Saturday, December 16, 2006

Defining RURAL

The RA-1 development code (and the General Plan) repeatedly mention the purpose and goal of RURAL. Many people seem to have trouble understanding the term, below are a few definitions found on the web which may be helpful in formulating law to institute the stated purposes.


16.27.10 (1) Requirements for Achieving a Rural Landscape Character. Achieving rural landscape character of a subdivision requires promoting the protection of natural resource areas, prominent features of the site, farmland and other large areas of open land, while permitting residential development at low, rural densities, in an open space setting designed to reduce perceived intensity of development. Specific objectives are as follows:
(a) To maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character by preserving important landscape elements, including those areas containing unique and environmentally sensitive natural features such as stream corridors, wetlands, groundwater, floodplains, ridgelines, geologic hazard areas, steep slopes, and natural areas by setting them aside from development.
(b) To promote a rural feeling along County roads.
(c) To provide for the unified and planned development of larger parcels for clustered, single-family, low density residential uses, incorporating large areas of permanently protected common open space.
(d) To reduce erosion and sedimentation by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing development on steep slopes.
(e) To allow for the continuation of agricultural uses in those areas best suited for such activities and when such activities are compatible with adjoining residential uses.
(f) To permit various means for owning common open space and for protecting it from development in perpetuity.
(g) To promote interconnected greenways and corridors throughout the County.
(h) To promote active and passive recreational use of common open space by residents of a cluster development or by the public.
(i) To encourage more efficient forms of development that consumes less open land and conforms to existing topography and natural features better than a conventional or grid subdivision.
(j) To implement the objectives and policies of the General Plan.
(k) To provide open space that is preserved in such a manner that future development can connect to the open space in existing developments.

Definitions of "RURAL" on the Web (click on the link for the source):

It ain't rocket science, folks!!!

Friday, December 01, 2006

NEW RA-1 Code = MORE houses

On 11/29, the Wasatch County Council passed a new RA-1 development law again accelerating the march toward Wasatch City. This was a joint public hearing of the Council and the Planning Commission, which was not widely advertised. Changes to Title 16 (Land Use code) generally have two separate public hearings separated by 14 day public notice periods for the public to consider and comment on the proposed changes.

Approval of the change was first recommended by the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-1, after discussion and minimal public input. Perhaps some residents had missed the legal notice in the Deseret News.

The Council then approved the measure with a few changes, which further increased the allowable density. Approval was by a vote of 4-3, with Bangerter, Price, Draper and Farrell voting in favor and Anderton, Crittenden and Kohler voicing opposition.

Current number of houses existing in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) = 625
  • potential houses under current law ca. 4700
  • potential houses under new law ca. 6250
  • A potential 33% INCREASE in an area with a current approval of about 1500 houses

Below is an analysis of the potential effects on the EPA(Center and Lake Creek area) from Wasatch County GIS data.

ASSUMPTIONS:
below 5.0 acres maximum houses acres/1.3 minus one for the current house
5.0 to 15 acres: maximum houses = acres - current houses
empty parcels will more likely approach the max allowable
parcels with current houses may be less likely to subdivide
current law: 0.75 houses per acre

Comments:
A few lots are P160
Timber Lakes development NOT included
For reference, Red Ledges development proposal was for a total of 1400 houses. In 2004, Wasatch County had 7,853 housing units.
This analysis does not include P160 and M Zone
This analysis covers ONLY the EPA and does not include other areas of Wasatch County, including Jordanelle (which may have a build out of 15,000 houses).


The primary cause of the increase under the new law results from now allowing credit for area used by roads in the computation of density. This has historical never been done. Under the current law, recently under moratorium, 25% of the area was removed for roads yielding a maximum density of one lot per acre for 75% of the buildable land in a parcel. (40 acres allowed 30 houses)

No solution was offered to the Transportation Plan for the area to accommodate this future growth. The recent citizens' General Plan review of the EPA was not presented or apparently considered.



acreage

<1.01.1-5.05.1-1010.1-1515-2020-3030-4040-5050+
RA 1 No Houses Built547372147682116106141201

total acres buildable

?84510427283724133142641244
avg lot size?2.277.0910.7117.7125.8131.4044.0088.86
maximum added houses?650104272837241331426412445027

under current law

?4887825462793102361989333770

likely new houses ??

?30060050035040030025012003900
RA 1 with a House183333781582222625

total acres buildable

1347714681771375265911951956
avg lot size0.732.326.0011.8017.1326.0032.5045.5097.50
maximum added houses02602821621295063891931228

under current law

019521212297384767145921

likely new houses ??

01001005050203040100490
Total Parcels73070522583291812816391












Friday, November 17, 2006

Red Ledges requests Heber Annexation

Despite the 4-3 approval for a Zone change from the County Planning Commission, the Red Ledges apparently has decided to request annexation to Heber City.

"Todd Cates/Lauren Knowles – Annexation Petition – Red Ledges Recreation Community – Consisting of 1,515.73 Acres and located at approximately 2300 East to 3600 East Lake Creek Road on the northern side of Lake Creek Road" Heber City Council agenda 11/16/2006

The City Council gave their preliminary OK and advised them to continue with their submission to the Heber City Planning Commission.

This might be an excellent time to review the Joint County/City meeting of August 14, 2006. A paraphrased transcript may be found on this blog dated 9/16/2006. Better yet, a podcast of that entire meeting can be heard by clicking here or here and then click on the download link.



Monday, November 13, 2006

Criteria for Rezoning

The requirements for rezoning in Wasatch County are very clear. "amendments shall not be made to . . . the adopted Zoning Map except to promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the General Plan and this Title." Refer to the following for the code concerning establishment of the various zones and rezoning procedures.

Also included are the "purposes" of Title 16 (15 items) and the General Plan (9 items).

Title 16 excerpts concerning rezoning:

Section 16.02.05 Procedure to Amend the Title, Code or Zoning Map.

(1) Application. This Title, including the Map, may be amended by the Wasatch County Legislative Body in accordance with the requirements of the Utah Code Annotated (§17-27-101) County Land Use Development and Management Act. For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within the County, amendments shall not be made to this Title or the adopted Zoning Map except to promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the General Plan and this Title. Any person seeking an amendment to this Title or the adopted Zoning Map shall submit to the Planning Department a written petition containing the following information:

  • (a) Designation of the specific zone change or Title amendment desired;
    (b) The reason and justification for such zone change or Title amendment, and a statement setting forth the manner in which a proposed amendment or zone would further promote the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of this Title;
    (c) A complete and accurate legal description of the area proposed to be rezoned; or a draft of the proposed Title amendment;
    (d) An accurate development plan, drawn to scale, showing all areas to be included within the proposed rezoning, designating the present zoning of the property, and properties immediately adjacent thereto;
    (e) A slope map showing categories of slopes at 0-10%, 11-20% 21-30% and over 30% slopes; and
    (f) The filing fee as established by ordinance.

(2) Public Hearing. The Planning Commission and County Legislative Body shall hold a public hearing wherein it must be shown that such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Wasatch County General Plan:

  • (a) The County Legislative Body may amend the number, shape, boundaries, or area of any zoning district, or any regulation of or within a zoning district, or any other provision of this Title. Such amendments shall either be proposed by the Planning Commission or first submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval, disapproval, or recommendations.
    (b) The County Legislative Body shall hold a public hearing on all proposed amendments and rezonings as defined in this section. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in a manner consistent with state law.
    (c) Except as otherwise provided in this Title, the County Legislative Body shall consider amendments to either the Development Code or the General Plan only once in any given year and rezonings as defined in this section annually in November. The deadline for such amendments and rezoning applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department by July 15, of any given year for the recommendation by the Planning Commission. After July, the item may not be heard until the following year.
    (2003-22, Amended, 11/24/2003)

Section 16.02.03 Zone Establishment.

In order to accomplish the purposes of this Title, Wasatch County hereby divides the County into zones in accordance with the General Plan of the County as herein after set forth. In the preparation of this Title, due and careful consideration was given, among other things, to the relative quantities of the land needed for particular uses and to the suitability of such uses, to existing and probable future conditions within the County, and to the character of each of the several zones, with a view to conserving property values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the County.

Section 16.03.10 General Plan Consistency
(1) Land Use Regulation. All land use regulations including building, zoning, subdivision and environmental protection regulations shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan. No discretionary land use project, public or private, shall be approved by the County unless it is found to be consistent with the adopted General Plan.
(2) Reviewing Department. The Planning Department is designated as the department authorized to review discretionary land use projects, public or private, and to make findings regarding whether such projects are consistent with the General Plan.


Section 16.01.01 Purpose.
This Title and the regulations and restrictions contained herein are adopted and enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, welfare, prosperity, improved morals, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and aesthetics of the present and future inhabitants of the County and to:
(1) Guide the future growth and development of Wasatch County, in accordance with the Wasatch County General Plan;
(2) Provide for adequate open space, light, air, air quality, privacy, safety from fire, flood, landslides and other geologic hazards, and other dangers and to try to prevent overcrowding of the land, and to lessen traffic congestion;
(3) Protect and conserve the character and stability of Wasatch County, and to encourage the orderly development of the land;
(4) Protect and conserve the Wasatch County property values and minimize conflicts among uses of the land and structures;
(5) Establish public and private policy that encourages action to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation and other public facilities;
(6) Establish reasonable standards of design and procedures for development;
(7) Create an atmosphere attractive to visitors and residents;
(8) Fully exercise all of the powers granted to the County by the provisions of the Utah Code Annotated (17-27-101) County Land Use Development and Management Act, and all other powers granted by statute or by common law for the regulation of land uses and improvements;
(9) Protect and enhance the quality of life in general for Wasatch County residents;
(10) Allow development in a manner that encourages the preservation of scenic values, historic structures, agricultural uses and minimizes the impact on natural resources in Wasatch County;
(11) Provide for well-planned commercial and residential centers, efficient traffic circulation, and efficient use of county services;
(12) Regulate development that may add to existing geologic hazards, erosion, flooding or other conditions that create potential dangers to life and safety in the community or detract from the quality of life in the community;
(13) Require new development to be fiscally responsible by providing all required improvements and adequately mitigating any impacts to the County;
(14) Establish Zone Districts within which the Legislative Body may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings and structures and the uses of land; and
(15) Provide methods of administration and enforcement of this Title and provide penalties for the violation thereof.


General Plan Purpose
The purpose for the preparation of this general plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to the coordination of development, natural resources and open space in such a way as to provide a harmonious relationship that meets the needs of present and future residents and also promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County. Specifically, the purposes for planning within Wasatch County are:
1. To promote the most acceptable type of development within each planning area of the County.
2. To insure the orderly growth of urbanizing areas and reduce the haphazard scattering of development that has occurred since the first plan became outdated.
3. To foster commercial and light industrial development that will strengthen the economic base of the County.
4. To protect the natural and cultural resources of the County.
5. To insure that geologic hazards, flood plains, wetlands, ridgelines, view sheds and other physical constraints are adequately considered in each planning area.
6. To insure that local units of government can obtain the highest return per dollar spent in maintaining water and sewer facilities, storm drainage facilities, streets, parks and other types of public facilities.
7. To ensure that public safety personnel and facilities are within a reasonable distance in areas of concentrated development within the
County.
8. To promote the social and economic well-being of the people of the County.
9. To insure that growth does not over tax the water resources and degrade the clean air of the County.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Red Ledges Zone Change Approval

A news story reported on the "ritzy venture" on Thursday, discussing the Red Ledges development and its effect on Wasatch County.

The first step in the approval process came before the Planning Commission on 11/9, after an initial 3 to 3 vote in an earlier meeting. At this meeting, traffic studies indicated a threefold increase in traffic on Center St. from new developments - without some alternatives being implemented.

After extended discussion of the potential traffic which and introduction of various possible traffic plans, several of the approximately 75 citizens in attendance expressed their opinions. About 15 people spoke, with over two-thirds expressing displeasure with proposed zone change. Previous meetings had also brought vocal opposition to the project. A few residents have indicated their approval of the proposed 1500 new houses which the project might bring.

After all of the discussion, a motion was made to deny the approval for the zone change, which was defeated by a vote of 3 to 4. A subsequent motion to approve was passed 4 to 3. The issue now goes to the County Council for their consideration. The change for P160 and RA-1 will allow an increase from less than 50 house to about 500 under current Mountain Zone regulation. An further request has been made to change the law concerning the zone to further increase the allowable houses to nearer the desired 900 plus.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Red Ledges Development Survey

A new internet poll has been posted concerning the Red Ledges development at www.snipurl.com/ledges This survey is open to Wasatch County residents and is totally anonymous. It will take about five minutes to complete and has ample room for personal comments. Please feel free to weigh in with your opinion.

The Red Ledges development is proposed as a large gated community with a private golf course and other amenities for its residents. I would be located on the former McNaughtan farm on the eastern edge of Heber City just north of Center St and would include the adjoining property located in Wasatch County.

More information can be found on the developers' website by clicking HERE.

The project is currently planned to be jointly developed in coordination with both Heber City and Wasatch County. Several hearings have been held on the issue. One joint meeting was reported HERE.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

The Bid Process, by Tracy Taylor

After an apparently short consideration the AG's office seems to have changed its mind.

AG won't probe bidding for schoolSalt Lake Tribune - United StatesHEBER CITY - The Utah Attorney General's Office will not investigate an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 million ...

(Comment added 11/2) This was submitted as a letter to the Wasatch Wave, which was not printed. Apparently the Trib thought it worthy of reporting.

Critics blast selection process for architect for a new $60 ...Salt Lake Tribune - United StatesPosted: 1:02 PM- HEBER CITY- The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 ...

(Forwarded with no comments)

High School Decisions Made in a Bubble.

I wasn't planning on getting involved with the high school bond this year. After the "community jewel" that is the North School turned out to be a very expensive administration building (go check it out, the district offices are quite expansive) I thought they would have tightened their purse strings to show the community they've learned a few lessons from that mismanaged mess. I guess I was being overly optimistic. There was little public input on the new high school design prior to it’s unveiling a few months ago with the announcement of the bond election. I had parents calling me, in the past year, explaining how they tried to talk to certain school board members only to be rebuffed. The board said that they couldn't discuss it for fear it would weaken their bargaining power with the landowner.

The final straw was community members telling me, in the past month, documents were asked for but the school district said they didn't have them to copy. So that's the reason for my last minute investigation... I decided to go in and exercise my civic right to obtain public documents with a GRAMA request. The school district said publicly that they would be "open and straight forward" with the public on this high school bond and welcomed questions, yet I was told by an employee that the delivery of my request would be after the 10 day deadline because each member of the school board was going to look over the packet before they would hand it over. Interesting. I was also charged $218.10- $9.85 of which was the charge for the paper. They figured it took them 12.25 hours to assemble information that was already compiled; budgets, bid process, full financial analysis of bond process, etc. At least half of what they gave me was the facilities committee report from 2004. Information that all Wasatch County residents deserve, comes with a price.

With most school districts a bid process would go something like this: School district decides on a budget and that they want a new design, they determine the needs of their children, they advertise for the bid applications and give the interested firms specific details of what school we want, they share information with ALL applicants that one firm has due to their previous relationship with the district, the firms come back with a bid within our budget for the parameters set by the district and they pick the one that is best for our community.

I called four firms that applied last March, and asked them specific questions. They did not receive any information from our school district that would have helped them determine what we wanted in a high school. A couple of them were so disappointed with the bid process that they have decided not to bid for our school district anymore. They also said that some of the elements of this design aren’t SAFE. They don’t do basements, or long hallways without a door, because that would trap kids inside in a fire or if a gunman entered. They design schools that get the kids out quickly if they have an emergency situation.

There was no effective bid process for these architects to submit a new design based on our "very special" needs assessment that was compiled prior to this process by Sandstrom. If only they would have received that information from our school district to have a fair process, they had the experience to bring great designs to the table. That explains why the design is extravagant to many people. This is how Wasatch bid; Sandstrom was awarded the architectural services bid (with no prior experience in designing a complete high school), we got ONE design from them (after they worked on it a year) based on every department’s wish list, and then the district came up with a price. Kind of backwards! If we knew we wanted a new design, why didn’t we have an open bid for experienced architects to bring ideas to us within a certain budget? That would have been a more cost effective procedure.

In this continuing process, the school board authorized a payment to Sandstrom of $382,500 on August 17, 2006 to continue work on a design that did not go through a bid process, and had ZERO PUBLIC INPUT prior to announcing the bond! (No open houses explaining the design to the taxpayers) Even the previous "facilities committee", who volunteered countless hours a couple years ago, was never asked for their input before it was released to the public. I was at that board meeting. They never mentioned the price, they only said "25% of the total architectural fees." You’d have to know Sandstrom’s fees based on a certain percentage of the construction costs and a calculator…They didn’t advertise in the agenda what they were planning on doing either, as per the open meetings act. This decision to spend OUR money was made before we even had our first public hearing on Sept. 26th.

The school district made decisions in a bubble, which explains the disbelief now of the public on the extravagance of this design. Whether you're for or against the school bond, I thought you needed to know how this process worked to better explain the design and cost. If this bond doesn’t pass, I would think they’d get tired of this rejection and actually come back to us again with hopefully a more cost effective high school, based on PUBLIC INPUT and an actual bid process that could result in a well tested design for a lot less money. I don’t know one person in town that doesn’t think we need a new high school, but our school board took advantage of that, and went over the top. Why? Because they think the outside appearance is more important than the quality of education inside? We can have it OUR way. There are two schools due in 2008 for the same approximate number of students for $32 Mil and $36 Mil., with beautiful facilities. If we do that, we’ll actually save ourselves $20 million to probably totally finance the inevitable renovation of the Jr. High down the road… We’ll be able to get two schools for the price of this one! Not to mention being able to afford to raise the voted leeway for higher teachers salaries and improving our curriculum.

I am for better education, better paid teachers to retain quality, lower class sizes, better curriculum, more choices for students, and a school board that is fiscally responsible and well- managed while achieving these goals.
Tracy Taylor 435 503-1121

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Comments on comments in the Wave on Bond

Well, typical of the last issue before an election, the Wasatch Wave reports being overrun with letters and was unable to print them all. However, following from their editorial position of support seemed to somewhat bias their letter selection, with three expressing concern over the bond and eight supportive of the Bond.

Further if one calculates the column inches devoted to the two "sides," the bias becomes more pronounced 85 column inches to 31. To go even further, 85 inches of type was given to the School District for "news" and commentary in support of the 12 inch editorial suggesting a "yes" vote (with a reservation about the size.)

A few comments about some of the epistles printed, if I may; which I can, because it's my blog.
Self proclaimed "country boy" Phil Sweat, launches a vehement diatribe against one particular candidate (which seems to violate the Wave's length standard and its policy against candidate support - but apparently allows candidate bashing, if unnamed) and then slips in a few lines opposing the bond because of costs and the size of the school.

Paul Sweat, not surprisingly as the school principal, supports his own design.

Marie Adams is right on, discussing wants and needs.

Greg Tayler (an unsigned Doctor) declares pride in the new proposal.

Lynn Adams (a declared Doctor, as in new PhD) tries a creative computation to show taxes aren't really going up if we add up enough of them, but then falls for the "sacrifice" propaganda.

I'm sure you can (will) read the rest for yourself. I won't bother either with the School District and chief propagandist John Moss' comments, except to say it's mildly amazing the amount of room that has been given to these "press releases" not only in this issues but also on the front page for the last few weeks of sales pitches. The question needs to be asked - how much School District time and money has been paid while some employees were working for a yes vote?

A minor comment on the full page ad by Citizens for Better Schools. Wow, might the money have been better spent on a donation to the Wasatch Foundation. Then another half page of supporters names - if their ad is true (2,500 supporters), I guess they are well on the way to the $60 million educational edifice.

Tuesday's vote will be interesting.





Friday, October 27, 2006

Property TAXES

With the arrival in the mail of the 2006 tax notices, residents can now compute their potential individual annual payment for the new High School Bond.

The indicated rate is about $78/$100K of "Taxable Value," which can be found just above the middle of the Tax Notice. Multiply that value. divided by $100,000, (e.g. for $250,000, multiply be 2.5) by $78 to get your tax increase, should the bond be passed.

Or for a rough figure, your taxes (County resident) will increase by about 8%. For city residents, it's about 7.2%

You may also notice that your current payment for Wasatch County Schools is about 60 to 65% of your total Property Tax bill AND 100% of your STATE INCOME TAX.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

WOW, what did they miss?

After unsuccessfully asking for more detailed information plans about the new High School, they've been found.

For those interested the new proposed $60 million High School, more detailed school plans are available at the Wasatch School website. Click on the various "levels" for PDF files (large, allow a few minutes to download). The plans can then be enlarged for greater detail, to see what the individual rooms are being used for.

Would you believe? (all estimated areas at 1" =16 ft at 200% magnification):

  • Indoor baseball practice about 25 x 80 = 2000 sq.ft. @$150+/sq.ft. = $300,000+
  • "Little Theater/Drama" 2000 sq.ft. (in addition to the auditorium)
  • Varsity Weight room 3200 sq.ft. = $480,000+
  • Three Basketball courts
  • 4,000 sq.ft. of "news set & production studio"
  • Racquetball court
  • 8+ offices in the athletic area
  • A "Student Government" room
  • 5 "team room locker"
  • Ever cognizant of gender equality, there's also a 2000 sq.ft. "cheer/dance" area
  • There are 50 + classrooms, too
    What ever happened to the swimming pool?
  • Look for yourself and decide - WANTS or Needs?


    Friday, October 20, 2006

    The SURVEY says . . .

    The Survey on the $60 million Wasatch High School was posted to try to gauge the pulse of the community and gather comments about the bond and the proposed High School. The proponents of the bond decided to use (abuse) the survey and turn it into propaganda promoting the YES vote.

    They were successful! 78% now report being strongly in favor of the bond.

    As promised, the results are now being made public . Reading thorough the comments will show the researcher the intent of the bias group. See the previous comments on the "packing issue below.

    Enjoy the comments, some are quite good and could be helpful to those interested in EDUCATION at a conservative cost.

    Monday, October 09, 2006

    Latest Survey comments

    14 responses today (10/9) - ALL in favor (5) One did say the price was too high and one was only "somewhat in favor," and 4 or 5 were through the Utah Educator Network IP; with the request for comments, many were posted - however the last one reverted to true from - "It's outdated"

    "standard answer" = (generally) Strongly support, the price is just right, location is great, sell old school. It surprising how many do not know how much the taxes will be. Answers range from a high of $1,000/yr to "not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does!" (comments added below)

    Thanks for participating. ; - )

    2006-10-09 04:52:01 204.113.19.8 5 (strongly support) ***price too high *** Get the school off Main Street. Build a new high school big enough for future growth. $50.00 (A lot of comments on growth, why not just manage growth?)

    2006-10-09 07:53:14 172.190.246.37 standard answer

    2006-10-09 07:59:47 205.123.163.13 UEN? 5 ***just right *** Students need a clean, up to date learning environment. Just the necessary work needed to update wiring for computers is overwhelming. Labs should be current with up to date materials. The size of the school also needs to be exapanded to support the growth in our valley. $ not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does! (How much work to do the wiring and who is doing it? Students may have some hands on learning by doing. How much work or cost will wiring the new school be?)

    2006-10-09 08:07:49 205.123.148.252 UEN standard answer Wasatch county is growing at a rapid rate. When new poeple move into a community it is necessary to provide new facilities for them,i.e. schools, roads annd even new stop lights ( and more roads, and schools and stoplights and . . . Who should pay for them? current residents or those creating the need?)

    2006-10-09 08:22:26 205.123.148.252 UEN std answer My children will be attending the high school in this valley, and I would like a structurally sound building for them to attend. By the time my children attend, this high school will be severly over crowded. $250 My high school had a nursery that the students could work in; it helped me make my decision about going into education. *** A gym is necessary. *** This is a great district and a great place to be. As a community we need to support (in every way) the education of the future generation.

    2006-10-09 09:18:52 71.213.28.164 std ans explosive population growth

    2006-10-09 09:40:58 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans A new high school will allow the district to better educate our children. As an example, science labs and computer labs are virtually non-existant in the current high school. A new facility will help us stay competitive educationally. *** As I understand the current plan, I feel they have included all essential elements. *** The benefits of the new facility. They are emphasizing the educational benefits of a new school. (You may have a point on the labs, is it possible to provide without a $60 million school?)

    2006-10-09 10:33:50 71.37.116.52 std ans Our children deserve facilities as good as other high schools. It is a very difficult job for the teachers to try to give comparable educational opportunities without the facilities necessary to do so. They need space to fully explore the arts, and music and sciences. *** Big cafeteria and commons area to keep students on campus during lunch! *** I think our teachers are doing a fabulous job despite the poor facilities. If we want to attract the best teachers we have to offer them great facilities also. ("as good as" or better than all others?)

    2006-10-09 10:43:38 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans The facilities and classrooms at the high school are inadequate for student needs (e.g. limited science labs, computer labs poor heating system, holes in the roof, etc), there are safety and evacuation concerns, the old school can't handle the growth the county is experiencing. *** Our biggest asset in this county is our children. We must invest in them now in order to get great returns later. (DUPLICATED - was it deemed that important, or simply trying to skew the poll, or merely an error?)

    2006-10-09 11:15:54 65.89.233.8 4 A new high school is necessary due to the delapidated state of the old school and the growth occuring in Wasatch County. *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** $1,000 *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** Wasatch county is a fast growing community. We need to recognize this a be prepared for the future. Our kids are worth the $ to not only build a new high school but also include a rec / aquatic center , to encourage and support them! (hesitation is good, do a little more analysis)

    2006-10-09 11:52:48 67.182.207.9 std ans Students working on sound or lighting are insturced not to touch the ceiling of the auditorium Why is that? well there are toxic things in that room. Things that are in the air that we breath. A new school would be for the best health of all who enter there. $I don't know *** I think it is about time we are building a new school. You have my support (If there are toxic things, why aren't the corrected? Where is the maintenance budget?)

    2006-10-09 11:53:53 204.117.0.94 std ans Wasatch County has a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to education. This is driving talented people away from the community, in search of easily attainable and much better options for their kids. Improving the county starts with a committment to education, which is lacking today. *** Public opinion of the county's commitment to education is that there is none. This reflects on the community as a whole, leaving the perception that our government and citizens are shortsighted and unsophisticated. Changing thisperception will benefit the county greatly over the long-term. (And you truly believe a new school is the answer to all edcucation problems?)

    2006-10-09 14:11:51 161.28.164.37 std ans We need new facilities. Curent one is far out dated. $800.00 *** (A familar litany
    ! Shouldn't an $800 cost give cause for concern? That's high, by the way)

    Saturday, October 07, 2006

    Building vs. Salary

    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)

    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

    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

    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 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


    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--------?----------?
    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--------?----------?

    School Bond Survey

    With a reasonable number of responses to the poll on Wasatch County growth, including many excellent comments; a poll was created concerning the proposed School Bond hoping to gain some more comments (pro and con) on the issue.

    The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.

    Lo and behold, the first IP (205.123.148.252) was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.

    On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.

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

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

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

    Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?

    His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.

    This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."

    Shall we post the name of this poll taker???

    While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.

    The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.

    Saturday, September 23, 2006

    What to do about growth

    1 Educate Yourself

    To find the rules of growth, planning and zoning, see County Title 16, the County General Plan for Wasatch County. For Heber City, see the Heber City Code (particularly Titles 17 & 18).

    To read the City survey, click here - Big Box for the presentation and results

    Other contacts, Wasatch County Heber City and we mustn't forget Midway

    2 Inform your Neighbors

    In Wasatch County, Empty land has Property Rights, People in HOMES do not! The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. That must include the current residents who have repeatedly expressed their collective desire to maintain a rural, small town environment.

    They have built and purchased homes at least partly predicated on promised zoning. Regulations are being continually modified toward higher and higher densities and more and more growth in defiance of the expressed desires of the residents.

    3 Express your Opinions

    To contact your elected officials, see County Council and Heber City Council and/or the Mayor or City Manager

    Mike Davis Wasatch County Manager, 654-3211 fax 657-5116

    Mark Anderson Heber City Manager, 654-0757
    Alan Fawcett Planning Director, 654-4830

    4 We need to understand, we ALL live in Wasatch County!


    (The recent growth survey was posted at www.snipurl.com/heber. Preliminary results were posted below in this blog.)

    Tuesday, September 19, 2006

    Recordings of Public Meetings

    Effective 1 May 2006 all public meetings must be recorded and made accessible to anyone. "(3) (a) The minutes and recordings of an open meeting are public records and shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting."

    A request was made for the recording of the joint County - City meeting and a fee of $12 was required for the CD. Subsequent to that request the County Council decided that the county should recover the cost of the equipment required to record the meetings and the fee was raised to $20.

    A logical question to be asked - who paid for the recording equipment? Obviously the taxpayers. With the idea toward transparency in government and providing information on all government activity, shouldn't the county residents have the information available at no or minimal cost? Or better yet why not post the recordings on the web as the Utah legislature does? People have the right to know!!





    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.