t working at a profit and inquired about the bonds. Bronson indicated that the refunding of the bonds up at the Jordanelle Fire Station is to take advantage of lower interest rates. Bob Wren inquired about why put the two bonds together instead of having them separate. Jon Bronson indicated that it is better marketing advantage to put the two bonds together and also to obtain bond insurance and to a get a good rating on the bonds which right now they have a triple "A" rating. Tish Dahmen inquired if there was any donations made at this point. Commissioner Provost indicated that he wasn’t sure, but has been told that there has been some donations. He indicated he will probably be able to answer that in a day or two. Tish inquired about the bonding capacity of Wasatch County and what Wasatch County is in debt at the present time. Jon Bronson indicated that the county could issue approximately another 26 million dollars in general obligation debt. Jon indicated that the current debt of Wasatch County is 3.89 million and that is on the jail. Bob Wren inquired about whether the bond has to be paid off first before another bond can be issued. Jon indicated that the Non-Impairment Clause in the State of Utah takes care of the matter when the sales tax secures the repayment of the bonds. Bob Wren then inquired about putting the matter up for a bond election to find out what the people of Wasatch County wants to do. Commissioner Provost indicated that one of the reasons for not having a bond election is that the commissioners didn’t want to use property tax money because the bond was being run through sandwich tax money.
6/10/02 Unofficial Notes of Public Hearing on Bond issuance: Per Mike Kohler, the firepalace is being refinanced because Jordanelle Property Owners (JPO) were not keeping up with the 'promised' payments - of the 3 large payees, one paying slower, one went bankrupt (?) Jon Bronson (Zion's Bank Underwriter) responded to most of the questions. Refinancing will put the payments more in line with what is actually being rcvd. and get a lower interest rate (4.85%).
Q Is there a provision in the new bond saying JPO is responsible for repayment. A NO (If JPO fails to pay, responsibility falls to County (read taxpayers).
Q Why not hold an election on the bond? A We don't want to have to depend on the "whims" of the voters, and/or It costs money to hold an election.
Q There's an election on the library bond 6 Aug, why not vote then (no cost)? A They kind of skipped over that one.
Q Why not split the two issues (fire and convention)? A One bond issuance has lower underwriting costs or lenders do not want to deal with 'small' loans (<$ 4 to 5 million) or lower interest rates.
(Therefore we need to borrow more to save money.)
Q What is Wasatch current bonding capacity and debt? A $26 mill and $3.8 mill
Q Will the issuance of the bonds restrict future gov from using the Sales tax for something else? A NO, it only will require not canceling the sales tax.
Here's the law, what do you think it says? Are we protecting the taxpayers or the bank?:
UT code 11-14-17.5 (d) When any bonds payable from excise tax revenues have been issued, the resolution or other enactment of the governing body imposing the excise tax and pursuant to which the tax is being collected, the obligation of the governing body to continue to levy, collect, and allocate the excise tax, and to apply the revenues derived therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the authorizing resolution or other enactment, shall be irrevocable until the bonds have been paid in full as to both principal and interest, and is not subject to amendment in any manner which would impair the rights of the holders of those bonds or which would in any way jeopardize the timely payment of principal or interest when due.
Q Have there been any donations as suggested earlier for payment? A We think there's been some, we're not sure.
Q Where will the money for operating the convention center come from, general tax revenues or center revenues? A Parks and Recreation Budget
Q That's general taxes, right? A Yes
Q What is the operating budget and projected revenue? A We've already had public meetings on that, this is a hearing about the bond issuance.
Q You do have some figures though? A Yes
Wouldn't it be nice to have them presented publicly (newspaper, website, etc.) Later, Bronson said, 'these operations always cost the government money.'
6/26/02
The Board of County Commissioners met in a special session at 5:00 p.m. at the Wasatch County Administration Building, Heber City, Utah and the following business was transacted.
PRESENT: Commissioner LaRen Provost
Commissioner Ralph L. Duke
Commissioner Michael L. Kohler
Brent Titcomb, Clerk/Auditor
Jon Bronson, Zions First National Bank
AWARD BONDS AND ADOPT BOND RESOLUTION FOR EVENT CENTER (#02-16)
Jon Bronson from Zion Bank reported to the Commission the terms and repayment of the bond. The bond amount is $3,855,000.00. The money will build the event center and refinance the Jordanelle Fire Station. (See the Wasatch County, Utah $3,855,000.00 Sales Tax and Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2002 in the supplemental file). The commission acknowledged eighty-eight signatures of protest from citizens of the county. Commissioner Provost asked for a motion. Commissioner Duke made a motion to approve and adoption Resolution 02-16 that will approve the bonding of series 2002. Commissioner Kohler seconded the motion
June 17, 2002 To the Honorable Brent Titcomb, County Clerk
WE, the undersigned persons in interest, residents and/or taxpayers of Wasatch County hereby contest the resolution or proceeding published in the Wasatch Wave on May 15 and 22, 2002 entitled "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND BONDS TO BE ISSUED" hereby reserve our right to any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause.
This resolution and debt issuance:
apparently removes, or minimizes, the obligation of property owners in the fire protection SSD which was provided in, or with, the previous bond.
removes, or substantially reduces, guarantees by the County Commission that the debt responsibility will not fall to the general taxpayers of Wasatch County.
inappropriately pledges Sales Tax allocation at a time of changing form and composition of county government, which will restrict their actions in issuance of further bonds and their choices of allocation of the excise tax. There is no apparent need for action prior to the institution of that new government.
does not offer any substantial savings to the taxpayers of Wasatch County.
is inappropriately tied to construction of Convention Center. Said issue is important enough, on its own, for more extensive study and public input.
We call for this debt issue to be postponed until the seating of the new government or, at a minimum, brought before the voters at the general election in November of 2002. The delineation of these items of contest does not exclude other deficiencies that might be found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)