Stop Sign Study Released

Two years after the proposal to reconsider four way stop signs, the County Council met (10/6 - no minutes available, but Neil Anderton's report below) and decided 5-2 to continue the use on 1200 South and 2400 South.


Contrary to the local action, Cottonwood Heights (with input from GILSON ENGINEERING, INC.)  has adopted a Stop Sign Removal Policy declaring "it is very important to use stop signs only in locations that warrant their use. . . . As explicitly stated in the MUTCD, stop signs should not be used for the purpose of calming traffic. Some of these signs are poorly or improperly placed, and, as a result, many motorists fail to stop, which decreases safety and increases the potential for an accident."  . . . 


Further they cite:

• "STOP Signs should not be used for speed control."
• "STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the number of  vehicles having to stop."
• "In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped."
• "A stop sign should not be installed on a major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study"

The vote was theoretically based on the report done by Civco Engineering from Vernal and public input.  The report issued 15 September has the appearance of the same study done in 2003 which initially recommended all way stops.  The charts with the report all bear the 2003 date, with a recent revision date.


The "study" itself states, "The placement of stop sign recommendations will  be based upon . . . a field review of sight distances, . . . traffic volumes" and some other items.  "data . . . will be . . . analyzed and tested against AASHTO design standards. . . "information based upon the AASHTO design . . . will (be) included . . . "

Immediately following that description of what will be studied and reported, the report continues by giving the recommendations that ALL, but one, of the intersections on 1200 and 2400S should have ALL way stop signs.  The reasons given:  "sight distance from all directions . . . is good" = 4 way stop; "sight distance . . . is fair to poor" = 4 way stop; ". . . is good" = 3 way stop (ALL directions); ". . . average to poor" = 3 way, 4 way stops, etc. etc.



The only intersection recommended as a Two Way stop is 1200 East and 2400 South with "a sight distance of average to poor" - which is exactly what currently exists and what was recommended in 2003.



The report given to the public (me) includes NO traffic information, and no designated standards referenced to AASHTO.   (Those standards are not readily available, except by purchase for $233, and are not available in the local planning office.)


No mention on traffic volumes other than they "indicate these roadways are classified as residential usage."   No mention that the East West traffic on both streets accounts for 80 to 90% of the traffic.  No mention that the current stop stop signs (east and west) are treated, at best, as 'yield' signs. No mention that these streets are designated as Major Collectors in the County general plan.


Questions:

• Why not use a local company for the study? 
• Did the Council actually read the study?
• How much money was paid for the study?
• Why wasn't the Planning staff involved in the process?
• Was there more to the study than the 4 page report and 4 page of stop sign pictures?
• Why doesn't Wasatch County adopt Cottonwood Heights policy?

A companion study on speed limits in the county was also submitted (dated Aug. 31, 2010).   Recommendation for 1200 South  -  40 MPH (one can only assume, with the 4 way stops)  It is unknown whether that recommendation was accepted by the County Council.


Anderton Report of meeting: "The Council reconsidered the study and report completed by CivCo Engineering firm of Vernal, Utah. Their recommendation was to keep everything the same as now exists on 1200 So, 2400 So as well as other travel patterns in the County. Yours truly and Mike Kohler on the Council argued that there are still concerns by citizens that at least the 4-way signs at 1200 So and 4800 East, 3600 East and 2400 East ought to be only 2-way signs. The Sheriff, Tod Bonner and Kent Berg, County Director of Public Works spoke in favor of keeping the 4-way signs intact due to the safety of many including children who ride bikes and walk on the road way since the area has no side walks. Several other citizens gave their view in favor of keeping the 4-way signs. After some discussion the motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation of the engineering company completing the study. The vote was 5 aye votes and 2 nay votes. Yours truly and Councilman Kohler opposed wanting further study done. The data given by the company doing the study will by requested by yours truly to see what additional material was given from the original study."

Four Way Stops - continued

Useless Stop Signs  - (and  procrastination by committee)

Just over two years ago, a proposal was made to the Wasatch County Council to consider changing four way stops to two way stops, particularly on 1200 South. The proposal included a study done by the Institute of Traffic Engineers regarding all-way stops which indicated that multi-highway stops do not control speed except under very limited conditions.   (Minutes below)

It was discussed that the stop signs were routinely ignored going east and west as many drivers recognized there was little traffic traveling north and south. Having unnecessary stop signs tends to create a general disregard for NEEDED signs.   A 'committee' was set up to discuss the issue. No one seems to know if it ever met.

Last year, in October, this item was reintroduced to the Council by Councilman Anderton, complete with a petition from local residents favoring the idea of two way stop. (Minutes below)

The Council seemed generally in agreement to consider the issue. This time there was a motion for a traffic study to update the almost ten year old previous study. Nearly a year later , there are rumors that a study was done, but apparently no one has seen it as copies do not seem to be available. 

Recently, a private study was done indicated that 86% of the traffic on 1200 South travel east and west and about 80% of the cars passing through the intersection at 2400 E fail to come to complete stop, many barely slow down.

About two weeks ago the Council clarified once again that traffic plans designate 1200 South as a "major collector," which means basically a through street designed to facilitate the easy flow of traffic through the area. Having four way stops impedes that flow, wastes fuel, spews unnecessary exhaust from the trucks and diesel buses to the LDS Girls' Camp, and creates noise for the poor souls who live at the corners. The recent plan also called for widening 1200 South to three lanes within 10 years or so. Removing the stop signs would provide more efficient movement than widening the road, which would also have a substantial cost.  "Another study (62) found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,402.92 (1988 cost) per intersection when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections."

Reasons to Keep 4 way stop (and rebuttal):

• They keep the speed down. "Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding."  Institute of Traffic Engineers; "there is no real evidence to indicate that STOP signs decrease the overall speed of traffic. Impatient drivers view the additional delay caused by unwarranted STOP signs as “lost time” to be made up by driving at higher speeds between STOP signs. ." Institute of Traffic Engineers  If speeds DO increase, there a source of revenue in speeding tickets. ; -)
• They enhance safety. "Unwarranted STOP signs breed disrespect by motorists who tend to ignore them or only slow down without stopping. This can sometimes lead to tragic consequences." Institute of Traffic Engineers 
• My mother-in-law, cousin or . . .  likes them.
• We had/have extra signs
• The Feds made (paid) us to do it.   Show us the report, study and rationale for doing it.

It is long past time for the county to complete the study, stop the procrastination, and work towards creating a traffic plan that facilitates traffic movement rather than hampers it. If the perceived problem is speed, the answer is enforcement NOT stop signs. Heber City made an appropriate decision to raise the speed limit on Mill Road from 25 to 35 mph last year, perhaps they should also do the same on the newly renovated five lane Center Street. Roads are, or should be, for moving traffic.


AUGUST 6, 2008 County Council meeting minutes
DISCUSSION ON STOP SIGNS AT FOUR WAY STOPS
Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that the speed limits in 2001 Wasatch County was resurveyed and in 2003 when the roads in the Center Creek area were upgraded Wasatch County did another survey because the roads were made wider and gone from twenty feet to twenty-six feet.

The residential speed limit in the Center Creek area is thirty-five miles per hour with four-way stops at each one of those intersections because of ASTO guidelines. (Ed Note: No organization called ASTO was found by GOOGLE) Kent Berg indicated that having four-way stops almost eliminates accidents at those intersections and are serving a great purpose even though a lot of people don’t like them.

Robert Wren, a concerned citizen living in the Center Creek area, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that he is the one that brought the subject up about the four-way stops. Robert indicated that he has watched as he has driven up 1200 South and very few people are stopping at these four-way signs and just running the stop signs at thirty-five miles per hour. Robert then went on to discuss a study done by the Institute of Traffic Engineers regarding all-way stops and the study indicated that multi-highway stops do not control speed except under very limited conditions.

Robert then asked the Wasatch County Council to make the intersections on 1200 South two-way stops instead of four-way stops.

Al Mickelsen, the Wasatch County Planner, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that before Wasatch County puts up four-way stops signs or any stop signs Wasatch County has got to make sure that the roads where the stop signs are being put in don’t impede the function of that  road which means you don’t want to put a stop sign on a major collector road which is made to move the traffic. The only major collector roads Wasatch County has is Lake Creek, 1200 South and 2400 south and Mill Road.

The Wasatch County Council indicated that they would like more study to be done and instructed Al Mickelsen, Kent Bert and Councilman Anderton get together and look at the situation and then bring the matter back before the Wasatch County Council.

10/21/2009  Council Minutes  
CONSIDERATION OF FOUR WAY STOP SIGNS ON 1200 SOUTH AND 2400 SOUTH


Councilman Anderton indicated that people have indicated to me that they would like the Wasatch County Council to reconsider this matter. Councilman Farrell indicated that a  committee was formed to consider this matter which consisted of you and the Wasatch County
Sheriff and Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director and you were to come back with a recommendation.


Todd Bonner, the Wasatch County Sheriff, indicated that his  recommendation would be that four-way stops be put in place at these locations according to the study that has been done. (Ed. note- what study. 2001??)   Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director, indicated that a traffic study hasn’t been done since the year 2001 and possibly Wasatch County should have an up-to-date traffic study done. Kent Berg indicated that Wasatch County is working with the LDS Church to have them send all their buses that go to the LDS Camp up Center Street to take care of some of the traffic on 1200 South. Councilman Farrell made a motion that we authorize Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Work’s Director and Mike Davis, the Wasatch County Manager, to put an RFP out to get a bid to see what a new traffic study for Wasatch County would be. 

Wasatch County Foreclosures

Wasatch County Foreclosures

Wasatch County has 411 properties in some stage of mortgage default. Realty Trac lists 99 Properties as defaults with a status of "pre-foreclosure," 75 up for auction in a trustee sale and 237 Banked Owned properties as of 6/14/2010. Also listed are 253 house "For Sale/MLS" in Wasatch County.

At 1 foreclosure per 97 Households, the state of Utah was tied for the fifth highest rate with Idaho in the 3rd quarter of 2009. The list was led by Nevada, 1 in 23; Arizona and California, 1 per 53 and Florida with 1 in 56. The National average was 1 in 136, Vermont was last with 1 per 5,000

City-data reports there were 3,824 owner-occupied houses and condos and 919 Renter-occupied apartments in July 2008 for a total of 4,743. The Census estimate for 2008 indicates 9,660 "Housing Units." It appears the Wasatch County default rate is between 1 in 12 and 1 in 24 households - much higher than average. For comparison, Summit County lists 815 foreclosures, Duchesne a mere 17

School Budget 2010

Once again there are a few questions that might be asked about the latest budget.   The budget is dated 6/11, so there has been little time for analysis.   

The proposed budget is available here.  

Last year a few of the questions were answered.

According to the notice:    "Also proposed will be an increase in the 2009-10 Budget from funds currently available."   Does this mean that the Board philosophy is - even though we had a spending budget, because we received MORE money (overtaxed the people), we should spend it - rather than cut taxes?

1. For the proposed budget itself, why have general fund revenues and expenditures increased about 55% since 2005?
2. Why have total expenditures INCREASED by nearly 70% since 2005 with a student enrollment increase of about 18%?   Click here for a Summary Report  of the budget since 2004.
3. While enrollment increased 4.5% 2008 to 2009, the total budget increased by 9% to $48 million. The prior year the increase in expenditure was 18%  The projected student increase this year is estimated at 3% with another increase of 1.5%   We, the taxpayers, should be excited that the rate of increase is slowing.
4. Pg 3, item 131 shows Teacher Salaries steady at $13.6 million, but benefits increased by 10% to $7.4 million, or 54% of salary.  In these times of economic woes, should the taxpayers who have to cut back be saddled with these increased cost? 
5. Teacher aides total salary has been reduced by 20% over two years, but administrative cost do not seem to be decreasing - $2 million for "School Adminstration" (pg 5- 2400); $1 million for "central" (pg 5- 2500); $1.2M for "staff" and "District Admin" (pg 6).  Surely this is NOT a bare-bones budget?
6. Page 10 shows a $5 M "fund balance" with another $2.7M in "debt service fund," $5M for "capital projects"  - A total of $13M in 'rainy day' funds???    Where are the earnings reported on these funds?     Where is the money invested?          But there is NOTHING in the "Building Reserve Fund" (pg 22)
7. pg 19 4502-100   Is there actually a salaried person ($65,000) for "building acquisition and construction"?

This does NOT seem to be a fiscally conservative budget. The philosophy seems to remain - we will spend every dime we get, (see 1. above) and then ask for a bond for new schools.   

Where is the study for YEAR Round Education?

The Public Hearing Notice for the budget states that the public hearing AND the approval of the budget will occur at  6:30 PM.   A subsequent notice for the actual meeting indicates it is an item on the agenda after several other items.

2010 County Candidates

2010 Elected Office Fillings  - Updated Friday March 19, 2010 - 5:10 pm -
County Council Seats
At-Large - Seat A

• Chip Turner (R)
• Jay Price (R)
• Donna Hayes (D)

Heber North - Seat C

• Richard J. Boulter (R)
• Garth L Brown (R)
• Stephen R. Capson (R)
• Kent Smith (D)

County East - Seat F

• David M. Fife (R)
• Greg McPhie (R)
• Neil G. Anderton (D)
• Jon W. Jacobsmeyer (D)

County Treasurer

• Joey Diane Burgener Granger (R)
• Karl McDonald (R)
• Holly Thacker Yergensen (R)
• Gladys Duke Stevens (D)

County Attorney

• J. Wade Kelson (R)
• Scott H. Sweat (R)

County Assessor

• Peggy McKenzie (R)
• Edwin Thacker (D)
• Ronald R. Crittenden (C)

County Clerk/Auditor

• Brent R. Titcomb (R)

County Recorder

• David C. Remington (R)
• Elizabeth M. Palmier (D)

County Sheriff

• Todd L. Bonner (R)

County Surveyor

• James C. Kaiserman (R)

County Justice Court Judge

• O. Lane McCotter

Wasatch County School District (Local Board of Education)

District # 4 

• Ann Horner

District # 5

• Rob Heywood
• Debbie Jones

Hub Intersection Traffic Part 3

An exchange of Emails with UDOT (They DO listen):

(Here are the Email addresses to UDOT if you would care to contact them: Dave Nazare, Doug Bassett )

Nov 2009:
I would be remiss this Thanksgiving day not to thank UDOT for modifying the left turn signal at the Hub intersection in Heber.

On additional point concerning #4 (s) below, changing the green light in the left turn lane to a yellow caution arrow would further enhance the safety of that left turn. (The sign next to the light is NOT that obvious to the motorist.

I would still offer the suggestions below, in addition to removing/minimizing the center curbs to allow left turn access into the Hub/OneStop - and from Daniel Road (perhaps an auxiliary coordinated light).

Regards and thanks for the change, one down - three to go.

Aug 2009:
Thank you for your prompt response, not to belabor the point, but:

1 & 2 It appears the "one receiving lane on 189" deems to be due to the right turn lane leading into the Boyer Project (which is apparently on hold and will not be open for quite some time. Designing the wide turn lane for trucks is understandable; but having a solid white line separating the lanes indicates, generally, no crossing. Making that a dotted line would allow right turn traffic to avoid the right turn then left onto Daniel. Closing the Daniel Road access (mainly to give priority to the future development) seems a poor decision.

3 It also appears, there is a limited amount of right lane space for a limited distance north on Main. (obviously without a shoulder) Allowing a wider turn should make it easier to semis. I don't understand why that would affect the WB left turn traffic onto 1200 South.

4 I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

These are just some comments and suggestions for consideration in your further studies as you "keep an eye on the intersection." Being an engineer, but not a traffic engineer, I'll yield to your expertise. (I do get a better response from UDOT, than from local officials)

Aug 2009 From UDOT:
to respond to your comments below.

1 & 2. The free right turn from SB US-40 to WB US-189 is wide so trucks with trailers can make the turn without riding up on the curb on either side of the roadway. There is only one receiving lane on 189, so we can't have two lanes making the right turn. There is not enough room on 189 to have two receiving lanes and a shoulder anyway. We recognize the difficulty some drivers may have when they try to make multiple lane changes in order to turn left on the Daniel airport road, and if capacity or accident problems arise in that area, we have the right to close the left turn onto the airport road to eliminate the problem(s). This would require traffic to access the airport road from a different road south of the HUB intersection.

3. We cannot have three eastbound left turn lanes on 189 for traffic turning onto 40 because there are not three receiving lanes on 40, and there is not enough room for three lanes and a shoulder anyway. We believe it may take a little time, but drivers EB on 189 will figure out which lane to be in as they approach and prepare to turn left onto 40. The new lane striping is the best we can do for now. If three left turn lanes were a possibility, then the WB left turn movement on 1200 South would probably conflict in the intersection, and the split phase operation would have to be implemented again. This was one thing you said was better -- to not have the split phase operation. Because we agree, I doubt we want to do something that requires us to go back to it.

4. We understand you still want us to change the SB left turn phase to a protected/permissive operation, but we reaffirm our position and hope you understand that we don't think it is wise to make the change, even if the intersection is a little less efficient. Our preference is safety more than efficiency for this particular movement. It is safer for the N-S left turn phasing to be the same in this case. Perhaps a future project where the curve through the intersection is flattened so that the visibility issue is resolved is the time when the left turn phasing can be changed.

We will continue to keep an eye on the intersection.

Aug 2009
With the opening of the new Hub intersection in Heber, I would like to offer my thanks for retiming the light controlling the left turn from Main St. to 1200 South eastbound. It has helped with that particular intersection transit. Also, it appears the stop line southbound on Main also seems to have moved back somewhat.

Now that, as you mentioned, "we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary," may I offer some observations/suggestions:

While the intersection may be slightly better in some aspects than it was, it is drastically worse in others.

In no particular order,

1 - The free right turn from Main St. to 189 appears to be wide enough wide enough for two lanes.
2 - For traffic trying to get to Daniel Rd. it becomes a difficult maneuver merging through two lanes of traffic into the left turn lane to Daniel and effectively often blocks the ONE lane of the right turn.
Suggestion: Use the two lanes, one for the Daniel traffic, and one for 189.

3 - Semis, and vehicles with trailers, proceeding North on 189 and turning left onto Main still have difficulty moving into the two left turn lane which come up as quite a surprise to many and with that lift turn. There also seems to be periodic problems with the storage are at the stop light.
Suggestion: With FAR less traffic proceeding through the intersection from 189 to 1200 S, it might be advantageous to have THREE left turn lanes and ONE through. This would afford a wider left turn radius for semis and create 50% more storage area.
Suggestion 2: In the opposite direction, as there is relatively little traffic turning South on US 40 from 1200 S westbound, the left turn light timing should reflect that, thus expediting the eastbound through traffic.

4 - There is still a great deal of (relative) time that left turns from Main to 1200 S could be made if that left turn would be allowed when the northbound through traffic light is green. There is sufficient visibility heading south to permit that. That would also expedite traffic into the Hub and OneStop Station which were adversely affected by the various concrete dividers which are quite detrimental to access to the various businesses on Main St. (It's a shame those dividers were added a year (or more) before they might have been "needed" because of the Boyer development.)
Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

Click here for more history

The Continuing Saga of Wasatch City

Once upon a time in a quiet rural village nestled in the mountains of Utah, the villagers live in bucolic peace, comfort and tranquility. It was decided, by some of the outlanders, that the valley would be a lovely place for an international sporting event. Some of the villagers rejoiced and looked forward to an economic boom to be ushered in by the international acclaim. Some said, “there goes the neighborhood.”

Soon the local alfalfa growers learned that their land was more valuable than the crop – and could be made even more valuable by installing pipes in the ground to route various grades of polluted water and by gaining access to the reins of community power. They were soon followed by the outlander merchants desirous of peddling the wares to the new and old alike.

The economic boom was on, again some rejoiced, some regretted, some repented (although only a few.) "Bigger boxes, more sales, more revenue," cried the promoters. "Save open space, don't raise my taxes," murmured those concerned with providing the new schools and services and losing their beloved rural atmosphere. "Buy, buy, buy, sell, sell, sell, borrow, borrow, borrow, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" came the cry from national and local leaders (?).

Alas, the time came for the bubble to burst; half completed projects fell to the mortgage repo man. The bigger box promoter, after modifying the ribbons of travel lanes, to accommodate access to HIS project, wiped his dusty brow and moved his emphasis to the neighboring, and richer, village. The rural peasants, now subdued in their talk on saving the beloved rural community, were left with the single plea to try to help their fellow hometown merchants “Mayor Anderson, tear down that curb.”

Area Police Salaries

A rough analysis of the comparative salaries of Law Enforcement in the local area. Data SOURCE

• In an economic downturn, local governments need to cut back spending and have done so - right?
• Heber City Police are underpaid - right?
• Wasatch County pay is lower than Heber and surrounding areas - right?

Apparently NOT, but draw your own conclusions:
(Note: two averages are given for Park City as their Police Chief salary, $129,535, affects the averages far more than in other jurisdictions) Click on individual locations for full salary list.

Is it time for consolidation of law enforcement forces?

		Aug 2008	Aug 2009	change
Heber City		$659,435	$752,621
		$47,103	$53,759	14.1%
	Officers	14	14
Park City		$963,601	$1,250,961
		$50,716	$56,862	12.1%
	Officers	19	22
Without Chief		$48,228	$53,401	10.7%
Wasatch County		$1,874,625	$2,106,950
		$41,658	$45,803	9.9%
	Officers	45	46
Summit County		$4,364,769	$4,570,214
		$49,042	$57,851	18.0%
	Officers	89	79
Duchesne County		$1,497,816	$1,601,552
		$36,532	$39,062	6.9%
	Officers	41	41
Roosevelt		$642,357	No data
		$30,588
	Officers	21
Gross TOTAL		$10,002,603	$10,282,298
		$43,679	$50,902	16.5%
	Officers	229	202

Wastch County Payroll Update

THE TOP TEN (of 274)
Michael Davis  COUNTY MANAGER    $105,397 up $16,531  +18.6%
Phil Wright    HEALTH DEPARTMENT  $104,330 up $6,699  +6.9%
Dennis Hansen     PREVENTION    $98,334     up $11,843 +13.7%
Alfred Mickelsen   PLANNING & ZONING  $91,386  up $2,520 +2.8%
Kent Berg     PUBLIC WORKS    $90,791  up $7,732  +9.3%
Thomas Low       ATTORNEY     $86,586  up $5,362  +6.6%
Don Wood       GIS-DATA PROCESSING $82,859  up $5,134  +6.6%
Paul Wilson      ENGINEERING   $80,870  up $5,002  +6.6%
Scott Hathcock  SHERIFF    $80,475   not top ten
Tracy Richardson   HEALTH DEPARTMENT  $76,252 up $4,816  +6.7%

Source    Previous Report 2007

Heber City Salary Update -2009

The Top Ten 

Mark Anderson  **City Manager**    $97,737 up $2,224 +2.3% 
Edward Rhoades  **Chief Of Police**   $79,568 up $2,245 +2.9%
Bart Mumford  ***Engineer***    $78,363 dn $  614
Steve Tozier  *Director Public Works*  $72,378 up $5,732 +8.6%
Jason Bradley  **Police Sergeant**   $68,099 up $2,425 +3.7%
Wesley Greenhalgh  *Building Official*   $67,481 up $921 +1.4%
J.m. Smedley  ***City  Attorney***   $66,310 up $1,952 +3.0%
Mike Clegg    ***Sergeant Police***   $66,145 up $6,092 +10.1%
Donald Blackburn  *Building Inspector*   $60,044 not top 10
Anthony Kohler  Senior Planner   $58,318 not top 10

Source   Previous Report 2008 

School Budget Questions

Here are a few questions on the 2009/10 School budget, which were recently sent to the Board of Education for the Public Hearing on 25 June. (A prompt response has been received from Board Chair, Ann Horner (see below) Thank you, Ann.

• Why are teacher and education salaries decreasing and maintenance increasing? "maintenance went up because of additional staff required for thelarger High School." Are we perhaps spending too much on buildings, cosmetics and frills rather than what is needed - in the classrooms?
• pg 7 Fund 10 line 2600-180 General Fund Operation and Maintenance Salary increased by $80K "additional personnel to maintain the old high school"
• pg 19 Fund 32 line 2600-100 Capital Projects Operation and Maintenance Salary increase of $90K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut from legislature"
• pg 5 Fund 10 line 1000-100 total General fund Instruction - salary decrease $600K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut fromlegislatured."***(1000-161 Aides -$130K) "we would love to hire all of the aides back but in lean years we aremaking adjustments to live within the budget." *** 2100-142 General fund Guidance Personnel decrease $70K "We have taken the Utah Behavior Initiative person back as we aretrained and the program can be run without 1/2 time person. We have beenable to take 1/2 time counselor from the 5th 6th school with theconfiguration because of elementary status we don't fund as muchcounselor time to do scheduling an other responsibilities that a 7thgrade would need. If the services are not required we don't have to fundthe personnel."
• pg 6 Fund 10 line 2300-115 Supervisors directors decrease $100K "We are not replacing Vickie Todd as a Director at this time. We are looking for other Directors and Superintendent to assume theresponsibilities of this position. We feel in these economic times we are all being asked to do a little more. We also reassigned a specialist from the district office to the classroom. We reassigned her work to another specialist in the district."
• pg 6 line 2400 152 Principals increase $63K

What are "Media Personnel - certificated" at nearly $300K in annual salary (for several years)? "The Media Personnel Certificated is the Librarians in the schools, they have their Media Certification. We pay them at that level not at an aide salary. With the Certification they can be counted as time with aneducator and the teachers in the Elementary schools gain additional preptime without having to loose instructional time with the students.(approx 30 minutes a week.) So that figure is their salaries."

• Why have general fund revenues increased by 50+% Total revenues by 65+% while enrollment is up only 10%?
• Why/how did 2008 budget increase by $4million from original to actual? Was it the increase in taxes from higher assessments?? "I believe you are right that the increase in the 2008 budget was fromthe assesments being higher than what we had anticipated."
• Is the Wasatch school philosophy to spend ALL monies received whether "needed" (in the budget) or not? "We are not in the business of trying to keep spending more. We did not go to truth intaxation to raise more money last year nor this year. We have in fact been putting additional money that we did not budget into the fund balance. We are trying to cut ongoing cost and personnel as we are receiving decreases from legislative funding. We are planning on holding our cost down and using the fund balance to maintain programs and the educational integrity of the district in these difficult times."
• What was the cost of trading the old Junior High and the Rocky Mountain school grades? Where is it found in the budget?

Are "building" funds (pg 20 line 720) of $66.8 million the cost of the New High School? "We have released the numbers on the high school and they are on the website, (possibly here?) the figure we have put out does include the land, architects,Layton and all fees associated with the high school."

• This number is consistent with previous reports for the $59.5 bonded school
• Will the $3.7 M in 2009/10 budget bring the cost to $70.5M?
• Are land cost, furnishings, equipment, etc. entirely included within these figures?

Supt. Shoemaker reported that $2.8 M of "interest on bond proceeds" were used in payment of High School construction:

• The budget (2008, 2009) shows $2.1 in interest on Capital Projects funds and $1.1M interest in General Fund
• Was general fund interest used for construction?

Wasn't there a roughly equivalent amount of interest accrued (but not paid?) "I know we have not changed the schedule of the bond or the payments in any way." on that bond? If so, haven't we merely created more debt and postponed payments to future years and spent MORE money than what the project was sold to the voters?

"I do appreciate thoughtful questions and hope that they will make me a betterboard member. I will look into your questions and try to answer any thatI have not at this time. "

"As I have sat in the meetings it is clear to me that we need to be sensitive and conservative in what we take from the public. I have tried to be frugal and to spend thetaxpayers money responsibly."

Truth in Education (Construction) Costs

It appears that the School District has opted not to release ALL of the teacher's aides, finding money to keep perhaps two thirds of them. It was nice to read on the School website that several of these proposed suggestions were adopted.

Earlier, funding had been "found" to build the third high school gym, and finish adding bricks and mortar. An analysis of recent school budget leads to the conclusion this should have come as no surprise. In the last five years, 2005 - 2009 Wasatch school district has had a 10% increase in enrollment BUT a 65% increase in revenues/expenditures. Click here for a Summary Report (http://sn.im/wasbud) and here for the Source. Total revenue to the district in 2009 - about $47 Million or $9,760 per student. 2005: $28 million for 4,303 students (you can divide for per student)

Several questions were asked of school representatives in a recent radio interview, click here and here to listen (two parts). In particular, one question was asked about the source of the funds for the third gym et al (sports/frills - as opposed to teachers/education). While an answer was not given in the interview, subsequently it was reported that the interest "earned" from placing construction bond funds in the bank had to be spent on construction rather than operations according to state law.

According to a phone call with the Utah State of Education, finance department that was close but not totally correct, BUT it is a Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (the website name sounds somewhat like 'gasbag'). Rather than a law, it seems to be customary practice in Utah to build 'more' school for the bond money than the advertised funds requested. This practice, of course, merely increases the costs by forcing the interest to be PAID to the end of the bond payments. It may seem strange to some, but banks generally do not provide money through a loan without paying interest from the day of receipt of funds. This procedure is reminiscent of the buy now, pay later philosophy that was so prevalent in leading up to our current national economic crisis. . . (and regrettably continues)

This little procedural interpretation allows bonds to be proposed to the taxpayers for a certain amount with the full knowledge that the costs will be substantially higher - Does this like a bit of subterfuge, bait and switch, or just a little distortion of the truth for sales purposes?

So the answer to the source of the funds appears to be simply that the money was already there, the Board was just required to give the approval for its expenditure. A second source for the money may have been the excess taxation that was received through increased assessments prior to the correction of the tax rates. In either case the Truth in taxation hearings were vastly deficient.

Several other questions remain unanswered, but the overriding answer to most seems to be "we have the money and we will spend it, building bigger and 'better' to satisfy our edifice complex" and the taxpayers are available later for increase to cover operation costs with a truth in taxation hearing.

Oh, on the subject of the NEED for a third gym. Consider this: with only TWO gyms, (at least 4 teaching stations) 1 Wrestling room, Batting room, Cheer/Dance room, Racketball (sic) Court, Student Weight room, 2 sports (?) classroom - for a total of at least 11 sport 'teaching' stations - at merely 6 periods periods per day and 20 students per class; there would apparently be enough space to have 1320 students in some sort of physical education class every single school day. Wasatch High will have the most physically fit graduates in the state!

But, planned enrollment is only 1200, AND PE is only required for 3 semesters (not eight) during four years of high school and probably does not meet daily. It certainly appears that TWO gyms would have been MORE than sufficient.

Bricks OR Aides?

A recent report stated that the School District "is currently in excellent shape financially," and that the shortfall this year was covered "without individuals losing their jobs."

Perhaps it needs to be asked why 2/3's of the teacher's aides need to be fired for next year. It would seem that these employees are probably more important, and helpful to EDUCATION than, for example, a third gym.

A few suggestions, in no particular order, on how to save these positions (listed at $671,098 in the original 2009 budget, page 5 item 161):

• The School District finally posted employee salaries on utahsright.com; the author of the District's press releases to the Wave is listed as the highest paid teacher in the District. He is also the official PR person for the District. Assuming that his extra $9,623 pay may be for his PR work, eliminating that job would save 1.5 aides.
• In an earlier report the PR said that "The total cost for the reconfiguration (Grade realignment in schools) of the district will come to about $1 million," including high school upgrades. A later report stated "We authorized an additional $750,000 to be spent at the high school to finish the portion of the school that had been scheduled to be "shelled in" for future use. This includes four classrooms, the little theater and one practice gym." One could assume that the remaining $250K is being spent for the unpopular 5/6 and 7/8 school swap - There's enough for 40 aides.
• Cutting three "Quality Teaching Days" (paid, but no teaching) would decrease the average $47,963 teacher salary (from salaries reported at utahsright.com) by about $787 or $200K total enough for 30 more aides, who are there to help teachers in educating students.
• Cutting one class day, according to the press release, would save about $250K (total operating cost $43 MILLION, up over 60% with an enrollment increase of 10% since 2005) or another 40 aides.

I have no idea of the cost of the third gym or little theater, but NOT building them now could save even more money to offset some of the other proposals.

I won't even ask why we need three assistant Superintendents and a business administrator at salaries over $100K, or multitudes of other administrators.

Reports are now being made that the reconfiguration will require more money for new buses and drivers.

Which is more important - Bricks and Mortar (gym) or teachers (and aides) in the classroom?

That question was answered here years ago in this blog. "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."

Hub Intersection Traffic part 2

December 2008
Dear UDOT:

As it appears the Hub intersection is nearing completion for the new right turn from Main St. down the Canyon, I humbly suggest a reevaluation of the LEFT turn from Main St. onto 1200 S. I just drove home via the Hub intersection, as I regrettably often must do.

There were six cars waiting to make that left turn, four of them were able to turn on the green. one snuck through on the yellow (/red). I was required to sit at the intersection an additional 80 sec. (after a minute or so waiting on the original red left turn signal).

Most of this time waiting while the through green lights were on, most of the cars could have made it through a yellow left turn signal as there was very little Northbound traffic on US 40.With the current timing of the light, there is less than one chance (10 sec. of turn light) in eight (80 sec.for full cycle) of making a left turn without stopping. I wish a reconsideration of these to two suggestions below could be made.
Reiterating:

1. Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We arewaiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM
2. Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turn from 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed upthe semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those cars waiting to make the left to 1200 So.

Jun 2008 From UDOT

Regarding your number 1 recommendation, as the Region Director, I'm very uncomfortable overriding a decision by the Traffic and Safety Engineer and don't want to do that. However, when reconstructed by Boyer there will be dual left turns, which must be protected (no permissive allowed).

The dual lefts, combined with a change in signal timing should correct the problem.Regarding number 2, I think we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary.

Thanks again for meeting with us.

To UDOT June 2008

It was a pleasure to meet you today in Heber, thanks for listening to ourconcerns about the intersection traffic and the drastic increase which is forthcoming.

We didn't get to discuss this relatively minor suggestion, so I'd just liketo reiterate a potential short term (and inexpensive, IMHO) solution to makethe intersection a little better NOW. I frequently drive through theintersection making a left turn from Main St. onto 1200 South.

It frequently takes two signals to do so already. With the increase insemi-truck traffic coming up Provo Canyon, it is even a bigger problem nowthan last year and is not safe to be parked in the first position in that left turn lane.

1 Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We arewaiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM

2 Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turnfrom 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed upthe semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those carswaiting to make the left to 1200 So.

Click here for more history

Legislative Audit Shows High School Over Budget

The cost of the new Wasatch High School appears to be $77 million as opposed to $59.5 authorized in the November 2006 bond which stated "that general obligation bonds would not exceed $59.5 million for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of land acquisition, equipment, acquisition, and construction of a new high school and related improvements."

The school construction cost is nearly $40 per sq. ft. more expensive than the average of seven high schools built in Utah. It was also the school cited as 20 percent larger than USOE guidelines and had the highest sq. ft. Per student. There were also flaws mentioned in the bidding and contracting processes.

These are all conclusions reached in the recent Utah Auditor General's School Constuction Legislative Audit released in November. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature had requested a performance audit of school building construction, 21 School Districts were studied. While the report did not name the individual districts audited, it was quite clear that the one school which was highlighted as "the most expensive high school being built during our review period." was right here in Heber.

Wasatch High School construction practices merited five pages of the report, plus other being anonymously mentioned alsewhere. Those pages can be found here. The full report is available here.

While taxpayers are reviewing and paying their property taxes this week, they may remember hearing of the so-called "Truth in Taxation" hearing (See meeting report) where taxpayers were told there was no property tax increase. Checkbooks now show that was in error.

At some point the taxpayers deserve an complete explanation of the school cost AND the source of the funds to pay for the 11 to 25% cost overrun. We, the taxpayers, will now be paying for a school that was 20% too large and 25% too expensive for many years. Hopefully many people will actually read the audit. Click here for more articles on the school bond. I'll try not to say "I told you so."

In recent hearings on school class realignment, information was promulgated on the possible need for additional school construction a Junior High and/or new elementary. Even at the current $66 to $75 million reported price tag, the Wasatch Wave reports that "The total cost for the reconfiguration of the district will come to about $1 million, according to Mr. Shoemaker, and that includes completing portions of the high school that had been slated to be finished later, such as the 4 additional classrooms, the third gym and the little theater."

Many resident attendees reportedly decried the failure to consider using the current high school as a valid and usable building. It would seem pure folly to sell the property in this down economy only to spend millions on new construction in the not too distant future - if plans can be believed. Much of the school is usable and functional although it reportedly is falling into disrepair as normal maintenance seems to be minimal.

Hopefully, taxpayers will be more diligent in asking questions - and getting answers this time. Before any new construction is considered, year round school, which better utilize building resources, must be thoroughly evaluated.

North/South Fields Rezone

The move is on to rezone the North Fields. The first step appears to be the rezone of the South Fields, this was recommended by a 4-1 vote at the recent Planning Commission meeting.

A public Hearing on the matter is scheduled for 6 PM on 19 Nov. It is item #9. Items #7 and #8 are also rezone requests (P160 to M zone or 1 house per 160 acres to a potential 1 house per 2.5 acres - a 64 fold increase)

Several arguments were presented in opposition to the change, to no avail:

1. The Wasatch County General Plan (See Chap. 4, pg 159) indicates the area is "highly prized by many local residents" and is "identified as having a public benefit as open space." The area has been called the jewel of the valley and its current zoning A-20 (Agricultural with one house allowed per twenty acres) protects the "desired green belt separation between Heber and Midway" (Policy 1.1.1)
2. The area is NOT included within the Proposed Heber City Annexation Policy. Several member of the Heber City Planning Commission attended the meeting and spoke against the rezone.
3. The area is in the "Inundation Area of Sudden Jordanelle Dam Failure" - approval of more houses could present potential danger to those house and liability to County taxpayers.
4. There are currently only 6 large land parcels (>20 acres) in the 464 acre proposed rezone area and another 12 parcels between 5 and 20 acres which, as "lots of record," could already be built upon. Some parcels already have houses built. Of ten parcels less than 5 acres, 7 current have residences.
5. A zone change from A-20 to RA-5 would increase the number of allowable houses from 33 to 92.
6. The long proposed ByPass road passes through several of the parcels, a rezone would likely increase the cost of property acquisition.
7. An Open Space, Transferable Development Right ordinance was recently passed allowing a "bonus" sale from rights in this area. Rezoning would adversely affect the goals of that ordinance.
8. While presented as a "County initiated" rezone, it was clearly introduced by the land owners and not necessarily for the "health, safety and welfare" of the community in general.

In 2000, a well written resolution was introduced to "protect" the North Fields - regrettably it was never really considered for passage:

Removing Four Way Stops

Open Letter to Wasatch County Council:

I would like to strongly urge the removal of the Stop Signs on 1200 South at 2400 E, 3600 E, 4800 E and, possibly, 1200 E.

These intersections are currently all 4 way stops.

Reasons for removal:

1. 1200 S is designated a major collector and the recent General Plan called for upgrading and less access.
2. I'd guess 90% of the traffic at the intersections is on 1200 S vs. crossroads. Four way stops are generally used for "equal" traffic for intersection scheduled for traffic lights.
   "Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day and the combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour."

Institute of Transportation Engineers.

The traffic is getting much more worse.

Many are already using 'cowboy' stops. I've witnessed a few totally full speed running the 1200 S stop signs now.

1200 S is the main road for access to the LDS girls' camp with lots of buses Mondays and Fridays.

Removal of the signs would decrease the pollution and noise of requiring the buses to make 3 extra stops.

No stops would create a better flow of traffic and would be much more fuel efficient.
"Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. " . . . "The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in operating costs. This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day. " Institute of Traffic Engineers

Reasons to Keep 4 way stop (and rebuttal):

• They keep the speed down. "Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding."

Institute of Traffic Engineers "there is no real evidence to indicate that STOP signs decrease the overall speed of traffic. Impatient drivers view the additional delay caused by unwarranted STOP signs as “lost time” to be made up by driving at higher speeds between STOP signs. ." Institute of Traffic Engineers

If speeds DO increase, there a source of revenue in speeding tickets. ; -)

They enhance safety. "Unwarranted STOP signs breed disrespect by motorists who tend to ignore them or only slow down without stopping. This can sometimes lead to tragic consequences." Institute of Traffic Engineers

Hub Intersection Traffic

Email to UDOT 3/15/2007 10:23 PM Suggestion for the intersection of 189 and 40 ( or 1200 S and Main St. in Heber. This is one of the busiest intersections in Heber City (Soon to be made worse by the proposed Big Box/Boyer development to be located there.)

An improvement to the flow of traffic could be made by allowing South bound traffic on Main St. to make the left turn onto 1200 S (heading East) at any time traffic is allowed to continue straight through. Currently the green left turn signal turns to red while the continuing through traffic continues to flow - often with little or no northbound traffic to impede the left turn.

Many drivers avoid the left turn signal by cutting through the commercial property (Hub or Arby) parking lots to avoid the lengthy light change. Secondly, when the left turn lane is repainted, the stop line should be moved back several(20) feet as the left turns from Hwy 189 onto Main frequently cut the (135 deg) corner creating an unsafe condition.

This intersection needs a lot of redesign, a plan is being formulated by the County and the City for a bypass around the West side of Heber City and cutting East to regain US 40 somewhere around the intersection. The large commercial development will hinder that plan.

Response: March 21, 2007 6:58 AM As you are aware, UDOT recently upgraded the traffic signal at the subject intersection by installing protected left turn phasing for traffic on US-40. This was done as a safety improvement because of the horizontal curve through the intersection.
We understand that it may reduce the capacity and level of service of the intersection, but we believe the safety benefits outweigh those other factors. We have heard about potential development east of the intersection, as well as the big box development northwest of the intersection, and as that area grows the protected left turn phasing will be even more justified, so we plan to keep it the way it is for now.
It is unfortunate that some drivers are resorting to making either illegal or improper movements through adjacent business property to avoid the signal. Perhaps you could speak with the Heber City Police and ask them to monitor the issue and enforce the necessary laws to reduce or eliminated the problem.

We are also aware of a request to completely overhaul the intersection,including straightening out the curve, which would be a dramatic impact on local businesses. We have not made any plans to do so at this time, but may consider it if discussions with the City and County continue to include this matter. If it ever is reconstructed, the location of all the stop bars would be included in the design.

3/23/2007 Thank you for the prompt response. I again drove through the intersection today - as I frequently do. I fail to see any "safety" benefit to restricting the left turn to only being allowable on the green turn signal. It seems to me quite rare to restrict a left turn in this manner. The road curve on US 40 does not hamper any sight restriction involving that left turn or hamper it in any way that I can see.

The North bound traffic into Heber City nearly always leaves adequate space to turn AFTER the red (no left turn) light appears while South bound traffic continues through the intersection. By stopping the left turn traffic prematurely, it creates a more dangerous situation because there is a greater chance a car will be present in the left turn lane on US 40 which IS a potential danger from cars making left turns from 189 onto Main St.

This two lane left turn is a far bigger safety problem than from Main St. to 1200 S. I think someone needs to analyze that flow again!! NO RESPONSE

It was a pleasure to meet you today in Heber, thanks for listening to our concerns about the intersection traffic and the drastic increase which is forthcoming.

A SECOND ATTEMPT 6/23/2008 : We didn't get to discuss this relatively minor suggestion, so I'd just like to reiterate a potential short term (and inexpensive, IMHO) solution to make the intersection a little better NOW. I frequently drive through the intersection making a left turn from Main St. onto 1200 South.

It frequently takes two signals to do so already. With the increase in semi-truck traffic coming up Provo Canyon, it is even a bigger problem now than last year and is not safe to be parked in the first position in that left turn lane.

• Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We are waiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM
• Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turn from 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed up the semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those cars waiting to make the left to 1200 So.

The UDOT response 6/27/2008 :

Regarding your number 1 recommendation, as the Region Director, I'm very uncomfortable overriding a decision by the Traffic and Safety Engineer and don't want to do that.

However, when reconstructed by Boyer there will be dual left turns, which must be protected (no permissive allowed). The dual lefts, combined with a change in signal timing should correct the problem.

Regarding number 2, I think we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary. Thanks again for meeting with us.

Dave Nazare, UDOT Region Three Director 801-227-8001

I guess one can admire consistency, but anyone wanting to try further might Email David Nazare

Provo Canyon Road et al

The cost of Provo Canyon Road appears to have been $108,020,325 See page 69 of UDOT STIP

That seems to be a little higher than I remember.

DNews 3/4/2005 "The five major projects in UDOT's Region 3, covering the north-central part of the state, will cost a combined total of more than $83 million.

The most significant of those projects, by far, is in Utah County. It involves reconstruction of U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon. UDOT will widen a five-mile segment of the road between the dam and the Sundance Resort turn-off from two lanes to five.

"This is a fairly big program for the county down here," said Region 3 director Tracy Conti.

"Provo Canyon is definitely the glamour project, to say the least. I don't know if it's the biggest one going on in Utah now, probably U-201 (in Salt Lake County) is bigger as far as dollars are concerned, but as far as the technical work, on Provo Canyon — we've got a structure that's going to span 500 feet and a couple hundred feet above the ground right where the road will tie into the dam. It's going to be an engineering marvel."

Several people have indicated the need for an pedestrian underpass at the HUB intersection. Interestingly, on that same page of the STIP report is listed: US 40 pedestrian underpass $10,000,000 in 2009 (probably at Mayflower for the new $2 Billion hotel 'mixed use' project across from the Deer Valley gondola)

Another item shown is $30 million for "Midway Interchange" (presumably US-40 and River Road) no date indicated. AND $872,616 for Center St. to 1400 E in Heber for 2009 (Four lanes ???)

The 'benefits' of growth move inexorably forward.