Airport Ma$ter Plan$

An Analysis of the Necessity of a Heber Airport Master Plan

(planned for FY 2017, beginning July 2016 at a proposed $300,000)

Based on Airport Master Plans AC No.: 150/5070-6B Date: 1/27/2015 (quotes in italics)

It appears that the primary purpose of an Airport Master Plan is to support the modernization or expansion of existing airports. This expansion was already proposed ten years ago, and 'defeated' through the opposition of local residents. However, the issue seems to be in the process of rejuvenation.

104. FUNCTION OF MASTER PLAN STUDIES a. Airport master plans are prepared to support the modernization or expansion of existing airports or the creation of a new airport. The master plan is the sponsor’s strategy for the development of the airport.

It has now been declared this is a “safety upgrade” and NOT an expansion by the (ADVISORY) Airport Board. This push is partly rationalized as needed because jet operations are now exceeding the 'critical Design' factor of “500 annual operations”

Critical (Design) Aircraft – The most demanding aircraft with at least 500 annual operations that operates, or is expected to operate, at the airport.

Operation – The landing, takeoff or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport.

By way of explanation, ONE aircraft making ONE five minute flight, five days a week would meet the 500 annual operation criteria. Stated another way, ONE active jet can be used to justify consideration of a $30 Million airport.

There are less onerous, and expensive, studies that could accomplish any needed purpose. It is unknown to this writer when the last Master Plan was completed, but decade old attempt toward a CII operation likely was introduced by a Master Plan of some type.

Pg 6 An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of the airport and typically describes short-, medium-, and long-term plans for airport development. Master planning studies that address major revisions are commonly referred to as “Master Plans,” while those that change only parts of the existing document and require a relatively low level of effort tend to be known as “Master Plan Updates.”

As to an update, a even less complex plan could be an appropriate alternative. Under the recent situation of the $1 million plus purchase of the Maverik property might have been accommodated through an Airport Layout Plan Update to study the use of a displaced threshold to create the desired runway safety area improved.

Airport Layout Plan Updates –

An update of the ALP drawing set will reflect actual or planned modifications to the airport and significant off airport development.

. . .An ALP drawing set update is an appropriate alternative to a full master plan whenever the fundamental assumptions of the previous master plan have not changed.

Pg 7 If there have not been any major changes in airport activity or improvements that have had unanticipated consequences, a master plan update is not necessary. Another situation where only an ALP update would be appropriate is the examination of a single development item, such as runway safety area improvements.

Determining Type of Study – Deciding whether the study in question will lead to a master plan or to an ALP update largely determines the elements to be included and the required level of effort. Even at this early stage of the process, the airport sponsor and the FAA should be able jointly to determine what type of study is appropriate. The sponsor usually will not make decisions regarding specific variations on the basic study type until the consultant has come on board. Although a master plan study will always include a technical report and an airport layout plan drawing set, supplemental products, which may often be related to public outreach efforts, will usually be determined during the scoping process.

Rather than a STUDY of any possible safety solutions, Heber City simply phoned the FAA who dismissed the idea with little consideration. The result was the loss of a tax-paying business and the purchase of the land to facilitate more weed growth, and the expense of $30,000 allocated tax money to determine a price.

Pg 17 The first task in a master plan study, after the consultant receives a notice-to-proceed, is the creation of a public involvement program

If, or when, Heber opts to continue with the $300,000 study the public will witness new promotions of the benefits of spending $30 MILLION tax dollars on a new expanded CII airport. Most benefits, if any, will be calculated using generous 'multiplier' effects. In reality some benefits might accrue to VERY FEW individuals or businesses.

What type is Heber 36U? One report says “regional.” As the table included in the footnotes demonstrates, it is a very small operation. This reference indicates not much of study should be required for an entity of this size:

Pg 42 3) General Aviation and Reliever Airports

Where the 5- or 10-year forecasts exceed 100,000 total annual operations or 100 based aircraft:

a) Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5-year forecast and 15 percent in the 10-year period, or

b) Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or

100. Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order 5090.3, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.

When the 5- or 10-year forecast is for less than 100,000 total annual operations or 100 based aircraft, the forecast does not need to be reviewed at FAA Headquarters, but the data should be provided to the FAA for the annual update of the TAF.

AFTER the Master Plan (to support) has begun the public will be brought in to express their “concerns” I would suggest the appropriate time to express those concerns is BEFORE the $300K Master Plan is ever begun.

401. TIMING Public involvement has its greatest impact during the early stages of the planning process, before irreversible decisions have been made and while many alternatives can be considered. When the stakeholders become involved before major decisions or commitments are made, the planners can better deal with issues of community concern and improve the chances of reaching a consensus on controversial matters. If stakeholders become aware that the important decisions were made before they were invited to participate, they may distrust the planners. In addition, when public involvement opportunities are not provided until late in the planning process, there may not be enough time to make significant changes. The tendency, instead, will be for planners to merely defend previously determined courses of action, rather than exploring any new alternatives. An effective public involvement program will usually avoid such an undesirable outcome.

Propaganda meetings will come with push polls, etc. finance with the Master Plan expansion promotion (The public can give them some opinions up front! Ipetitions.com Heber Airport)

Pg 79 The emphasis in airport planning is normally on the expansion and improvement of existing airports

Pg 123 Information on the future airport expansion and improvement contained in an airport master plan should be incorporated into the development of comprehensive land use plans to ensure land use compatibility around airports.

Data Effective Date: 02/04/2016

http://www.gcr1.com/5010Web/airport.cfm?Site=36U&AptSecNum=2

Based Aircraft
Single Engine (SE):	69
Multi Engine (ME):	4
Jet (J):	7
TOTAL FIXED WING: (SE + ME + J)	80
Helicopters:	2
Gliders:	16
Military:	0
Ultra-Light:	0
Operations
Air Carrier:	0
Air Taxi:	1,550
General Aviation Local:	6,814
General Aviation Itinerant:	11,104
Military:	0
TOTAL OPERATIONS:	19,468
Operations for 12 Months Ending: 01/01/2012

Heber Light Proposed Rate Increase

Update: The rate increase WAS approved at a postponed  August meeting on 2 Sept.  As a result of some data supplied it appears some commercial users may get increases of up to 400%, while others may get a reduction.  All residential users will get a 6% increase.   The rate increase will occur in  the next billing cycle.

A word to the wise, it may be very appropriate to carefully check your bills.  One user recently found his residential account had been billed in error for several YEARS
*************        *******************
Heber Power Board Members and Heber City Council

As this epistle is too detailed for presentation at the Public Hearing, I'm sending it to the decision makers (Board) in the hope that you will take it under consideration in your decision on the rate increase.

My two major concerns are raising residential rates and the possible reduction in larger commercial, that may not be offset by necessary Peak Power purchases. A minor concern is also the lack of time based rates and its affect on peak power.

At last year's Rate Increase hearing, Mr Pender talked about the concept of “Cost of Causation.” “means that those who cause the utility to incur its costs should be responsible for payment of such costs.” pg 4, COS Study

The imposition, or continuation, of a service charge further hurts those least able to pay bills – the low residential user. But that IS being addressed somewhat, relatively, with the new proposed rates.Removing it or reducing it, with a per kwhr adjustment, might be a better alternative to an increase.

The Board decision to increase impact fees from 40% to 60% was a step in the right direction, in my opinion. I believe last year 75% was recommended.

That does mean, however, that 40% (rather than 60%) of the 'caused' cost burden must be still be borne by the remaining current ratepayers. While this was a good decision, it appears that this proposed rate increase may further the inequitable burden on the residential ratepayer, rather than those who have benefited from the past lower impact fees.

Last year's rate increase presentation used 'examples' showing a standard 4.5% for all users. A closer look showed that not to be true. Smaller commercial faced a larger relative burden that larger commercial. That appears to have been corrected in this year's proposal. All small commercial seems to be getting a rate REDUCTION. This is probably a positive step, for the existing 1185 small businesses, who may have been beneficiaries of the lower impact fees of the past.

It appears that an original 4.5% residential increase has been increased to 6% for all nearly 10,000 users. This does seem strange to me as one of the avowed reasons for municipal (user owned) utilities is lower rates for the 'owners' (municipalities and their residents and taxpayers). The supposed advantage of lower impact fees was encouragement for

Mayor Releases HL&P Board Members

Yesterday in a brief letter, Heber Mayor Alan McDonald dismissed two members from the Heber Power Board of Directors.

Why?   Apparently because he COULD!  

Here's the letter dated 21 May 2014 sent to Heber City Council members Heidi Franco and Kelleen Potter

No explanation, no 'thanks' for your service, just you're gone!  The two board members were appointed TO the Board only a few months ago.

After the three new Council members took their elected positions in January.  The meeting of 16 Jan began some of the controversy of HL&P Board appointments: (incumbent members felt the need to remain on the board, Mayor McDonald disagreed)    "Mayor McDonald indicated he spoke with Blaine Stewart who felt new members would adjust fine. Also, the Heber Light and Power Board bylaws indicated that the Mayor didn’t need the consent of the Council in order to assign other Council members to the board. Council Member Rowland asked to seek clarification on that section of the bylaws. Mayor McDonald read from the bylaws. Mark Smedley stated that language would hinge on

Impact Fees Could Raise Hundreds of Thousands

As Heber Light and Power considers increasing rates on the smaller rate payers, they should FIRST consider raising Impact Fees.

Hired consultant ($20K ?) Pender's Cost of Service study report explained that part of any rate determination was to consider 'Cost Causation.'  Impact fees are designed to do exactly that - recover some of the the cost associated with new development, either commercial or residential.

The current Impact Fee rate collected by HL&P  is reportedly 41% of  the maximum allowable.  A simple raise to 60% would garner $230K, 100% would have yielded $700K.  These rates have been in effect since at least 2006, during some of the largest growth period.  This could be considered the cause of the current shortfall AND debt incurred,

If the cost of new infrastructure is not collected from the developments which are causing it, the remaining costs must be borne by current ratepayers.

Is that 'fair and equitable'? - another determining factor for rate calculation.

"For (HL&P) infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees. This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc."

That means only $1.45M will be collected, increasing to 60% would raise $700K, to 100% = $2Million over 3 year. Why should current rate payers be subsidizing new developments????

A brief Impact Fee overview for the first five months of 2014 can be seen here.

HL&P 4.5% Rate Increase

Heber Light & Power is proposing a RATE INCREASE for all users.    (Well, it may be for all users, except the large ones.)  
PUBLIC HEARING   May 29

Apparently , this increase was approved in the budget by the previous Board (You know the one with the faux PAY increase, which they were required to return.)

While analyzing the proposed rate structure a few questions arise:

Why are rates for residential going up by 4.5%, while commercial seems to be less?

In the rate examples given, residential rates are a constant 4.5%, 'small' commercial increases 4.5%, but that percentage decreases with increases usage above the 3,600 Kwh example.   The 'large' commercial' example at 4.3% increase also appears to decease with increase usage.   In fact, in the given "large" commercial example showed a peak of 250 kW vice the 370 kW used the monthly rate

I'm unsure of the rate increase goals (except for revenue increase) of this complex rate structure are (other than the general "shift demand, green energy supply, economic development"), nor am I certain how, when or if the proposed changes will accomplish those goals.

It appears the examples given might have been chosen to demonstrate an 'equal' % increase, but usage will modify that.  The rate increase appears to benefit increased usage.

(HL & P  Interactive rate computer  This spreadsheet should allow you to create your own suggested rate structure and SEE the results.)

Columns K, L and M of the rate spreadsheet, compiled from the proposed rates, offer a simple two tiered systems which creates a similar proposed rate schedule and a third tier could be added to further reduce the high end users' costs, if needed for 'economic development' and accomplishing your goals.   (Various cells can be modified to determine the results.  As the formulas achieved the same results as the HLP presentation, I assume they are correct.).

It appears the intent is to lower modify the peak DEMAND, but not necessarily the usage.  There could be a HUGE disparity between a 249kW demand and a 251kW (small vs large) bill at marginal rates of $0.0805 vs $0.037 per kWh, thus benefiting a larger peak demand.

It seems like the small households get the most relative dollar hurt - mainly because of the Service charge. 

Rather than raising that service charge by 4.5%, lowering it to, say $5, would help out the 'average' resident by 10 to 20%, -  AND would only decrease HLP revenues by $70K (assuming 10K accounts)

Last comment/question: do hookup, or impact, fees for new connections cover the actually increased cost or is new growth being subsidized by current residents?

One response: "For infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc.  We would never charge %100 because at least 25% of necessary upgrades for these new builds benefits the whole system."
 
If HLP had NOT spent $200 (?) for the new "super" meters ($2,000,000), it may not have needed a rate increase.   Are they really paying for themselves?  If so, how?

My second guess is that there are areas are continuing costs that might be reduced.   Has the money from the loans and credit cards misuse been recovered? 

Reports are circulating that some higher echelon employees receive high six-figure salaries with bonus and 'comfortable' benefit packages.

If HLP had NOT spent $200 each (?) for the new "smart" meters ($2,000,000?), it may not have needed a rate increase.  Have they actually proven their value?  If so, how?

Have the dividends to the cities increased for 2014?   (apparently not = $300K)

Who is actually paying for street lights?   Is the $73,819 'donated' by HLP?  For what lights? What determine who pays the other $20K? (see *below)   Do 'rural' developments get donated light electricity?   If so, why not let the HOA pay?

 *WHEREAS the Heber Light & Power Company (“the Company”) practice is not to
charge municipalities or the county for the energy charges for street lights (“energy charges for
street lights”).
 
 WHEREAS, to implement this practice, the Company records the estimated energy
charges for street lights but annually writes-off these charges.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
HEBER LIGHT & POWER COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
 
 The Company hereby writes-off the 2013 energy charges for street lights in the amount of
$66,963.

 I appreciate slide 29 ("? ? ?") pg 54

In short, my suggestions are reduce expenses, eliminate the service charges, implement a simpler rate structure and ensure that growth is covering its costs.   All these proposals for no extra cost.

PUBLIC HEARING   May 29 6:00 PM,   Heber City Council Room      Click on the link for MORE info.

Heber Mayoral Race and Council Support

What happens in Heber, does not (necessarily) stay in Heber.  

AND it certainly can affect most of Wasatch County.   

(updated 1 Nov)

As I am not a resident of Heber City, I am unable to vote in the upcoming election.  Consequently, I'm a suggesting, recommending and urging a vote for Alan McDonald for Mayor.  Further if given the opportunity, I would vote for Heidi Franco and Danny Goode for Council.

This trio are fiscally conservative and, generally, favor smaller, limited government directed more towards protecting rights, rather than providing 'benefits.'

Specifically, Alan McDonald:

• Has proven himself fiscally conservative and an able spokesman for reliable government
• He has 'hawk-eyed' the budget and opposed the tax increase early in his Council term
• He was a leader in trying to correct the Heber Light faux pay fiasco
• He brought rationality to the overdone  veterans' Memorial
• 
  
• Has lead the way in proposing changes in City Government,
• Attempted to clarify government, proposing many code changes
• Introduced the concept of a Financial Manager for responsibility and balance, which was virtually tabled, but is now being reconsidered
• Proposed studies for law enforcement - which, though not completed, led to greater cooperation,
• Is an honest, well spoken gentleman who will continue to look out for local business and the needs of Heber citizens.

Heidi Franco, whom I've known for MANY years, is a proven political and governmental expert and will blend that knowledge with practical experience in protecting the 'rural' feel, while applying proven fiscally principles.

Danny Goode, a relative new-comer to the Valley, has shown to be a quick study and has gained a great understanding of local history and politics.  As an educated business man, he too will work toward great fiscal policies while protecting individual rights.

Two new faces for the City Council (Heidi and Danny) and the one with the most experience as Mayor (Four years on the Council) - Alan.   A fresh start and rejuvenation for Heber City, with a spirit of cooperation.

Not requested, approved or sanctioned by any candidate, merely my opinion after years of following local government and personal contact with the various candidates.

The other two Council candidates, seem to be very competent and able and will continue to serve the community in various ways.   For my personal taste, they seem to much in favor of larger government, more growth, airport expansion and showed less  depth of knowledge of local issues and conservative policy that my suggested candidates in our radio discussion/debate

*****************      *****************  *****************

The write-in Mayoral candidate opted out of the primary this summer, he now reports: "I originally decided to pull out of the race back in July. My family had been going through some significant trials that demanded I give my full attention at home. It really just came down my family needing me more than I needed to be running for mayor."

********************   ********************* 

Another local blogger opines: "It is time to kick the GOOD OLD BOY SYSTEM out the door and to stop electing someone because they have a last name we recognize!!" 

Wasn't his favored candidate elected in the same system Heber City now still uses?

He also states, his candidate "c(a)me up with Heber Unplugged, which was a HUGE success"     (With a photo-shopped front page of the local paper)

Yes, it may be new to Heber and it's great that it was introduced here, BUT "unplugged" concept programs have been around for quite some time - try an internet search. 
e.g  Kids Unplugged  Jenni and Tommy's Kids Unplugged Baby Unplugged. etc.

Is Heber Unplugged sufficient qualification to run Heber City government?

"When they asked about the cost, (he) told them that the initial start up of the program would cost $3,500, with many of the perks of the program included in that price. "We want it to be as turn key as possible for anyone who wishes to use the program,"  Sun Advocate Article Is this now a business?  I believe this program was created with city seed money a city employee assistance.

Is there really something extra special about being a "write-in" candidate?

Heber City:  Some arcane points to consider in this year's  Heber City election.

• There will be two NEW Council members after the election. (four candidates)
• There are two candidates to be the new Mayor (two regular candidates and one write-in)
• Two of these are currently on the City Council, one whose term is expiring.
• The other (write-in) is half way through the first term
• IF the write-in candidate is elected, that position would be VACANT
• The "legislative body" (new Council) in accordance with 20A-1-510.   Midterm vacancies in municipal offices.   would then appoint a replacement for the remaining two years.

Heber City has had, for some time, a problem with discerning what TYPE of government it is.  But it appears that they MAY have  decided they are (or may be) "operating under the council-mayor form of government" in which the Mayor would have the right to vote (or, possibly, would vote only in the case of a tie) on the new Council member.  

If the write-in/current council member is chosen as the new Mayor, he could have the deciding vote as to who his replacement might be.   If either of the other Mayoral candidates wins, no replacement would be needed.     

Which is more appropriate an elected member, or one appointed by the one they would replace?

HL & P Board agrees to RETURN money

1 August 2013, 624 days after approving a retroactive in-lieu-of "health insurance" payment scam, the final few elected officials on the Heber Light and Power Board have reluctantly agreed to return their ill-gotten gains, totaling about $40,000 of taxpayer or ratepayer money.   (BTW, the increase was 362% - not 262% as the faux pay was ADDED to their ~$500 monthly directors' pay) (CRC = Civil Review Committee in the Utah Attorney General's Office)

The full 11 page report from the Utah Attorney General can be found here.     Here's an excerpt from the response from Heber Light:     Full letter found here

Heber City Race websites

Heber City Mayoral Candidate Websites.

Alan McDonald       “My mission is to provide local government leadership that improves the quality of life of Heber City residents by reducing the financial and regulatory burden imposed by the city, promoting economic growth and the success of local businesses, and preserving the character and heritage of the city."

Mike Bardole       "Accountability and Transparency"

Erik Rowland      (Resigned)    "Thank you everyone…"


Heber City Council 

Anissa Wardell    "As I make my way around the city and talk to people I have noticed that one of the top issues with most residents is what is happening at Heber Light & Power. It’s not a surprise that this is at the top of the list of concerns as Heber City residents we have the right to be concerned. "

Danny Goode      " If elected I will launch a new era of full transparency and accountability at City Hall. After every City Council meeting I will post to this website the agenda, minutes, and tell you my thoughts and explain my votes regarding city issues. You may not always agree with me, but you will always know where I stand."

Joe Chenworth       "He is a fiscal conservative.  His primary goal is to give a voice in local government back to the citizens of Heber City. "

Kelleen Potter     " I believe in good government.  Like a good recipe, good government requires some specific ingredients.    The beauty of local government is that it requires a certain level of consensus to accomplish anything."

Rod Hopkins     "I believe Heber City is a well-managed corporation due in large part to sound fiscal practices and a city staff that are very dedicated.  As a new member of the City Council, I would be in favor of continuing this conservative fiscal approach to the management of our city."

Heidi Franco     "Protecting Open space, clean air. . . your property rights.  Fiscal Conservative  Ethical Principles."

Mike Thurber

Open Letter to HLP Faux Pay Recipients

Dear Mayor Philips (and Council),

I apologize that I forgot our anniversary on February 22. It has now been over a year since you personally promised me, and other Heber Valley residents, in a video taped HL & P meeting to refund your February in-lieu-of faux “health care” benefits from Heber Light and Power as a pittance of unacknowledged remorse. (primarily for getting caught)

It was recently discovered that, in addition to refusing to return the ratepayers money you received for a few months in 2011 and 12 AND retroactively for six months, you also did not fulfill your vow to return the February $1687 “insurance” payment. Instead you merely did not accept your regular monthly pay of $596, thereby pocketing an extra $1091 for you monthly 90 minute meetings, and 'direction'.

At this point, I would strongly suggest one of three options:

1. With your next Mayor's Corner, offer an apology with a copy of the return check for the $12,900 in faux pay. ('If I knew people would be so upset, we wouldn't have done.' as you said on KUTV, is not an apology.)
2. Donate $17,900 to the Half million dollar Veterans Memorial fund as a return of funds and an appropriate penalty - that might give you a tax deduction.  
3. Join us on the Impact program to offer an apology and explanation.  If you bring a check with you, we would be happy to return the money to Heber Light for you.

I look forward to your positive response. 

For Mayor Tatton, a check for $11,600 and an apology would also be appropriate. or a donation of $16,600 to the Memorial Hill Restoration fund.  It was good to see you did forgo four months of regular pay to offset your Feb 2012 faux pay, better fulfilling Mayor Philips' vow.  You, too, are cordially invited to join us on the radio, you can even come at the same time as your cohort, if you like.

PS to the City Council(s): As two of the members of the current Council have return these questionable funds, two did not receive and one, Robert Patterson, has not, I call on you to collectively pass a resolution of censure for these actions and call for an immediate return of the ill-gotten gains.   Former Councilman Nile Horner's lack of repayment should not be forgotten.

Your fellow Heber citizens may be surprised to learn you have not already taken action to do so. As this is an election year, I would suggest not taking voter apathy as acquiescence or approval.

If a petition requesting such a censure request is needed, that might be arranged. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/heberlight/

Petition by iPetitions

SAO Report on HLP Board Health Benefits

The Utah State Auditor has reported on the citizens' complaint about the retroactive health benefits.  (highlights added)

December 17, 2012

Board of Directors

Heber Light & Power Co.

31 South 100 West

Heber City, Utah 84032

Dear Board of Directors:

We appreciate the response from Mr. Joseph Dunbeck to our inquiry regarding the allegations at Heber Light & Power. Specifically, it is alleged that Board members: a) planned, prepared, instituted, and accepted compensation for themselves in lieu of a health insurance benefit, and b) received stipends for attendance of meetings, both in state and out of state.

We have determined the following:

1. Heber Light & Power is subject to the laws regulating its government members.

The Attorney General’s Office considered in its Informal Opinion No. 87-31 what laws apply to an Interlocal Cooperation Act entity, specifically, whether the requirements of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities applied to the Tri-City Golf Course Committee, an Entity created by agreement among American Fork City, Pleasant Grove City, and Lehi City.

The Attorney General’s Informal Opinion considered first the Utah Supreme Court case, CP National Corporation v. Pubic Service Commission, 638 P.2d 519 (1981), which addressed not the “negative” application of the laws, i.e., what laws apply to regulate an interlocal entity, but the “positive” application, i.e., what powers an interlocal entity has. The Court held that “the intent of the act [Interlocal Cooperation Act] appears to be to allow municipalities collectively to exercise powers which they already possess individually.” Id. at 521.

Based on the above court case, the Attorney General’s Informal Opinion indicated that the Interlocal Cooperation Act similarly applies to the “negative” or regulatory laws to which an interlocal entity is subject, stating that “[i]t is clear…that an entity created under the Inter-local Co-Operation Act cannot exercise powers in excess of those possessed by its creators….[C]ities may not grant powers to an interlocal agency which they do not possess themselves individually. It necessarily follows that cities have no power or authority to act in contravention to the requirements of the Fiscal Procedures Act and they cannot endow their interlocal progeny with such power or authority.” Opinion at p. 2.

Given this authority, the State Auditor’s Office has always held that interlocal agreements should be subject to the same regulatory environment as the creating entities. However, it is one thing to say laws applying to a municipality shall also apply to the interlocal entity, and another to actually apply them. In attempting to apply municipal statutes related to employee benefits, including compensation, we encounter some legal quandaries, addressed below.

2. We cannot answer the question whether the compensation in lieu of health benefits violates the Municipal Code, and suggest seeking a legal opinion from the appropriate authority.

In regards to whether a municipal officer, regulated by the provisions of Utah Code 10-3-818 with regard to salary, can receive any compensation from the interlocal entity, or whether that result in an inappropriate increase in salary under 10-3-818, or an inappropriate economic privilege under Utah Code 10-3-1304, note the following:

Utah Code 10-3-818 provides specifically:

(1) The elective and statutory officers of municipalities shall receive such compensation for their services as the governing body may fix by ordinance adopting compensation or compensation schedules enacted after public hearing.

(2) Upon its own motion the governing body may review or consider the compensation of any officer or officers of the municipality…for the purpose of determining whether or not it should be adopted, changed, or amended. In the event that the governing body decides that the compensation or compensation schedules should be adopted, changed, or amended, it shall set a time and place for a public hearing at which all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

And, the Municipal Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act (Utah Code 10-3-1304) provides that:

(2) It is an offense for an elected or appointed officer…to:

….

(b) Use or attempt to use the officer’s or employee’s official position to:

(i) further substantially the officer’s or employee’s personal economic interest; or

(ii) secure special privileges for the officer or employee or for others….

In conjunction with these two sections are the instructions provided in the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Utah Code 11-13-222) that:

(1) Each officer and employee performing services for two or more public agencies under an agreement under this chapter shall be considered to be:

(a) an officer or employee of the public agency employing the officer or employee’s services even though the officer or employee performs those functions outside of the territorial limits of any one of the contracting public agencies;

….

(3) All of the privileges, immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances, and rules, pensions and relief, disability, workers compensation, and other benefits that apply to an officer, agent, or employee of a public agency apply to the same degree and extent when the officer, agent, or employee performs functions or duties under the agreement outside the territorial limits of that public agency.

Utah Code 11-13-222 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act seems to support the Attorney General’s Informal Opinion specifically with reference to matters like compensation of officers and employees, underscoring the fact that the employing municipality’s regulations are controlling.

The question of interpretation remains. We know, of course, that the officers already receive compensation, and the question being asked is simply whether the additional compensation is appropriate. That is a legal question that we do not have the authority to answer.

3. At the very least, a hearing should have been held to allow public input as required by the Municipal Code.

If it is determined that a municipal officer may receive compensation as an officer of an interlocal entity, it seems clear to us that the provisions of Utah Code 10-3-818 requiring a municipality to hold a public hearing would apply to the interlocal entity. Based on Mr. Dunbeck’s response, it appears that a public hearing was not held regarding compensation of board members until two months after the board approved the budget which included the increased compensation.

In conclusion, we believe that both the Attorney General’s Informal Opinion and Utah Code 11-13-222 make Utah Code 10-3-818 and 10-3-1404 applicable to Heber Light & Power. However, we recommend that you contact the Attorney General’s Office and/or seek clarification of the laws through legislation.

We can say that to the extent it is determined appropriate for municipal officers/board members to receive compensation for their services to Heber Light & Power, a public hearing should have been held to vet the decision by the board to participate in the entity’s health insurance plan. Because it was not, the policy should be voided until the appropriate procedures have been followed.

We appreciate the courtesy and assistance extended to us by the personnel of Heber Light & Power during the course of the investigation. If you have any questions, please contact Ryan Roberts, Audit Supervisor, at (801) 538-1721.

Sincerely,

Auston G. Johnson, CPA

Utah State Auditor

SAO Audit Requested

As there has been little progress in recovering the remainder of the excessive pay received by the HL & P Board (see posts below) an audit request has been submitted to the State Auditor's Office

"The "State Auditor Hotline" provides an avenue for citizens, including government employees, to report suspected financial improprieties or violations of laws or regulations by state and local governments; waste of public funds or resources; and/or constructive suggestions for improving state and local governments regarding financial-related matters, internal control, or compliance. The Hotline coordinates the efforts of existing resources, rather than duplicating efforts of authority already in place."

****   ****  ****

We residents of Wasatch County and Heber Light and Power ratepayers hereby “report suspected financial improprieties or violations of laws or regulations by state and local governments; waste of public funds” and request an audit of Heber Light and Power and/or its owners, Heber City, Midway and Charleston.

We have contacted "the government officials (including the county attorney) directly involved in the issue(s) the chance to take action or modify procedures." They were "not responsive."

HOTLINE REPORTING FORM

Who is the person(s) the complaint is against? (Please provide name, position, agency, division, and phone #) Dave Phillips, Chair (Heber City)(654-0574,davphillips@gmail.com);  Connie Tatton (Midway) (654-2416,midwaycityut.org); John Whiting (Charleston)(654-2343, jcwhiting@yahoo.com) – (Human Resources Committee) - and possibly other members of the Heber Light & Power Board of Directors

Who is the above person’s supervisor? (Please provide name, position, and phone#) They are the governing board of Heber Light and Power.   There does not appear to be any supervision or oversight of the Board.

What is the assertion of improper governmental activity? Please describe in detail. Planning, preparing, instituting and accepting a four-fold plus pay increase for themselves, an annual amount which would have been more that half of the dividend normally paid to the cities owning HL & P and about the same as collected from residents in recently passed service charge fees.

When did the event(s) take place? Please include dates, time, and frequency. Specifically, at a meeting 16 Nov 2011, and some time period before preparing and continuing payments. In that meeting under an agenda item of “Employee & Exempt Employee Manual Amendments” the board (with two absent members) approved an effective monthly pay raise of $1,687, supposedly for “health care benefits.” That agenda item appears to be a violation of the intent of the Open Meetings Act; the discussion on the the pay raise (retroactive “health insurance” benefit) lasted less than one minute. (audio available) These “benefit” payments were made retroactive for a period of several months resulting in a payment in December 2011 of $10,122 per board member and continuing payments in January and February 2012 for $1687. This payment was in addition to their “regular” monthly payments of about $466 ($599 for chair). The board generally spends less than 2 hours per month in a board meeting. One board member refused to accept the payment as excessive and subsequently, after a citizen petition protesting the action, 7 or 8 of the recipients have reportedly returned, or agreed to return, the funds. The online petition collected about 570 signatures a few hundred were collected on paper. Mayors Philips and Tatton and Heber Councilman Patterson have refused to return the money as they indicated they believed it had been “earned.” Mr. Patterson was not even a board member in 2011, but received $4.050 as part of a shared compensation plan among Council members. The remaining Council members returned their share of the money. Charleston Town President John Whiting reportedly is returning the money by not accepting his monthly payment. Phillips, Tatton and Whiting were members of the “Human Resource” Committee and/or the Personnel committee which formulated the so-called health benefit plan over a period of two years. Other board members have reported they were unaware of the proposal until it was presented at the November Board meeting. The two members who were NOT present learned about it after the meeting. At a meeting of the Board in January, public comment were allowed, but no explanation was offered, no discussion on the issue was held and no questions were answered. At the February Board meeting, future payments were suspended. After pointed questioning, Chair Phillips indicated he would not take the February payment, but repayment was a “personal decision.”

Where did the event(s) occur? Heber City, UT

Are there any other persons who might provide information or who witnessed the event? If so, what are their names, positions, agencies, divisions, and their contact information? Other board members at the time: Mike Kohler (Wasatch Co.) (654-3728), mikekohler2009@gmail.com) Alan McDonald, alw_mcdonald@msn.com, Benny Mergist, 801 404-7765, bencajun@yahoo.com and management and employees of HL & P

Is there evidence that can be examined or documentation that can be reviewed? (Please provide any documentation you have) Meeting records, recordings, documentation can be found here with accompanying links.

How do you know about the improper action? Did you see it occur? Did you see documentation indicating it occurred? Did you hear about it from someone else? Documentation, reports from others, failure of response and explanation from those involved. No Board responses from petition submitted at meeting and numerous requests for an explanation. County Attorney was non-responsive in requests from several citizens to investigate the situation.

What specific law or state regulation has been violated? Possibly, Open Meetings Act, Municipal Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act, perhaps more, specifically 10-3-818.   Salaries in municipalities.      (1) The elective and statutory officers of municipalities shall receive such compensation for their services as the governing body may fix by ordinance adopting compensation or compensation schedules enacted after public hearing.      (2) Upon its own motion the governing body may review or consider the compensation of any officer or officers of the municipality or a salary schedule applicable to any officer or officers of the city for the purpose of determining whether or not it should be adopted, changed, or amended. In the event that the governing body decides that the compensation or compensation schedules should be adopted, changed, or amended, it shall set a time and place for a public hearing at which all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. 10-3-1309.   Inducing officer or employee to violate part prohibited.      It is a class A misdemeanor for any person to induce or seek to induce any appointed or elected officer or municipal employee to violate any of the provisions of this part. 10-3-1304.   Use of office for personal benefit prohibited. (b) use or attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to:      (i) further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest; or      (ii) secure special privileges for the officer or employee or for others; 17B-1-308.   Boards of trustees comprised of county or municipal legislative body members.      (1) (e) board members may not receive compensation for their service as board members in addition to compensation they receive as members of a county or municipal legislative body. Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act. 67-16-4 . . it is an offense for a public officer, public employee, (c) use or attempt to use his official position to:      (i) further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest; or      (ii) secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others; 67-16-5 (1)(b) compensation received for private services rendered at a rate substantially exceeding the fair market value of the services. 67-16-11. Applicability of provisions. “The provisions of this chapter apply to all public officers and public employees”. 26-20-6. Conspiracy to defraud prohibited. “ A person may not enter into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the state by obtaining or aiding another to obtain the payment or allowance of a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim of a medical benefit.” 11-13-222.   Officers and employees performing services under agreements. (2) Unless otherwise provided in an agreement that creates an interlocal entity, each employee of a public agency that is a party to the agreement shall:      (b) continue to be governed by the rules, rights, entitlements, and status that apply to an employee of that public agency.

PAY Raise Rescinded, but Payback Refused

Update 28 Feb:  While the HL&P Board "terminated" their "health" benefit, no decision was made for returning the back (and retroactive) pay.  These amounts are what they were PAID for "health" insurance.    This does NOT include their 'regular' HLP Board pay of ca. $500, other board payments, or their regular pay as elected officials. As HC Councilmen "share" their board payments these amounts could be higher.   The HC Council (excl. the Mayor) have informally agreed NOT to accept the Jan and Feb payments per Email.  Proposals are being considered to modify board payments.

An updated list of the amounts received in this pay raise can be found here.

************** 

At the HLP Board meeting, the first action after a (very) brief discussion was a unanimous vote to TERMINATE (rather than rescind) the November stealth four-fold Pay RAISE. (disguised as "health benefits")

After being queried when the raise was terminated, Mayor Phillips finally said it would be for February and it was a direct deposit to him and he would return THAT payment.

When asked, repeatedly, if they would return the pay already received Phillips, Tatton, Bradshaw, and Patterson all refused to answer. (Kohler had already refused payment)    Phillips said it was a "personal decision" - the 50 or so at the meeting expressed their collective displeasure at that response.

The Board members were also silent in response to an invitation to present an explanation onthe radio -but were preparing a written explanation. (justification?) (thereby avoiding pesky questions)

Councilman Alan McDonald explained to his former the error of their ways - and was basically met with vacant stares.  (Click here for transcript of his remarks)

Click here for a recording of meeting comments.

KUTV reporter Dan Rascon was doing interviews and reported live after the meeting.

"From residents, to a radio talk show host, to a city councilman – they’re all angry and upset over what board members who govern the Heber Light and Power Company did at a meeting last year. . . . Hebery (sic) City Mayor Dave Phillips is the chairman of the board – he says he is going to listen to the outcry but doesn't believe the board did anything wrong."


Here's the SLTrib report on the meeting  

"Heber City • Rushing to quell a firestorm of angry rate payers, the part-time board of the Heber Light & Power Co. voted unanimously Wednesday to rescind a benefit of $1,687 per month.

Nonetheless, board members got an earful from residents who called their actions "unethical," "self-serving" and "arrogant," among other things."

Open Letter to Pay Recipients

Enough is Enough - Wasatch County residents want to know

An Open letter to recipients of the HL & P pay raise
(1/27 Via Email to: David Phillips, Connie Tatton, John Whiting, Mike Kohler, Benny Mergist, Alan McDonald, Nile Horner, Robert Patterson, Eric Straddeck, Erik Rowland, Jeff Bradshaw)

First, let me offer my apologies for the delivery of my comments at the recent Heber Light and Power Board meeting; some have said I may have sounded "angry."  I felt it was not proper that an explanation was not offered and that no question were answered by those who made that decision.

Be that as it may, I'm sure you are all aware that the decision to award "in-lieu" of pay to the members of the the  has not received overwhelmingly approval by the community.

As a strong believer in openness and transparency, I am therefore offering any of you the opportunity to:
 1. Join the IMPACT program to express anything you have to say on this subject;
 2. Join the IMPACT program answer questions this subject;
 3. Respond via email with your comments; OR
 4. Call me to explain or discuss the issue. 
I have substantial information about the decision, but there are still many question to be answered.

Last, but certainly not least, I would strongly urge that each and everyone of you NOT to be recipients of ANY payments dispensed from HL&P until the situation is resolved, AND better yet, that any and all funds be returned in the name of fairness to those who pay the bills.

Regards,
Bob Wren.

Response, I've had a few,

But then again, too few to mention. . . . 

It did bring this:

Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 4:00 PM

Hi All,

I was finally able to visit with Tony about the decision made at the last Heber Power board meeting.  I apologize for not being there but our Council meeting ended up conflicting with it.  I will try to do better in the future.

That said, I am concerned about the decision made by the board to offer health insurance (or equivalent cash)to themselves.   I can’t think of any reason to justify that amount of money coming to the board.  The $500.00 per month is at the top side of anything justifiable based on the amount of time and effort spent doing that job.  I could even support  reasonable extra compensation to those board members who spend time over and above normal board meetings to help manage the company, but not this. 

With all due respect to the board’s actions, I would request that this item be reconsidered and reversed at our next meeting.  In my opinion, it is this kind of excesses that turn the public against those in political office. 

We represent the people and should be doing all possible to deliver government services at the best price possible.   We, the board of Heber Light and Power, recently imposed a rate increase on our customers.  It was calculated to be the least cost amount needed to deliver an expected rate of return to the company to help maintain good long term financial health.   I was opposed to that increase based on timing and present economic conditions.  I am opposed to this increase in Board compensation, not only because it is excessive, but also because it will use up about 25% of that rate increase, possibly requiring another increase in rates to compensate for it.   It is excessive based on any reasonable compensation for time spent.  Please let us reconsider our actions.

Respectfully, 

Mike Kohler

Wasatch County Council

And this:

Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:38 AM

Fellow Board Members

After some thought on this matter I support Mr. Kohler's opinion . I have ask Mark Anderson to return my portion of the insurance stipend to Heber Light and Power.

Thank you,

Benny Mergist

Further on 2/1/2012:

At the end of 2011, Heber City received a check for $20,249.28 from Heber Light and Power, to cover the insurance benefit appointed to myself and Alan McDonald, who were representing the Heber City Council as HL&P board members for 2011. (I wish to note that Alan was not present for the vote regarding this insurance benefit.) The current Heber City policy divides any and all board payments received from any paying boards in behalf of its council members, between all five council members. Thus when this payment was divided by 5, each Heber City council member’s portion was $4049.86. (I also wish to note the other Heber City council members did not participate in the vote regarding this issue or ask to receive this payment.) We each received a net amount less social security and taxes. I returned to HL&P the gross amount of my portion which was $4049.86.

I wish to clarify I did not return “a” portion, but the entire portion of which I received. To quote me as saying I returned as much of the money as I had available, that I wished it were more, or that this depletes everything my wife and I have in savings was also incorrect.

I sincerely apologize for my error in judgment on this matter and I am earnestly striving to make restitution.  I no longer serve on the HL&P board, but appeal to all current board members to rescind the decision regarding insurance benefits paid to board members.

Sincerely,

Benny Mergist

Heber City Council Member

And This

To Heber City Council and former Members:

We are all aware of the HLP health benefits package and the extra compensation that has been given to the City Council.  I am informing the city council that I am returning the portion of the money that I have received due to this health benefits package back to HLP.  What you decide to do with your portions is up to you.

  I would like to make a statement to the council concerning boards and committees that the city council members have been appointed to.   When a city council member has been asked to fill an appointed position on a board or committee, they represent the whole governing body of the city, and should act in the best interest of the city.  Their actions or in-actions, must reflect the position of the governing body of the city and not their own personal interests.  We do no sever on these committed and boards due to any personal achievement of our own; rather we serve on these positions because the Mayor has asked us to represent the governing body of Heber City.

   With that in mind, I feel the governing body should make a decision concerning the HLP board health benefits package as a body, and voice that opinion through our representatives on the board.  I ask the City Council representatives on the HLP board to reconsider the actions take by some of the HLP board members in November and remove from the amendments of HLP Employee and Exempt Employee Manual the health benefit that the board members receive.  I would like the City Council to resole to a vote on how the city and the governing body should be represented on the board by the council's representatives.

   I vote to rescind this health care benefit that has been extend to the HLP Board members and to remove the amendments allowing it.  I respect each of you and your position concerning the best interests of the council and the city.  But we need to make it clear to the public and to HLP Board what the city council's position is on this issue.  So I would suggest to the council, that we have  Mark Anderson  put this on the February 2nd regular meeting agenda, so the council can take a vote on it.

   What each council members does with the money that they have received is up to each individual, but I recommend that the council and former council member return all monies received from this action. 

Respectfully:

Alan McDonald