A new internet poll has been posted concerning the Red Ledges development at www.snipurl.com/ledges This survey is open to Wasatch County residents and is totally anonymous. It will take about five minutes to complete and has ample room for personal comments. Please feel free to weigh in with your opinion.
The Red Ledges development is proposed as a large gated community with a private golf course and other amenities for its residents. I would be located on the former McNaughtan farm on the eastern edge of Heber City just north of Center St and would include the adjoining property located in Wasatch County.
More information can be found on the developers' website by clicking HERE.
The project is currently planned to be jointly developed in coordination with both Heber City and Wasatch County. Several hearings have been held on the issue. One joint meeting was reported HERE.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Bid Process, by Tracy Taylor
After an apparently short consideration the AG's office seems to have changed its mind.
AG won't probe bidding for schoolSalt Lake Tribune - United StatesHEBER CITY - The Utah Attorney General's Office will not investigate an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 million ...
(Comment added 11/2) This was submitted as a letter to the Wasatch Wave, which was not printed. Apparently the Trib thought it worthy of reporting.
Critics blast selection process for architect for a new $60 ...Salt Lake Tribune - United StatesPosted: 1:02 PM- HEBER CITY- The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 ...
(Forwarded with no comments)
High School Decisions Made in a Bubble.
I wasn't planning on getting involved with the high school bond this year. After the "community jewel" that is the North School turned out to be a very expensive administration building (go check it out, the district offices are quite expansive) I thought they would have tightened their purse strings to show the community they've learned a few lessons from that mismanaged mess. I guess I was being overly optimistic. There was little public input on the new high school design prior to it’s unveiling a few months ago with the announcement of the bond election. I had parents calling me, in the past year, explaining how they tried to talk to certain school board members only to be rebuffed. The board said that they couldn't discuss it for fear it would weaken their bargaining power with the landowner.
The final straw was community members telling me, in the past month, documents were asked for but the school district said they didn't have them to copy. So that's the reason for my last minute investigation... I decided to go in and exercise my civic right to obtain public documents with a GRAMA request. The school district said publicly that they would be "open and straight forward" with the public on this high school bond and welcomed questions, yet I was told by an employee that the delivery of my request would be after the 10 day deadline because each member of the school board was going to look over the packet before they would hand it over. Interesting. I was also charged $218.10- $9.85 of which was the charge for the paper. They figured it took them 12.25 hours to assemble information that was already compiled; budgets, bid process, full financial analysis of bond process, etc. At least half of what they gave me was the facilities committee report from 2004. Information that all Wasatch County residents deserve, comes with a price.
With most school districts a bid process would go something like this: School district decides on a budget and that they want a new design, they determine the needs of their children, they advertise for the bid applications and give the interested firms specific details of what school we want, they share information with ALL applicants that one firm has due to their previous relationship with the district, the firms come back with a bid within our budget for the parameters set by the district and they pick the one that is best for our community.
I called four firms that applied last March, and asked them specific questions. They did not receive any information from our school district that would have helped them determine what we wanted in a high school. A couple of them were so disappointed with the bid process that they have decided not to bid for our school district anymore. They also said that some of the elements of this design aren’t SAFE. They don’t do basements, or long hallways without a door, because that would trap kids inside in a fire or if a gunman entered. They design schools that get the kids out quickly if they have an emergency situation.
There was no effective bid process for these architects to submit a new design based on our "very special" needs assessment that was compiled prior to this process by Sandstrom. If only they would have received that information from our school district to have a fair process, they had the experience to bring great designs to the table. That explains why the design is extravagant to many people. This is how Wasatch bid; Sandstrom was awarded the architectural services bid (with no prior experience in designing a complete high school), we got ONE design from them (after they worked on it a year) based on every department’s wish list, and then the district came up with a price. Kind of backwards! If we knew we wanted a new design, why didn’t we have an open bid for experienced architects to bring ideas to us within a certain budget? That would have been a more cost effective procedure.
In this continuing process, the school board authorized a payment to Sandstrom of $382,500 on August 17, 2006 to continue work on a design that did not go through a bid process, and had ZERO PUBLIC INPUT prior to announcing the bond! (No open houses explaining the design to the taxpayers) Even the previous "facilities committee", who volunteered countless hours a couple years ago, was never asked for their input before it was released to the public. I was at that board meeting. They never mentioned the price, they only said "25% of the total architectural fees." You’d have to know Sandstrom’s fees based on a certain percentage of the construction costs and a calculator…They didn’t advertise in the agenda what they were planning on doing either, as per the open meetings act. This decision to spend OUR money was made before we even had our first public hearing on Sept. 26th.
The school district made decisions in a bubble, which explains the disbelief now of the public on the extravagance of this design. Whether you're for or against the school bond, I thought you needed to know how this process worked to better explain the design and cost. If this bond doesn’t pass, I would think they’d get tired of this rejection and actually come back to us again with hopefully a more cost effective high school, based on PUBLIC INPUT and an actual bid process that could result in a well tested design for a lot less money. I don’t know one person in town that doesn’t think we need a new high school, but our school board took advantage of that, and went over the top. Why? Because they think the outside appearance is more important than the quality of education inside? We can have it OUR way. There are two schools due in 2008 for the same approximate number of students for $32 Mil and $36 Mil., with beautiful facilities. If we do that, we’ll actually save ourselves $20 million to probably totally finance the inevitable renovation of the Jr. High down the road… We’ll be able to get two schools for the price of this one! Not to mention being able to afford to raise the voted leeway for higher teachers salaries and improving our curriculum.
I am for better education, better paid teachers to retain quality, lower class sizes, better curriculum, more choices for students, and a school board that is fiscally responsible and well- managed while achieving these goals.
Tracy Taylor 435 503-1121
AG won't probe bidding for schoolSalt Lake Tribune - United StatesHEBER CITY - The Utah Attorney General's Office will not investigate an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 million ...
(Comment added 11/2) This was submitted as a letter to the Wasatch Wave, which was not printed. Apparently the Trib thought it worthy of reporting.
Critics blast selection process for architect for a new $60 ...Salt Lake Tribune - United StatesPosted: 1:02 PM- HEBER CITY- The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 ...
(Forwarded with no comments)
High School Decisions Made in a Bubble.
I wasn't planning on getting involved with the high school bond this year. After the "community jewel" that is the North School turned out to be a very expensive administration building (go check it out, the district offices are quite expansive) I thought they would have tightened their purse strings to show the community they've learned a few lessons from that mismanaged mess. I guess I was being overly optimistic. There was little public input on the new high school design prior to it’s unveiling a few months ago with the announcement of the bond election. I had parents calling me, in the past year, explaining how they tried to talk to certain school board members only to be rebuffed. The board said that they couldn't discuss it for fear it would weaken their bargaining power with the landowner.
The final straw was community members telling me, in the past month, documents were asked for but the school district said they didn't have them to copy. So that's the reason for my last minute investigation... I decided to go in and exercise my civic right to obtain public documents with a GRAMA request. The school district said publicly that they would be "open and straight forward" with the public on this high school bond and welcomed questions, yet I was told by an employee that the delivery of my request would be after the 10 day deadline because each member of the school board was going to look over the packet before they would hand it over. Interesting. I was also charged $218.10- $9.85 of which was the charge for the paper. They figured it took them 12.25 hours to assemble information that was already compiled; budgets, bid process, full financial analysis of bond process, etc. At least half of what they gave me was the facilities committee report from 2004. Information that all Wasatch County residents deserve, comes with a price.
With most school districts a bid process would go something like this: School district decides on a budget and that they want a new design, they determine the needs of their children, they advertise for the bid applications and give the interested firms specific details of what school we want, they share information with ALL applicants that one firm has due to their previous relationship with the district, the firms come back with a bid within our budget for the parameters set by the district and they pick the one that is best for our community.
I called four firms that applied last March, and asked them specific questions. They did not receive any information from our school district that would have helped them determine what we wanted in a high school. A couple of them were so disappointed with the bid process that they have decided not to bid for our school district anymore. They also said that some of the elements of this design aren’t SAFE. They don’t do basements, or long hallways without a door, because that would trap kids inside in a fire or if a gunman entered. They design schools that get the kids out quickly if they have an emergency situation.
There was no effective bid process for these architects to submit a new design based on our "very special" needs assessment that was compiled prior to this process by Sandstrom. If only they would have received that information from our school district to have a fair process, they had the experience to bring great designs to the table. That explains why the design is extravagant to many people. This is how Wasatch bid; Sandstrom was awarded the architectural services bid (with no prior experience in designing a complete high school), we got ONE design from them (after they worked on it a year) based on every department’s wish list, and then the district came up with a price. Kind of backwards! If we knew we wanted a new design, why didn’t we have an open bid for experienced architects to bring ideas to us within a certain budget? That would have been a more cost effective procedure.
In this continuing process, the school board authorized a payment to Sandstrom of $382,500 on August 17, 2006 to continue work on a design that did not go through a bid process, and had ZERO PUBLIC INPUT prior to announcing the bond! (No open houses explaining the design to the taxpayers) Even the previous "facilities committee", who volunteered countless hours a couple years ago, was never asked for their input before it was released to the public. I was at that board meeting. They never mentioned the price, they only said "25% of the total architectural fees." You’d have to know Sandstrom’s fees based on a certain percentage of the construction costs and a calculator…They didn’t advertise in the agenda what they were planning on doing either, as per the open meetings act. This decision to spend OUR money was made before we even had our first public hearing on Sept. 26th.
The school district made decisions in a bubble, which explains the disbelief now of the public on the extravagance of this design. Whether you're for or against the school bond, I thought you needed to know how this process worked to better explain the design and cost. If this bond doesn’t pass, I would think they’d get tired of this rejection and actually come back to us again with hopefully a more cost effective high school, based on PUBLIC INPUT and an actual bid process that could result in a well tested design for a lot less money. I don’t know one person in town that doesn’t think we need a new high school, but our school board took advantage of that, and went over the top. Why? Because they think the outside appearance is more important than the quality of education inside? We can have it OUR way. There are two schools due in 2008 for the same approximate number of students for $32 Mil and $36 Mil., with beautiful facilities. If we do that, we’ll actually save ourselves $20 million to probably totally finance the inevitable renovation of the Jr. High down the road… We’ll be able to get two schools for the price of this one! Not to mention being able to afford to raise the voted leeway for higher teachers salaries and improving our curriculum.
I am for better education, better paid teachers to retain quality, lower class sizes, better curriculum, more choices for students, and a school board that is fiscally responsible and well- managed while achieving these goals.
Tracy Taylor 435 503-1121
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Comments on comments in the Wave on Bond
Well, typical of the last issue before an election, the Wasatch Wave reports being overrun with letters and was unable to print them all. However, following from their editorial position of support seemed to somewhat bias their letter selection, with three expressing concern over the bond and eight supportive of the Bond.
Further if one calculates the column inches devoted to the two "sides," the bias becomes more pronounced 85 column inches to 31. To go even further, 85 inches of type was given to the School District for "news" and commentary in support of the 12 inch editorial suggesting a "yes" vote (with a reservation about the size.)
A few comments about some of the epistles printed, if I may; which I can, because it's my blog.
Self proclaimed "country boy" Phil Sweat, launches a vehement diatribe against one particular candidate (which seems to violate the Wave's length standard and its policy against candidate support - but apparently allows candidate bashing, if unnamed) and then slips in a few lines opposing the bond because of costs and the size of the school.
Paul Sweat, not surprisingly as the school principal, supports his own design.
Marie Adams is right on, discussing wants and needs.
Greg Tayler (an unsigned Doctor) declares pride in the new proposal.
Lynn Adams (a declared Doctor, as in new PhD) tries a creative computation to show taxes aren't really going up if we add up enough of them, but then falls for the "sacrifice" propaganda.
I'm sure you can (will) read the rest for yourself. I won't bother either with the School District and chief propagandist John Moss' comments, except to say it's mildly amazing the amount of room that has been given to these "press releases" not only in this issues but also on the front page for the last few weeks of sales pitches. The question needs to be asked - how much School District time and money has been paid while some employees were working for a yes vote?
A minor comment on the full page ad by Citizens for Better Schools. Wow, might the money have been better spent on a donation to the Wasatch Foundation. Then another half page of supporters names - if their ad is true (2,500 supporters), I guess they are well on the way to the $60 million educational edifice.
Tuesday's vote will be interesting.
Further if one calculates the column inches devoted to the two "sides," the bias becomes more pronounced 85 column inches to 31. To go even further, 85 inches of type was given to the School District for "news" and commentary in support of the 12 inch editorial suggesting a "yes" vote (with a reservation about the size.)
A few comments about some of the epistles printed, if I may; which I can, because it's my blog.
Self proclaimed "country boy" Phil Sweat, launches a vehement diatribe against one particular candidate (which seems to violate the Wave's length standard and its policy against candidate support - but apparently allows candidate bashing, if unnamed) and then slips in a few lines opposing the bond because of costs and the size of the school.
Paul Sweat, not surprisingly as the school principal, supports his own design.
Marie Adams is right on, discussing wants and needs.
Greg Tayler (an unsigned Doctor) declares pride in the new proposal.
Lynn Adams (a declared Doctor, as in new PhD) tries a creative computation to show taxes aren't really going up if we add up enough of them, but then falls for the "sacrifice" propaganda.
I'm sure you can (will) read the rest for yourself. I won't bother either with the School District and chief propagandist John Moss' comments, except to say it's mildly amazing the amount of room that has been given to these "press releases" not only in this issues but also on the front page for the last few weeks of sales pitches. The question needs to be asked - how much School District time and money has been paid while some employees were working for a yes vote?
A minor comment on the full page ad by Citizens for Better Schools. Wow, might the money have been better spent on a donation to the Wasatch Foundation. Then another half page of supporters names - if their ad is true (2,500 supporters), I guess they are well on the way to the $60 million educational edifice.
Tuesday's vote will be interesting.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Property TAXES
With the arrival in the mail of the 2006 tax notices, residents can now compute their potential individual annual payment for the new High School Bond.
The indicated rate is about $78/$100K of "Taxable Value," which can be found just above the middle of the Tax Notice. Multiply that value. divided by $100,000, (e.g. for $250,000, multiply be 2.5) by $78 to get your tax increase, should the bond be passed.
Or for a rough figure, your taxes (County resident) will increase by about 8%. For city residents, it's about 7.2%
You may also notice that your current payment for Wasatch County Schools is about 60 to 65% of your total Property Tax bill AND 100% of your STATE INCOME TAX.
The indicated rate is about $78/$100K of "Taxable Value," which can be found just above the middle of the Tax Notice. Multiply that value. divided by $100,000, (e.g. for $250,000, multiply be 2.5) by $78 to get your tax increase, should the bond be passed.
Or for a rough figure, your taxes (County resident) will increase by about 8%. For city residents, it's about 7.2%
You may also notice that your current payment for Wasatch County Schools is about 60 to 65% of your total Property Tax bill AND 100% of your STATE INCOME TAX.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
WOW, what did they miss?
After unsuccessfully asking for more detailed information plans about the new High School, they've been found.
"Little Theater/Drama" 2000 sq.ft. (in addition to the auditorium) Varsity Weight room 3200 sq.ft. = $480,000+ Three Basketball courts 4,000 sq.ft. of "news set & production studio" Racquetball court 8+ offices in the athletic area A "Student Government" room 5 "team room locker" Ever cognizant of gender equality, there's also a 2000 sq.ft. "cheer/dance" area There are 50 + classrooms, too
What ever happened to the swimming pool?
For those interested the new proposed $60 million High School, more detailed school plans are available at the Wasatch School website. Click on the various "levels" for PDF files (large, allow a few minutes to download). The plans can then be enlarged for greater detail, to see what the individual rooms are being used for.
Would you believe? (all estimated areas at 1" =16 ft at 200% magnification):
- Indoor baseball practice about 25 x 80 = 2000 sq.ft. @$150+/sq.ft. = $300,000+
What ever happened to the swimming pool?
Look for yourself and decide - WANTS or Needs?
Friday, October 20, 2006
The SURVEY says . . .
The Survey on the $60 million Wasatch High School was posted to try to gauge the pulse of the community and gather comments about the bond and the proposed High School. The proponents of the bond decided to use (abuse) the survey and turn it into propaganda promoting the YES vote.
They were successful! 78% now report being strongly in favor of the bond.
As promised, the results are now being made public . Reading thorough the comments will show the researcher the intent of the bias group. See the previous comments on the "packing issue below.
Enjoy the comments, some are quite good and could be helpful to those interested in EDUCATION at a conservative cost.
They were successful! 78% now report being strongly in favor of the bond.
As promised, the results are now being made public . Reading thorough the comments will show the researcher the intent of the bias group. See the previous comments on the "packing issue below.
Enjoy the comments, some are quite good and could be helpful to those interested in EDUCATION at a conservative cost.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Latest Survey comments
14 responses today (10/9) - ALL in favor (5) One did say the price was too high and one was only "somewhat in favor," and 4 or 5 were through the Utah Educator Network IP; with the request for comments, many were posted - however the last one reverted to true from - "It's outdated"
"standard answer" = (generally) Strongly support, the price is just right, location is great, sell old school. It surprising how many do not know how much the taxes will be. Answers range from a high of $1,000/yr to "not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does!" (comments added below)
Thanks for participating. ; - )
2006-10-09 04:52:01 204.113.19.8 5 (strongly support) ***price too high *** Get the school off Main Street. Build a new high school big enough for future growth. $50.00 (A lot of comments on growth, why not just manage growth?)
2006-10-09 07:53:14 172.190.246.37 standard answer
2006-10-09 07:59:47 205.123.163.13 UEN? 5 ***just right *** Students need a clean, up to date learning environment. Just the necessary work needed to update wiring for computers is overwhelming. Labs should be current with up to date materials. The size of the school also needs to be exapanded to support the growth in our valley. $ not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does! (How much work to do the wiring and who is doing it? Students may have some hands on learning by doing. How much work or cost will wiring the new school be?)
2006-10-09 08:07:49 205.123.148.252 UEN standard answer Wasatch county is growing at a rapid rate. When new poeple move into a community it is necessary to provide new facilities for them,i.e. schools, roads annd even new stop lights ( and more roads, and schools and stoplights and . . . Who should pay for them? current residents or those creating the need?)
2006-10-09 08:22:26 205.123.148.252 UEN std answer My children will be attending the high school in this valley, and I would like a structurally sound building for them to attend. By the time my children attend, this high school will be severly over crowded. $250 My high school had a nursery that the students could work in; it helped me make my decision about going into education. *** A gym is necessary. *** This is a great district and a great place to be. As a community we need to support (in every way) the education of the future generation.
2006-10-09 09:18:52 71.213.28.164 std ans explosive population growth
2006-10-09 09:40:58 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans A new high school will allow the district to better educate our children. As an example, science labs and computer labs are virtually non-existant in the current high school. A new facility will help us stay competitive educationally. *** As I understand the current plan, I feel they have included all essential elements. *** The benefits of the new facility. They are emphasizing the educational benefits of a new school. (You may have a point on the labs, is it possible to provide without a $60 million school?)
2006-10-09 10:33:50 71.37.116.52 std ans Our children deserve facilities as good as other high schools. It is a very difficult job for the teachers to try to give comparable educational opportunities without the facilities necessary to do so. They need space to fully explore the arts, and music and sciences. *** Big cafeteria and commons area to keep students on campus during lunch! *** I think our teachers are doing a fabulous job despite the poor facilities. If we want to attract the best teachers we have to offer them great facilities also. ("as good as" or better than all others?)
2006-10-09 10:43:38 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans The facilities and classrooms at the high school are inadequate for student needs (e.g. limited science labs, computer labs poor heating system, holes in the roof, etc), there are safety and evacuation concerns, the old school can't handle the growth the county is experiencing. *** Our biggest asset in this county is our children. We must invest in them now in order to get great returns later. (DUPLICATED - was it deemed that important, or simply trying to skew the poll, or merely an error?)
2006-10-09 11:15:54 65.89.233.8 4 A new high school is necessary due to the delapidated state of the old school and the growth occuring in Wasatch County. *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** $1,000 *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** Wasatch county is a fast growing community. We need to recognize this a be prepared for the future. Our kids are worth the $ to not only build a new high school but also include a rec / aquatic center , to encourage and support them! (hesitation is good, do a little more analysis)
2006-10-09 11:52:48 67.182.207.9 std ans Students working on sound or lighting are insturced not to touch the ceiling of the auditorium Why is that? well there are toxic things in that room. Things that are in the air that we breath. A new school would be for the best health of all who enter there. $I don't know *** I think it is about time we are building a new school. You have my support (If there are toxic things, why aren't the corrected? Where is the maintenance budget?)
2006-10-09 11:53:53 204.117.0.94 std ans Wasatch County has a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to education. This is driving talented people away from the community, in search of easily attainable and much better options for their kids. Improving the county starts with a committment to education, which is lacking today. *** Public opinion of the county's commitment to education is that there is none. This reflects on the community as a whole, leaving the perception that our government and citizens are shortsighted and unsophisticated. Changing thisperception will benefit the county greatly over the long-term. (And you truly believe a new school is the answer to all edcucation problems?)
2006-10-09 14:11:51 161.28.164.37 std ans We need new facilities. Curent one is far out dated. $800.00 *** (A familar litany ! Shouldn't an $800 cost give cause for concern? That's high, by the way)
"standard answer" = (generally) Strongly support, the price is just right, location is great, sell old school. It surprising how many do not know how much the taxes will be. Answers range from a high of $1,000/yr to "not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does!" (comments added below)
Thanks for participating. ; - )
2006-10-09 04:52:01 204.113.19.8 5 (strongly support) ***price too high *** Get the school off Main Street. Build a new high school big enough for future growth. $50.00 (A lot of comments on growth, why not just manage growth?)
2006-10-09 07:53:14 172.190.246.37 standard answer
2006-10-09 07:59:47 205.123.163.13 UEN? 5 ***just right *** Students need a clean, up to date learning environment. Just the necessary work needed to update wiring for computers is overwhelming. Labs should be current with up to date materials. The size of the school also needs to be exapanded to support the growth in our valley. $ not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does! (How much work to do the wiring and who is doing it? Students may have some hands on learning by doing. How much work or cost will wiring the new school be?)
2006-10-09 08:07:49 205.123.148.252 UEN standard answer Wasatch county is growing at a rapid rate. When new poeple move into a community it is necessary to provide new facilities for them,i.e. schools, roads annd even new stop lights ( and more roads, and schools and stoplights and . . . Who should pay for them? current residents or those creating the need?)
2006-10-09 08:22:26 205.123.148.252 UEN std answer My children will be attending the high school in this valley, and I would like a structurally sound building for them to attend. By the time my children attend, this high school will be severly over crowded. $250 My high school had a nursery that the students could work in; it helped me make my decision about going into education. *** A gym is necessary. *** This is a great district and a great place to be. As a community we need to support (in every way) the education of the future generation.
2006-10-09 09:18:52 71.213.28.164 std ans explosive population growth
2006-10-09 09:40:58 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans A new high school will allow the district to better educate our children. As an example, science labs and computer labs are virtually non-existant in the current high school. A new facility will help us stay competitive educationally. *** As I understand the current plan, I feel they have included all essential elements. *** The benefits of the new facility. They are emphasizing the educational benefits of a new school. (You may have a point on the labs, is it possible to provide without a $60 million school?)
2006-10-09 10:33:50 71.37.116.52 std ans Our children deserve facilities as good as other high schools. It is a very difficult job for the teachers to try to give comparable educational opportunities without the facilities necessary to do so. They need space to fully explore the arts, and music and sciences. *** Big cafeteria and commons area to keep students on campus during lunch! *** I think our teachers are doing a fabulous job despite the poor facilities. If we want to attract the best teachers we have to offer them great facilities also. ("as good as" or better than all others?)
2006-10-09 10:43:38 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans The facilities and classrooms at the high school are inadequate for student needs (e.g. limited science labs, computer labs poor heating system, holes in the roof, etc), there are safety and evacuation concerns, the old school can't handle the growth the county is experiencing. *** Our biggest asset in this county is our children. We must invest in them now in order to get great returns later. (DUPLICATED - was it deemed that important, or simply trying to skew the poll, or merely an error?)
2006-10-09 11:15:54 65.89.233.8 4 A new high school is necessary due to the delapidated state of the old school and the growth occuring in Wasatch County. *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** $1,000 *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** Wasatch county is a fast growing community. We need to recognize this a be prepared for the future. Our kids are worth the $ to not only build a new high school but also include a rec / aquatic center , to encourage and support them! (hesitation is good, do a little more analysis)
2006-10-09 11:52:48 67.182.207.9 std ans Students working on sound or lighting are insturced not to touch the ceiling of the auditorium Why is that? well there are toxic things in that room. Things that are in the air that we breath. A new school would be for the best health of all who enter there. $I don't know *** I think it is about time we are building a new school. You have my support (If there are toxic things, why aren't the corrected? Where is the maintenance budget?)
2006-10-09 11:53:53 204.117.0.94 std ans Wasatch County has a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to education. This is driving talented people away from the community, in search of easily attainable and much better options for their kids. Improving the county starts with a committment to education, which is lacking today. *** Public opinion of the county's commitment to education is that there is none. This reflects on the community as a whole, leaving the perception that our government and citizens are shortsighted and unsophisticated. Changing thisperception will benefit the county greatly over the long-term. (And you truly believe a new school is the answer to all edcucation problems?)
2006-10-09 14:11:51 161.28.164.37 std ans We need new facilities. Curent one is far out dated. $800.00 *** (A familar litany ! Shouldn't an $800 cost give cause for concern? That's high, by the way)
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Building vs. Salary
Some people have commented that education would be far better served by focusing on the educators (and students, of course) rather than the BUILDING.
I heartlily agree with that sentiment. By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets.
But some say a new school will draw "better" educators.
Granted teachers (and students) might love a NEW school as we all might like NEW cars, clothes, houses, etc. Fiscal conservative (private and public) try to follow the philosophy of "Use it up, wear it out; make it do, or do without." Rational financial advisors recommend avoiding debt. That, IMO, includes private AND PUBLIC debt. $60 million is a substantial debt - $3,000 (plus interest - about $37 million over 21 years) for every man, woman and child in the county.
Please do not be swayed by the "It's only a hamburger a day" type of argument. That's car salesmanship - "This car is only $299/month" (not $35,000) Don't fall for that appeal of the need to sacrifice: "in 1964, our people made a greater sacrifice" relative to property value. I think they may be comparing apples to oranges (see the next entry).
There is a well organized group promoting the "selling" of the bond (apparently, teachers and parents of students, who certainly have every right to do so) See "Vote Yes for a new High School" or the Wasatch School District, which even has a fancy presentation called "sellfolio" but regrettably little information about the new school.
These epistles are merely attempting to present a modicum of balance to the discussion. The school district and "Citizens for Better Education" do seem to have blinders on, IMO, and are simple selling the "car" by any gimmick possible and prefer to sell by emotion.
Most regurgitated poll responses follow the same emotional litany:
It's too old (Old is not bad, I'm considered old by some)
The roof leaks (Fix the roof - didn't we do that?)
crowded (not statistically, or that I could see)
no space (Why is a classroom being used for storage?)
outdated (Is Harvard outdated, Oxford is hundreds of years old - is it outdated? . . .)
need more computers (How many do they need, how many do they have?)
more science labs (that may be valid)
Costs too much to remodel (how does anyone know, no analysis was done?)
need "State of the art" (that changes daily, it seems)
I heartlily agree with that sentiment. By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets.
But some say a new school will draw "better" educators.
Granted teachers (and students) might love a NEW school as we all might like NEW cars, clothes, houses, etc. Fiscal conservative (private and public) try to follow the philosophy of "Use it up, wear it out; make it do, or do without." Rational financial advisors recommend avoiding debt. That, IMO, includes private AND PUBLIC debt. $60 million is a substantial debt - $3,000 (plus interest - about $37 million over 21 years) for every man, woman and child in the county.
Please do not be swayed by the "It's only a hamburger a day" type of argument. That's car salesmanship - "This car is only $299/month" (not $35,000) Don't fall for that appeal of the need to sacrifice: "in 1964, our people made a greater sacrifice" relative to property value. I think they may be comparing apples to oranges (see the next entry).
There is a well organized group promoting the "selling" of the bond (apparently, teachers and parents of students, who certainly have every right to do so) See "Vote Yes for a new High School" or the Wasatch School District, which even has a fancy presentation called "sellfolio" but regrettably little information about the new school.
These epistles are merely attempting to present a modicum of balance to the discussion. The school district and "Citizens for Better Education" do seem to have blinders on, IMO, and are simple selling the "car" by any gimmick possible and prefer to sell by emotion.
Most regurgitated poll responses follow the same emotional litany:
It's too old (Old is not bad, I'm considered old by some)
The roof leaks (Fix the roof - didn't we do that?)
crowded (not statistically, or that I could see)
no space (Why is a classroom being used for storage?)
outdated (Is Harvard outdated, Oxford is hundreds of years old - is it outdated? . . .)
need more computers (How many do they need, how many do they have?)
more science labs (that may be valid)
Costs too much to remodel (how does anyone know, no analysis was done?)
need "State of the art" (that changes daily, it seems)
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Is the new high school too expensive?
The Vote Yes for a new High School website has a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" (as the site is relatively know, how frequently could they have been asked?)
#9 Poses this question - and "answer." Is the new high school too expensive? In 1964, the bond passed to build the current high school cost 17% of the value of all property in Wasatch County. The 2006 bond is only 3% of all property value. The building is not elaborate, but it is a sound educational design.
So effectively they are saying, if you don't support this bond you are a cheapskate and not willing to support education the children. In actuality, this comparison doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. BUT, are the figures even correct?
An interesting little anomaly here. Cost, data and sources are not provided for their conclusion. According to the Wasatch County Offices the total property value for 1964 is not readily available, however the ASSESSED value record is available on microfilm (which was reportedly used to research the figures.)
However, from 1961 - 1978 the Statutory Assessment Level (% of Market Value) was 30 %. Currently it is 100% (with a 45% residential exemption). See Property Tax History
So, if assessed values are being used rather than market values, the cost of the 1964 school would have been more like 5% - if we compare apples to apples!!! What's that old adage - figures can lie, and . . . ?
What was the price of the 1964 school used in the calculation? No number or source is given.
What was the real assessed/ appraised/??? property values in Wasatch County in 1964?
What is it today? (2005 WASATCH $1,888,743,778) Today, indeed, $60 million is 3%
In 2000, total property value was $1,288,186,733
#9 Poses this question - and "answer." Is the new high school too expensive? In 1964, the bond passed to build the current high school cost 17% of the value of all property in Wasatch County. The 2006 bond is only 3% of all property value. The building is not elaborate, but it is a sound educational design.
So effectively they are saying, if you don't support this bond you are a cheapskate and not willing to support education the children. In actuality, this comparison doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. BUT, are the figures even correct?
An interesting little anomaly here. Cost, data and sources are not provided for their conclusion. According to the Wasatch County Offices the total property value for 1964 is not readily available, however the ASSESSED value record is available on microfilm (which was reportedly used to research the figures.)
However, from 1961 - 1978 the Statutory Assessment Level (% of Market Value) was 30 %. Currently it is 100% (with a 45% residential exemption). See Property Tax History
So, if assessed values are being used rather than market values, the cost of the 1964 school would have been more like 5% - if we compare apples to apples!!! What's that old adage - figures can lie, and . . . ?
What was the price of the 1964 school used in the calculation? No number or source is given.
What was the real assessed/ appraised/??? property values in Wasatch County in 1964?
What is it today? (2005 WASATCH $1,888,743,778) Today, indeed, $60 million is 3%
In 2000, total property value was $1,288,186,733
How Large should a High School be?
In addition to other information on School construction, the Utah State Office of Education provides a chart of Per Student Space Criteria.
The recommendation for Senior High Schools with a 1500 student enrollment is 145 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 217,500 sq.ft.
For 1,000 students they allow 155 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 155,000 sq.ft.
Wasatch School is proposing 308,000 total area or beween 205 and 308 sq.ft./student.
To further clarify, a note is added:
For purposes of this table, Gross Square Feet is defined as the sum of the area on each floor level, measured in square feet from the exterior walls. It includes all rooms, corridors and storage areas, etc.
50 % too large is 50% too expensive
The recommendation for Senior High Schools with a 1500 student enrollment is 145 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 217,500 sq.ft.
For 1,000 students they allow 155 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 155,000 sq.ft.
Wasatch School is proposing 308,000 total area or beween 205 and 308 sq.ft./student.
To further clarify, a note is added:
For purposes of this table, Gross Square Feet is defined as the sum of the area on each floor level, measured in square feet from the exterior walls. It includes all rooms, corridors and storage areas, etc.
50 % too large is 50% too expensive
Saturday, September 30, 2006
$60 Million & 308,000 Sq. Ft.
Is this reasonable for Wasatch High School?
Total Sq.Ft. - - - 308,000
# Students - - - 1,500 capacity
Cost - - - - - - - -$59,500,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - - - $193.18
$/Student -- - - - $39,667 at capacity, $59,500 at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - 205.3 at capacity, 308.0 at start up
The proposed Wasatch High is above the Medians by:
How does the proposal compare to other Utah High Schools?
Location---area------cost-------comp---enrollment---cost/sqft--cost/stud-ft/std
Logan-------9,700----$900,000--mar 99------? - - - - -$92.78-------?----------?
Parowan---17,964----$1,500,000--jun 99----366-------$83.50-----$4,098-----49
Cedar City-233,199--$20,000,000-Aug 00---896------$85.76-----$22,321---260
Tooele-----239,470--$16,736,000--aug 02---1824------$69.89-----$9,175---131
StGeorge---27,382----$2,300,000-jun 00------?--------$84.00-------?----------?
Total Sq.Ft. - - - 308,000
# Students - - - 1,500 capacity
Cost - - - - - - - -$59,500,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - - - $193.18
$/Student -- - - - $39,667 at capacity, $59,500 at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - 205.3 at capacity, 308.0 at start up
The 2006 School Construction Report (page 6) reports the following National Medians for High Schools:
Total Sq.Ft.- - - 120,000
# Students - - - -1,200
Cost - - - - - - - - $30,000,000
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - $150.00
$/Student - - - - - $25,333
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 162.5
The proposed Wasatch High is above the Medians by:
Total Sq.Ft.- - - 156%
# Students - - - -25%
Cost - - - - - - - - 98%
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - 31%
$/Student - - - - - 56% at capacity, 135% at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 26% at capacity, 90% at start up
# Students - - - -25%
Cost - - - - - - - - 98%
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - 31%
$/Student - - - - - 56% at capacity, 135% at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 26% at capacity, 90% at start up
How does the proposal compare to other Utah High Schools?
The Utah State Office of Education reports on school construction. Since 1999 they report the building of 15 High Schools, in Utah, as follows:
Location---area------cost-------comp---enrollment---cost/sqft--cost/stud-ft/std
Logan-------9,700----$900,000--mar 99------? - - - - -$92.78-------?----------?
Parowan---17,964----$1,500,000--jun 99----366-------$83.50-----$4,098-----49
Cedar City-233,199--$20,000,000-Aug 00---896------$85.76-----$22,321---260
Tooele-----239,470--$16,736,000--aug 02---1824------$69.89-----$9,175---131
StGeorge---27,382----$2,300,000-jun 00------?--------$84.00-------?----------?
Murray----255,000--$24,000,000-jun 03 --1527------$94.12-----$15,717------167
Granite -----58,000---$6,000,000-sep 02----?--------$103.45--------?---------?
Duchesne----51,666---$4,300,000-sep 03----299------$83.23-----$14,381-----173
Kaysville----321,344--$32,000,000-dec 04--2230-----$99.58----$14,350-----144
Kearns------119,456----Donated---spring 03---?----------$0.00---------?----------?
SLC----------71,273----$7,000,000-dec 03-----?--------$98.21--------?----------?
Granite -----58,000---$6,000,000-sep 02----?--------$103.45--------?---------?
Duchesne----51,666---$4,300,000-sep 03----299------$83.23-----$14,381-----173
Kaysville----321,344--$32,000,000-dec 04--2230-----$99.58----$14,350-----144
Kearns------119,456----Donated---spring 03---?----------$0.00---------?----------?
SLC----------71,273----$7,000,000-dec 03-----?--------$98.21--------?----------?
StG----------61,000---$5,800,000-aug 06-----?--------$95.08--------?----------?
Springville---30,805----$2,900,000-dec 04---1411------$94.14-----$2,055-----22
Syracuse ----383,000--$38,000,000-apr 07----?--------$99.22--------?----------?
Springville---30,805----$2,900,000-dec 04---1411------$94.14-----$2,055-----22
Syracuse ----383,000--$38,000,000-apr 07----?--------$99.22--------?----------?
School Bond Survey
With a reasonable number of responses to the poll on Wasatch County growth, including many excellent comments; a poll was created concerning the proposed School Bond hoping to gain some more comments (pro and con) on the issue.
The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.
Lo and behold, the first IP (205.123.148.252) was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.
On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.
The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.
Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?
Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it.
Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?
His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.
This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."
Shall we post the name of this poll taker???
While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.
The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.
The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.
Lo and behold, the first IP (205.123.148.252) was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.
On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.
The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.
Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?
Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it.
Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?
His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.
This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."
Shall we post the name of this poll taker???
While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.
The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
What to do about growth
1 Educate Yourself
To find the rules of growth, planning and zoning, see County Title 16, the County General Plan for Wasatch County. For Heber City, see the Heber City Code (particularly Titles 17 & 18).
To read the City survey, click here - Big Box for the presentation and results
Other contacts, Wasatch County Heber City and we mustn't forget Midway
2 Inform your Neighbors
In Wasatch County, Empty land has Property Rights, People in HOMES do not! The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. That must include the current residents who have repeatedly expressed their collective desire to maintain a rural, small town environment.
They have built and purchased homes at least partly predicated on promised zoning. Regulations are being continually modified toward higher and higher densities and more and more growth in defiance of the expressed desires of the residents.
3 Express your Opinions
To contact your elected officials, see County Council and Heber City Council and/or the Mayor or City Manager
Mike Davis Wasatch County Manager, 654-3211 fax 657-5116
Mark Anderson Heber City Manager, 654-0757
Alan Fawcett Planning Director, 654-4830
To find the rules of growth, planning and zoning, see County Title 16, the County General Plan for Wasatch County. For Heber City, see the Heber City Code (particularly Titles 17 & 18).
To read the City survey, click here - Big Box for the presentation and results
Other contacts, Wasatch County Heber City and we mustn't forget Midway
2 Inform your Neighbors
In Wasatch County, Empty land has Property Rights, People in HOMES do not! The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. That must include the current residents who have repeatedly expressed their collective desire to maintain a rural, small town environment.
They have built and purchased homes at least partly predicated on promised zoning. Regulations are being continually modified toward higher and higher densities and more and more growth in defiance of the expressed desires of the residents.
3 Express your Opinions
To contact your elected officials, see County Council and Heber City Council and/or the Mayor or City Manager
Mike Davis Wasatch County Manager, 654-3211 fax 657-5116
Mark Anderson Heber City Manager, 654-0757
Alan Fawcett Planning Director, 654-4830
4 We need to understand, we ALL live in Wasatch County!
(The recent growth survey was posted at www.snipurl.com/heber. Preliminary results were posted below in this blog.)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Recordings of Public Meetings
Effective 1 May 2006 all public meetings must be recorded and made accessible to anyone. "(3) (a) The minutes and recordings of an open meeting are public records and shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting."
A request was made for the recording of the joint County - City meeting and a fee of $12 was required for the CD. Subsequent to that request the County Council decided that the county should recover the cost of the equipment required to record the meetings and the fee was raised to $20.
A logical question to be asked - who paid for the recording equipment? Obviously the taxpayers. With the idea toward transparency in government and providing information on all government activity, shouldn't the county residents have the information available at no or minimal cost? Or better yet why not post the recordings on the web as the Utah legislature does? People have the right to know!!
A request was made for the recording of the joint County - City meeting and a fee of $12 was required for the CD. Subsequent to that request the County Council decided that the county should recover the cost of the equipment required to record the meetings and the fee was raised to $20.
A logical question to be asked - who paid for the recording equipment? Obviously the taxpayers. With the idea toward transparency in government and providing information on all government activity, shouldn't the county residents have the information available at no or minimal cost? Or better yet why not post the recordings on the web as the Utah legislature does? People have the right to know!!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Joint Wasatch County Heber City Meeting
On August 14, the county and the city held a joint meeting to discuss issues of growth, annexation and working together. The primary focus for the first half of the meeting was working together to facilitate the Red Ledges development as a joint project.
Below is a 'paraphrase' "transcript" extracts of the meeting - an interesting discussion. The numbers indicate the times from the beginning of the meeting on the recording. (No minutes of this meeting are found on the County website.) Phillips or DP = Dave Phillips, Heber City Mayor; Anderson or MA = Mark Anderson; Heber City Manager; Lange = Terry Lange, City Council; Price or JP = Jay Price County Council Chair; Davis = Mike Davis, County Manager and other members.
9:40 Philips; This is unique (working together) If Red Ledges makes sense and feels right - It’ll be a landmark . It'll benefit the county for a long time. If you are willing to consider we can take it to the next step.
11:30 Phillips: $1.2 million in property taxes to city on the whole project Red Ledges
Price: Cost to city?
Anderson; I can’t say that (have) figured it
??? Red Ledges says 40% second homes - I don’t trust those developers
12:30 MA: was 1800 ERU's down to 1400 their marketing says the number may go done more.
Davis: Could be different because it’s in the valley, most of secondary homes are out of valley
Phillips: They (RL and developers) say more secondary because not much service to secondary homes. (Italicized comments added)
Lange: some history
15:00 Phillips: We’ve shared our vision
Price; Questions from council ??
Farrell; With a joint planning impasse who has final say?
Phillips: We need a fall back plan - this is what we are going to do. We have differences on safety issues
17:20 DP; divide fees based on ERU’s Committee to work on it In the end we're living here, this is for the folks down the road. We’re not getting anything out of it.
JP; what are your fees?
(Most of the discussion seems to center on how much can be collected in fees - NOT how it affects the future)
18:20 City fees way low - Anderson: escrow actual costs.
Price: 5% for engineering 3% for water we get em for 8% Barely covering costs with that.
19:50 Anderson; we see our boundaries as being restricted this provides us with growth areas to west.
PC Zone City; 40% open space 5500 sqft lots 2 units per acre. (New) McCluskey (60 acres/120 units) nw of mcNaughtan (between McN and city)
Davis; Annex to collect city taxes? YES
Davis; You will annex Wasatch View acres. Illegal without that. Will you Annex Gary Conrad above greener Hills.
22:40 Anderson; Annexation plan dynamic. People might want to annex from twin creeks SSD
Davis; Draw a lIne ?
DP; what are you trying to say Mike - just say it.
Davis; we aren't trying to annex Twin Creek into Heber; we have a line at the city.
23:24 Phillips; Response to Jul 6 Co letter County wants TROZ (16.18) hard to do if you can't set city boundary
Phillips; what do want us to say? To annex Burns without view acrew would be a peninsula. (Illegal)
Davis; we need to know where the city will stop.
Phillips; Maybe I’m reading something into this - I apologize you are asking where do we stop.
25:45 Davis; will the city consider the next to the east
Price; Scott just bot that property and will want the same consideration
26: 15 Davis: TROZ offers higher density adjacent to city. M (meant P160) zone is 160 per home when adjacent to city becomes potentially M zone "with the density we are going to see in the Burns development" (RL & mountain Zone not in TROZ)
If it stays P160, $12 million is very expensive for 40 homes, (Actually $300K/ lot is not too exorbitant these days in the valley) If he is adjacent to city there’s a potential for m zone
Shari Lazenby; How big is the TROZ Davis; TROZ = 2 things Heber annexation and adjacent to that area (NO- not clear, seems to want to include RL as adjacent see 16.08.01)
28:49 Kohler; county trying to give comparative density next to city - you allow 4 per acre 1 acre looks good compare to what you’ve got. If the city was not annexing we would not give as much density than is being considering now. How do we get around that?
Lange; We stayed of ? annexation makes your property more profitable. (Why do we continue to worry about the profitability of empty land and not about the taxes caused on the current property owners) Why do we have to fill in Wasatch view acres they don't want in Behind there they may want to - Cove
31:52 Kohler; If the city keeps annexing up the hill how do we get open space anywhere? If we don't do something you will keep annexing.
Lange; Get a petition (for annexation) and let’s talk about it.
Kohler; The assumption is if we don’t do something, you will so we have to do something.
Farrell??; if we have successful joint planning on RL, I don’t know why you abandon it.
DP;. With PPD we can create open space, our PPD give open space - bring your 160 acres and will talk about it.
33:34 Kohler; The leverage is always there (annexation) they can always come to the city and get more. If the city continues to annex to increase revenue. We have two different ideas. (Open space vs. revenue??)
DP; I like the plan for McN because it has open space, not a grid square subdivision. The rest of the Burns property should be more open than that.
Kohler; He didn’t spend $12mill without expecting something We have to break that expectations that higher densities are available.
36:30 Anderson; philosophical differences. SLC, Summit and Wasatch are pro development. It would be nice to have areas to grow into. Avoid the competition, (between city and county) sit down and plan something for this valley rather than add a lot of density
DP; It terrible that you have to make the decision based on us. If all of the growth had gone from the city outward we wouldn’t be having this problem. 50 years from now we have x people maybe we'll say we should have done better. Maybe tonight is the beginning of the game. This may good for Burns but what problem will it create. Next people come along and change everything
Price; That’s a mistaken attitude. County hasn't gone out promoted development. People have come in and promoted development.
??? ; We haven't either.
39:45 Price; Apparently you aren't feeling the pressure that we are getting to slow development. What are Heber citizens saying?
Lange; Developers always want more development.
KC; people say shut it off
DP;: 95% say I’ve got my place - stop. they don't want more subdivision. They want their open space at someone else’s expense.
Price; Mark, you’re saying leave the open space in the county so we can expand into it. We're saying develop in the county at less density.
DP; Take that to RL and work together. They already given up some density since they started. (Actually they started out high). Then we go to the next guy west and say do you want to build something.
I‘d like to see that guy 6th south collaborate with neighbor. for open space. Maybe one acre is the best we can get.
44:00 DP; we need to work this out
Price; OK, How do we deal with the transition to county
DP; county is more open than city. Where does leave us in the city with the property owners that want to develop. If we say let’s develop everything in the county form this day forward where does that leave the city?
Davis; Is it the government responsibility to maximize the profit to someone that owns property or let them develop under guidelines that are socially compatible with the people that live here?
DP; By limiting them to one house per one or five acres we are taking away their property rights. If I’m saying something wrong, let me know.
Davis: City protested Jordanelle. If the guy wants to build on 40 and River Rd. why not let him, why not let him (under your philosophy?
DP; Because I’d like him to build a it out on 12th South.
Lange; back in the pre Davis days, Mathis came to city and asked for support for stopping commercial north of town. We agreed. I voted no on Southfield Rd annexation turned down. We turned it down many times and have been harassed.
49:15 My wife’s nephew wants to develop condos flowing north into north fields on 105 acres. I told him to stop talking. I ask Val and you what’s the density there, I’m still skeptical with the Bypass road thru that property. Because I thought you guys would protest.
50:54 DP; it's property owners right to annex, city makes decision whether to accept. (City has the right and responsibility to set the annexation zone and protect the welfare of the community)
52:26 Davis; we have no say in annexation.
Below is a 'paraphrase' "transcript" extracts of the meeting - an interesting discussion. The numbers indicate the times from the beginning of the meeting on the recording. (No minutes of this meeting are found on the County website.) Phillips or DP = Dave Phillips, Heber City Mayor; Anderson or MA = Mark Anderson; Heber City Manager; Lange = Terry Lange, City Council; Price or JP = Jay Price County Council Chair; Davis = Mike Davis, County Manager and other members.
9:40 Philips; This is unique (working together) If Red Ledges makes sense and feels right - It’ll be a landmark . It'll benefit the county for a long time. If you are willing to consider we can take it to the next step.
11:30 Phillips: $1.2 million in property taxes to city on the whole project Red Ledges
Price: Cost to city?
Anderson; I can’t say that (have) figured it
??? Red Ledges says 40% second homes - I don’t trust those developers
12:30 MA: was 1800 ERU's down to 1400 their marketing says the number may go done more.
Davis: Could be different because it’s in the valley, most of secondary homes are out of valley
Phillips: They (RL and developers) say more secondary because not much service to secondary homes. (Italicized comments added)
Lange: some history
15:00 Phillips: We’ve shared our vision
Price; Questions from council ??
Farrell; With a joint planning impasse who has final say?
Phillips: We need a fall back plan - this is what we are going to do. We have differences on safety issues
17:20 DP; divide fees based on ERU’s Committee to work on it In the end we're living here, this is for the folks down the road. We’re not getting anything out of it.
JP; what are your fees?
(Most of the discussion seems to center on how much can be collected in fees - NOT how it affects the future)
18:20 City fees way low - Anderson: escrow actual costs.
Price: 5% for engineering 3% for water we get em for 8% Barely covering costs with that.
19:50 Anderson; we see our boundaries as being restricted this provides us with growth areas to west.
PC Zone City; 40% open space 5500 sqft lots 2 units per acre. (New) McCluskey (60 acres/120 units) nw of mcNaughtan (between McN and city)
Davis; Annex to collect city taxes? YES
Davis; You will annex Wasatch View acres. Illegal without that. Will you Annex Gary Conrad above greener Hills.
22:40 Anderson; Annexation plan dynamic. People might want to annex from twin creeks SSD
Davis; Draw a lIne ?
DP; what are you trying to say Mike - just say it.
Davis; we aren't trying to annex Twin Creek into Heber; we have a line at the city.
23:24 Phillips; Response to Jul 6 Co letter County wants TROZ (16.18) hard to do if you can't set city boundary
Phillips; what do want us to say? To annex Burns without view acrew would be a peninsula. (Illegal)
Davis; we need to know where the city will stop.
Phillips; Maybe I’m reading something into this - I apologize you are asking where do we stop.
25:45 Davis; will the city consider the next to the east
Price; Scott just bot that property and will want the same consideration
26: 15 Davis: TROZ offers higher density adjacent to city. M (meant P160) zone is 160 per home when adjacent to city becomes potentially M zone "with the density we are going to see in the Burns development" (RL & mountain Zone not in TROZ)
If it stays P160, $12 million is very expensive for 40 homes, (Actually $300K/ lot is not too exorbitant these days in the valley) If he is adjacent to city there’s a potential for m zone
Shari Lazenby; How big is the TROZ Davis; TROZ = 2 things Heber annexation and adjacent to that area (NO- not clear, seems to want to include RL as adjacent see 16.08.01)
28:49 Kohler; county trying to give comparative density next to city - you allow 4 per acre 1 acre looks good compare to what you’ve got. If the city was not annexing we would not give as much density than is being considering now. How do we get around that?
Lange; We stayed of ? annexation makes your property more profitable. (Why do we continue to worry about the profitability of empty land and not about the taxes caused on the current property owners) Why do we have to fill in Wasatch view acres they don't want in Behind there they may want to - Cove
31:52 Kohler; If the city keeps annexing up the hill how do we get open space anywhere? If we don't do something you will keep annexing.
Lange; Get a petition (for annexation) and let’s talk about it.
Kohler; The assumption is if we don’t do something, you will so we have to do something.
Farrell??; if we have successful joint planning on RL, I don’t know why you abandon it.
DP;. With PPD we can create open space, our PPD give open space - bring your 160 acres and will talk about it.
33:34 Kohler; The leverage is always there (annexation) they can always come to the city and get more. If the city continues to annex to increase revenue. We have two different ideas. (Open space vs. revenue??)
DP; I like the plan for McN because it has open space, not a grid square subdivision. The rest of the Burns property should be more open than that.
Kohler; He didn’t spend $12mill without expecting something We have to break that expectations that higher densities are available.
36:30 Anderson; philosophical differences. SLC, Summit and Wasatch are pro development. It would be nice to have areas to grow into. Avoid the competition, (between city and county) sit down and plan something for this valley rather than add a lot of density
DP; It terrible that you have to make the decision based on us. If all of the growth had gone from the city outward we wouldn’t be having this problem. 50 years from now we have x people maybe we'll say we should have done better. Maybe tonight is the beginning of the game. This may good for Burns but what problem will it create. Next people come along and change everything
Price; That’s a mistaken attitude. County hasn't gone out promoted development. People have come in and promoted development.
??? ; We haven't either.
39:45 Price; Apparently you aren't feeling the pressure that we are getting to slow development. What are Heber citizens saying?
Lange; Developers always want more development.
KC; people say shut it off
DP;: 95% say I’ve got my place - stop. they don't want more subdivision. They want their open space at someone else’s expense.
Price; Mark, you’re saying leave the open space in the county so we can expand into it. We're saying develop in the county at less density.
DP; Take that to RL and work together. They already given up some density since they started. (Actually they started out high). Then we go to the next guy west and say do you want to build something.
I‘d like to see that guy 6th south collaborate with neighbor. for open space. Maybe one acre is the best we can get.
44:00 DP; we need to work this out
Price; OK, How do we deal with the transition to county
DP; county is more open than city. Where does leave us in the city with the property owners that want to develop. If we say let’s develop everything in the county form this day forward where does that leave the city?
Davis; Is it the government responsibility to maximize the profit to someone that owns property or let them develop under guidelines that are socially compatible with the people that live here?
DP; By limiting them to one house per one or five acres we are taking away their property rights. If I’m saying something wrong, let me know.
Davis: City protested Jordanelle. If the guy wants to build on 40 and River Rd. why not let him, why not let him (under your philosophy?
DP; Because I’d like him to build a it out on 12th South.
Lange; back in the pre Davis days, Mathis came to city and asked for support for stopping commercial north of town. We agreed. I voted no on Southfield Rd annexation turned down. We turned it down many times and have been harassed.
49:15 My wife’s nephew wants to develop condos flowing north into north fields on 105 acres. I told him to stop talking. I ask Val and you what’s the density there, I’m still skeptical with the Bypass road thru that property. Because I thought you guys would protest.
50:54 DP; it's property owners right to annex, city makes decision whether to accept. (City has the right and responsibility to set the annexation zone and protect the welfare of the community)
52:26 Davis; we have no say in annexation.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Initial Survey Response
An online survey is being taken at Wasatch Growth Survey. It began on July 19, 2006. To date (Aug 6) the responses has been very consistent and the comments defining "rural" and benefits and problems with new developments and miscellaneous remarks have generally been quite insightful and apparently sincere.
The survey was 'promoted' through word of mouth, two letters to the Wave and comments on the local radio station KTMP 1340. Response was available to anyone willing to participate and, hopefully, self limited to Wasatch County residents. Individual responses indicate this to be successful. One apparently facetious comment was submitted yesterday in the "Too little" growth category with some humorous (?) comments.
1. How would you rank residential growth rate in Wasatch County?
Too much 58 - 81% Too little 1 - 1% About right 13 - 18% Total 72
2. Is Wasatch County government on the right track in managing growth?
Yes 10 - 14% No 61 - 86% Total 71
3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Total Number of Comments 62
4. What should be the smallest lot size in the unincorporated county?
1/3 acre (15,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% 1/2 acre (22,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% One acre 25 - 35% Five acres 27 - 38% Total 72
5. What housing density should be allowed in the RA-1 zone (RA = Residential Agricultural), that is how many houses would be allowed on, for example, 30 acres?
30 houses 19 - 27% 15 houses 8 - 11% 6 houses 30 - 43% 60 houses 10 - 14% 22 houses 3 - 4% Total 70
6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
Total Number of Comments 65
7. What problems do you foresee with new developments?
Total Number of Comments 66
8. Should "Open Space" be required in a development and, if so, how much?
No 3 - 4% Yes, 50% 25 = 34% Yes, 20% 7 = 9% Yes, depends on the area. 39 = 53% Total 74
9. How long have you lived in Wasatch County?
Generations 14 = 19% 25 to 50 years 19 = 26% 10 to 25 years 24 = 32% less than 10 years 17 = 23% Total 74
10. How much land do you currently own in Wasatch County?
Less than one acre 24 = 32% one to five acres 25 = 34% 5 to 20 acres 15 = 20% 20 to 100 acres 5 = 7% More than 100 acres 1 = 1% None 4 = 5% Total 74
11. Would you support a law that limited the property taxes (current level plus a small allowance for inflation) on your home for as long as you owned it but would allow new sales to be taxed at a higher, market rate?
Yes 52 = 75% No 17 = 25% Total 69
12. Please add any other comments.
Total Number of Comments 48
The survey was 'promoted' through word of mouth, two letters to the Wave and comments on the local radio station KTMP 1340. Response was available to anyone willing to participate and, hopefully, self limited to Wasatch County residents. Individual responses indicate this to be successful. One apparently facetious comment was submitted yesterday in the "Too little" growth category with some humorous (?) comments.
1. How would you rank residential growth rate in Wasatch County?
Too much 58 - 81% Too little 1 - 1% About right 13 - 18% Total 72
2. Is Wasatch County government on the right track in managing growth?
Yes 10 - 14% No 61 - 86% Total 71
3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Total Number of Comments 62
4. What should be the smallest lot size in the unincorporated county?
1/3 acre (15,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% 1/2 acre (22,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% One acre 25 - 35% Five acres 27 - 38% Total 72
5. What housing density should be allowed in the RA-1 zone (RA = Residential Agricultural), that is how many houses would be allowed on, for example, 30 acres?
30 houses 19 - 27% 15 houses 8 - 11% 6 houses 30 - 43% 60 houses 10 - 14% 22 houses 3 - 4% Total 70
6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
Total Number of Comments 65
7. What problems do you foresee with new developments?
Total Number of Comments 66
8. Should "Open Space" be required in a development and, if so, how much?
No 3 - 4% Yes, 50% 25 = 34% Yes, 20% 7 = 9% Yes, depends on the area. 39 = 53% Total 74
9. How long have you lived in Wasatch County?
Generations 14 = 19% 25 to 50 years 19 = 26% 10 to 25 years 24 = 32% less than 10 years 17 = 23% Total 74
10. How much land do you currently own in Wasatch County?
Less than one acre 24 = 32% one to five acres 25 = 34% 5 to 20 acres 15 = 20% 20 to 100 acres 5 = 7% More than 100 acres 1 = 1% None 4 = 5% Total 74
11. Would you support a law that limited the property taxes (current level plus a small allowance for inflation) on your home for as long as you owned it but would allow new sales to be taxed at a higher, market rate?
Yes 52 = 75% No 17 = 25% Total 69
12. Please add any other comments.
Total Number of Comments 48
Land Use Survey - from Sep 2000
I'm certain there will be those that say the anonymous, open to anyone, survey is not "scientific" or does not really indicate what the Wasatch County residents REALLY want. However, it is quite consistent with other measured barometers of public opinion. Anyone remember the Asphalt Plant hearings or the Airport Expansion.
Prior to the 2001 General Plan a survey was done for the county by BYU.
The current survey is quite consistent with the BYU survey's results. Excerpts:
When residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their community - 45% highly and 28% satisfied. When asked for "Preference for Community Change" 61.6% said it was "absolutely essential" to keep "The Way It Is." (76.5 % serious+)
Other serious "Preference for Community Change" were 89% Protect Air and Water quality, 82% Enforce Zoning & Land Use, 82% protect wetlands, 72% agricultural community,
"In general, the majority of respondents favor keeping at least 75% of the unincorporated areas of the county as open space." "There is very little sentiment favoring large scale developments of any of the areas." (defined as County, North Fields, South Fields, Provo River, Snake Creek, Round Valley, Woodland, Lake Creek)
In 2000, respondents were asked about "Problem Areas Five Years From Now." The number one problem - "Excessive Residential Development" 80% said it would be a serious problem; 80% also listed Traffic. Over 60% were concerned about excessive COMMERCIAL development. Have we solved those problem or fulfilled the prediction?
"The majority prefer that both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance be changed in minor way to refine them. A large majority (over 30%) would like to have them both revised extensively to make the more restrictive."
How have we done in abiding by the desires of the residents? For any wishing to read the entire report, I'm sure you can find it on some dusty shelf or archive in a government office.
Prior to the 2001 General Plan a survey was done for the county by BYU.
The current survey is quite consistent with the BYU survey's results. Excerpts:
"72% . . favor slow to negative population growth. Economically there is greater sentiment in favor of slow to moderate growth. There is little sentiment in favor of rapid growth on either population or economic dimensions."
When residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their community - 45% highly and 28% satisfied. When asked for "Preference for Community Change" 61.6% said it was "absolutely essential" to keep "The Way It Is." (76.5 % serious+)
Other serious "Preference for Community Change" were 89% Protect Air and Water quality, 82% Enforce Zoning & Land Use, 82% protect wetlands, 72% agricultural community,
"In general, the majority of respondents favor keeping at least 75% of the unincorporated areas of the county as open space." "There is very little sentiment favoring large scale developments of any of the areas." (defined as County, North Fields, South Fields, Provo River, Snake Creek, Round Valley, Woodland, Lake Creek)
In 2000, respondents were asked about "Problem Areas Five Years From Now." The number one problem - "Excessive Residential Development" 80% said it would be a serious problem; 80% also listed Traffic. Over 60% were concerned about excessive COMMERCIAL development. Have we solved those problem or fulfilled the prediction?
"The majority prefer that both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance be changed in minor way to refine them. A large majority (over 30%) would like to have them both revised extensively to make the more restrictive."
How have we done in abiding by the desires of the residents? For any wishing to read the entire report, I'm sure you can find it on some dusty shelf or archive in a government office.
The BIG BOX survey - May 2005
Talking about consistency of opinions, here a some from Heber City's "Big Box" survey. Many of the elected officials, appointed board members and associated bureaucrats are attempting to say that it was a clarion call for more retail stores, shopping and, of course, the ubiquitous BIG BOX.
When asked in for an open answer (#6) "What do you like best about living in the Heber City are?" about 60% specifically responded with terms like "rural," "small town," "peaceful," "remoteness," and "beauty."
When asked (#7) for desired "major improvements," 28 % said "more shopping facilities." Reading the comments, one finds that means "mom and pop" stores, restaurants, movies, small retail stores, etc. - a mere 4% suggested a Big Box.
In answer to (#42) "What projects or services would you like," only 12% called for "more retail shopping" and, again, a mere 4% (9 out of 236) indicated a desire for a Big Box.
"How important is it to you that Heber City have that small-town character?" (#43) gets an astounding 89% answering somewhat (27%) or very (62%) important.
Other interesting responses:
69% seldom or never buy groceries "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#58)
63% seldom or never buy gasoline "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#63)
49% seldom or never buy hardware "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#61)
61% supported an ordinance on retail store size. (#83, 84)
65% agree that "Large retail stores negatively impact local businesses." (#91)
55 % say "Large retail stores negatively the character of Main Street." (#93)
68% say Big Boxes will increase tax revenues, to which I respond Big Box Baloney.
Anyone wishing to read the entire results, the dusty archive of Heber City may be able to produce a copy - be sure to get the comments, too.
When asked in for an open answer (#6) "What do you like best about living in the Heber City are?" about 60% specifically responded with terms like "rural," "small town," "peaceful," "remoteness," and "beauty."
When asked (#7) for desired "major improvements," 28 % said "more shopping facilities." Reading the comments, one finds that means "mom and pop" stores, restaurants, movies, small retail stores, etc. - a mere 4% suggested a Big Box.
In answer to (#42) "What projects or services would you like," only 12% called for "more retail shopping" and, again, a mere 4% (9 out of 236) indicated a desire for a Big Box.
"How important is it to you that Heber City have that small-town character?" (#43) gets an astounding 89% answering somewhat (27%) or very (62%) important.
Other interesting responses:
69% seldom or never buy groceries "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#58)
63% seldom or never buy gasoline "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#63)
49% seldom or never buy hardware "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#61)
61% supported an ordinance on retail store size. (#83, 84)
65% agree that "Large retail stores negatively impact local businesses." (#91)
55 % say "Large retail stores negatively the character of Main Street." (#93)
68% say Big Boxes will increase tax revenues, to which I respond Big Box Baloney.
Anyone wishing to read the entire results, the dusty archive of Heber City may be able to produce a copy - be sure to get the comments, too.
Survey Comments - Define Rural
These are VERBATIM comments submitted be survey participants:
3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Property used for livestock or crops.
Generally Farms and ranches intermixed with low density housing. With recognition that some very limited areas will need to be set aside for affordable housing.
open space
the areas surrounding provo River that has not been developed but is now in horse farms and meadows. Use the hillsides and East of Heber for development but keep the areas between Heber and Midway green.
low housing density, large open spaces
Robust agriculture thrives on a siginficant portion of the county's inhabited land. Large tracks of open, virgin, untouched forest and brush land where wild life florishes.
Agricultural land interspersed with residentual. Limited (be careful of the big box business) although I enjoy shopping at them, "rural" is the opposite of their nature.
Wasatch County has already defined it----it is one home per acre in a subdivision and one for every five acres outside of a subdivision. Does the public keep having to remind you in the face of the barrage of developer pressure?
you can see and smell the cows
small town feel. Knowing that big stores, some services will not be available. Slow growth, open spaces, animal rights on some property. Lack of big developments. Government that assists us in keeping the small town feel, a government that does not feel like they need to provide all the services of a big city. Keeps costs in check.
Wasatch County up to 5-7 years ago
Definable communities with open space seperating them so they don't all run together. A community where their is a sense of belonging and knowing your neighbors.
Even if hard to define, we know it when we see it - and where we are going is not rural!
Use a formula of present developable acreage in the county divided by the present population = persons per acre, and do not allow future development to increase this factor and to only allow new developments to sustain growth to a predetermined build out date.
Homes that have more than 5 acres or farming area for either food or animals
Open Fields, such as a farming comunity, along with areas that might have small 5 acre homesteads.
We need to keep the open field/space feeling. Keep some breathing room, and recreation and horse property.
Designated open space that the taxpayers have to bond for to purchase from the farmers. Keep North Fields WETLANDS regardless of a new septic system being approved. Cluster lots to allow open space. No one wants to water and maintain a 1 acre lot that's not horse property.
To many fields disappearing into subdivisions. I can't go four wheeling anywhere we used to just a few short years ago.
Open space in neighborhoods and in areas throughout the community. Clustering is probab;y a good idea.
People in rural areas live on farms and in other isolated houses
Rural is being able to sit on your back porch with an unobstructed view of the country-side be it mountains or fields instead of an ocean of homes. Rural is not being able to see what your neighbors are having for dinner. I have been there and done that.
Many open fields, many containing animals
Out side of the city limits, usually with a small farm, cows, chickens, etc.
slow responsible growth based on needs and not on money. Rural is open spaces, homes on large lots. People with animals. Small businesses. views from the hillsides and views of the hillsides that are open and uncluttered.
Websters defines "rural" as "sparsely settled or agricultural country". To apply that to planning and zoning regularions in the County, some portion of space, i.e., 35%, 40%, perhaps even 50%, within the County needs to be reserved or designated as "sparsely populated agricultural" space. A portion of this "rural" space could, and should, be the hills sides, but a major portion should also be the flatlands, that could feasibly be considered agricultural.
more open space in developments- not so condensed
rural to me means open space used for agriculture and animals such as horse pastures. It can mean large 5 acre lots or if smaller, open space for parks, etc.
Rural in respect to growth in Wasatch County appears to include building construction on any site in the county that has a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Rural=pasture land or farming land with a home or two on a minimum of 5 acre parcels.
Maintain the horse/pasture land as you enter from the North. This really sets up a "rural" feel for the valley.
a country lifestyle (this includes open space, right to have animals/livestock, room for large gardens or farmland). Wife says "wildlife habitat" should be included here; husband disagrees; he feels open space covers "wildlife."
No stop lights anywhere but main, no shopping on 12th S. east of Heber, or on Center East of Heber. At least half of the existing farms east and west of 40 remain in agrucultural use or open space.
Lots of pasture land, open fields. Few ammenities such as sidewalks and Wal-Mart.
rural signifies property not immediately bordering a major housing development
Rural is a small town or small farming community.
Rural was when it was farm land. We are no longer rural in the sense of agricultrural dependency but rather gentlemen farmers or back yard farmers. Our land is used to house families and recreational animals tho ride on trails rather than pl;ow the fields. Times have changed and we are that change.
There no longer is "rural" in the unincorporation areas of Wasatch County.
Wasatch county is rural in the sense that the streets do not have side walks and the road ways are narrower than Salt Lake. We are rural in the fact that people own horses and cows and you can hear a rooster crow. We are rural that we know the difference between a rooster and a hen.
For a metropolitan dweller Wasatch County is frightening and way too far removed from civilization. It is all in the eye of the beholder. We are rural because we board our own animals.
Rural means you can't see or smell what your neighbor is having for dinner
Being rural means you are from a small school and have to go to town to get a bigger selection of goods and services.
Houses on farms or ranches. Not PUDs.
My definition of rural is the way this town was before Lynn Adams sold us down the river.
There is no rural any more. Not the same place I grew up in.
Homes with 5 + acres.
Where farmland, houses, and animals coexist. Not where farm land gets filled in with huge homes with big driveways.
Rural is going to no more at the rate of growth Im seeing. Small town businesses that are unique to our area. Specialty shops, we dont need big box stores!
where ther are no subdivisions, and there are at least 5 acre lots for each house.
Farmland/ space in between homes / livestock
Rural to me means that there is more land in agriculture than in residential areas and that people are more concerned about their natural resources than shopping and eating out and driving fast.
open space,large building lots,trees,streams,
WE all ahave to know and understand we are growing planing is MOST inportant and staying wirh the plan after it is made we can not have a plan with out a vision and we did that in 2001 and then it was changed. So lets all get on the some page.
To maintain its rural character, Wasatch County MUST preserve the open spaces between municipalities. This includes both the North and South Fields as well as the traditional agricultural activities connected to them. This must be based on something more tangible than a "gentelman's agreement." If we value the rural character of the valley, we must do what we can to preserve it. If growth is inevitable, we should not assume that well-managed growth comes along with it automatically. I'd rather end up looking like Jackson Hole (managed growth)than Park City (overdeveloped); or Ogden Valley (still essentially rural) rather than Star Valley (haphazard planning).
We need to keep the wetlands and some open spaces, that is why many of live here and/or have choosen to move here.
"rural" should mean larger parcels, and less density
Open space--Farm land and ect..
can't see neighbors or hear traffic
You can see wife next door taking a shower
the sound of crowing roosters in the morning
Have balance between endless, cluttered subdivisions and pastures, agriculture and openess.
Rural means agriculture and open space are apparent
3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Property used for livestock or crops.
Generally Farms and ranches intermixed with low density housing. With recognition that some very limited areas will need to be set aside for affordable housing.
open space
the areas surrounding provo River that has not been developed but is now in horse farms and meadows. Use the hillsides and East of Heber for development but keep the areas between Heber and Midway green.
low housing density, large open spaces
Robust agriculture thrives on a siginficant portion of the county's inhabited land. Large tracks of open, virgin, untouched forest and brush land where wild life florishes.
Agricultural land interspersed with residentual. Limited (be careful of the big box business) although I enjoy shopping at them, "rural" is the opposite of their nature.
Wasatch County has already defined it----it is one home per acre in a subdivision and one for every five acres outside of a subdivision. Does the public keep having to remind you in the face of the barrage of developer pressure?
you can see and smell the cows
small town feel. Knowing that big stores, some services will not be available. Slow growth, open spaces, animal rights on some property. Lack of big developments. Government that assists us in keeping the small town feel, a government that does not feel like they need to provide all the services of a big city. Keeps costs in check.
Wasatch County up to 5-7 years ago
Definable communities with open space seperating them so they don't all run together. A community where their is a sense of belonging and knowing your neighbors.
Even if hard to define, we know it when we see it - and where we are going is not rural!
Use a formula of present developable acreage in the county divided by the present population = persons per acre, and do not allow future development to increase this factor and to only allow new developments to sustain growth to a predetermined build out date.
Homes that have more than 5 acres or farming area for either food or animals
Open Fields, such as a farming comunity, along with areas that might have small 5 acre homesteads.
We need to keep the open field/space feeling. Keep some breathing room, and recreation and horse property.
Designated open space that the taxpayers have to bond for to purchase from the farmers. Keep North Fields WETLANDS regardless of a new septic system being approved. Cluster lots to allow open space. No one wants to water and maintain a 1 acre lot that's not horse property.
To many fields disappearing into subdivisions. I can't go four wheeling anywhere we used to just a few short years ago.
Open space in neighborhoods and in areas throughout the community. Clustering is probab;y a good idea.
People in rural areas live on farms and in other isolated houses
Rural is being able to sit on your back porch with an unobstructed view of the country-side be it mountains or fields instead of an ocean of homes. Rural is not being able to see what your neighbors are having for dinner. I have been there and done that.
Many open fields, many containing animals
Out side of the city limits, usually with a small farm, cows, chickens, etc.
slow responsible growth based on needs and not on money. Rural is open spaces, homes on large lots. People with animals. Small businesses. views from the hillsides and views of the hillsides that are open and uncluttered.
Websters defines "rural" as "sparsely settled or agricultural country". To apply that to planning and zoning regularions in the County, some portion of space, i.e., 35%, 40%, perhaps even 50%, within the County needs to be reserved or designated as "sparsely populated agricultural" space. A portion of this "rural" space could, and should, be the hills sides, but a major portion should also be the flatlands, that could feasibly be considered agricultural.
more open space in developments- not so condensed
rural to me means open space used for agriculture and animals such as horse pastures. It can mean large 5 acre lots or if smaller, open space for parks, etc.
Rural in respect to growth in Wasatch County appears to include building construction on any site in the county that has a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Rural=pasture land or farming land with a home or two on a minimum of 5 acre parcels.
Maintain the horse/pasture land as you enter from the North. This really sets up a "rural" feel for the valley.
a country lifestyle (this includes open space, right to have animals/livestock, room for large gardens or farmland). Wife says "wildlife habitat" should be included here; husband disagrees; he feels open space covers "wildlife."
No stop lights anywhere but main, no shopping on 12th S. east of Heber, or on Center East of Heber. At least half of the existing farms east and west of 40 remain in agrucultural use or open space.
Lots of pasture land, open fields. Few ammenities such as sidewalks and Wal-Mart.
rural signifies property not immediately bordering a major housing development
Rural is a small town or small farming community.
Rural was when it was farm land. We are no longer rural in the sense of agricultrural dependency but rather gentlemen farmers or back yard farmers. Our land is used to house families and recreational animals tho ride on trails rather than pl;ow the fields. Times have changed and we are that change.
There no longer is "rural" in the unincorporation areas of Wasatch County.
Wasatch county is rural in the sense that the streets do not have side walks and the road ways are narrower than Salt Lake. We are rural in the fact that people own horses and cows and you can hear a rooster crow. We are rural that we know the difference between a rooster and a hen.
For a metropolitan dweller Wasatch County is frightening and way too far removed from civilization. It is all in the eye of the beholder. We are rural because we board our own animals.
Rural means you can't see or smell what your neighbor is having for dinner
Being rural means you are from a small school and have to go to town to get a bigger selection of goods and services.
Houses on farms or ranches. Not PUDs.
My definition of rural is the way this town was before Lynn Adams sold us down the river.
There is no rural any more. Not the same place I grew up in.
Homes with 5 + acres.
Where farmland, houses, and animals coexist. Not where farm land gets filled in with huge homes with big driveways.
Rural is going to no more at the rate of growth Im seeing. Small town businesses that are unique to our area. Specialty shops, we dont need big box stores!
where ther are no subdivisions, and there are at least 5 acre lots for each house.
Farmland/ space in between homes / livestock
Rural to me means that there is more land in agriculture than in residential areas and that people are more concerned about their natural resources than shopping and eating out and driving fast.
open space,large building lots,trees,streams,
WE all ahave to know and understand we are growing planing is MOST inportant and staying wirh the plan after it is made we can not have a plan with out a vision and we did that in 2001 and then it was changed. So lets all get on the some page.
To maintain its rural character, Wasatch County MUST preserve the open spaces between municipalities. This includes both the North and South Fields as well as the traditional agricultural activities connected to them. This must be based on something more tangible than a "gentelman's agreement." If we value the rural character of the valley, we must do what we can to preserve it. If growth is inevitable, we should not assume that well-managed growth comes along with it automatically. I'd rather end up looking like Jackson Hole (managed growth)than Park City (overdeveloped); or Ogden Valley (still essentially rural) rather than Star Valley (haphazard planning).
We need to keep the wetlands and some open spaces, that is why many of live here and/or have choosen to move here.
"rural" should mean larger parcels, and less density
Open space--Farm land and ect..
can't see neighbors or hear traffic
You can see wife next door taking a shower
the sound of crowing roosters in the morning
Have balance between endless, cluttered subdivisions and pastures, agriculture and openess.
Rural means agriculture and open space are apparent
Comments - Benefits of Developments
6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
increasing propety values for existing landowners
None
Added tax base and continued increase in value of property in county for benefit of all. Need to be sure the new developments fully pay for themselves in relation to initial and ongoing costs of support and infrastructure.
none for me
tax base increased
None
More excellent people with talent, energy, and resources reside as our neighbors and help build this county as the best place to live in the nation.
Development has the potential of creating fresh ideas and creativity. HOWEVER. . . see 7.
There are none unless they bring with them plenty of capital to modernize access to and egress from the subdivision.
new property to be taxed
at the present time, as a developer, plenty. as a ciitzen not much. history has shown new developments do not pay their way. I an tired of picking up the pieces.
?????
Land owners get fair value. Community gets fresh faces with new ideas, talents, and varied interests. Steady growth keeps the whole area vibrant.
some new and interesting people
Slow sustained growth of population will eventually attract more and varied services
More taxes
Not much if anything.
I can't think of any. It seems there are always many existing homes for sale, so why do people feel they have to build new homes and take up rural land, while others are available.
from (#5) question- 30 houses clustered with open space. The benefits of new developments are CCR's so there are no dead cars in the front yard, underground utilities to eliminate power poles. They are inevitable, we have to make the best of them.
Nothing
To provide housing for the growing demand in the valley. To upgrade the housing supply. New housing provides the type of product that the current buyers are looking for using the current building codes and requirements.
To line the developers pockets.
More tax dollars spent to improve existing areas in the valley.
None
nothing but income from taxes
there are no benefits, unless developers pay their full way. Projects must be small and must bring something to the community besides people.
If planned correctly, with proposer lot sizes, open space, restrictive covenants on size and quality of homes, these new developments within the county could be a real asset. Improved/expanded services, increased retail options, and a more diverse culture.
affordable housing for families to remain in the valley if they can
Rapid economic growth for the county, fortunes for the landowners and developers.
Nice, beautiful homes in a well managed area. Parks and recreation facilities available. The increase in population will probably force businesses to improve their outward appearance and will, for certain, bring additional businesses into town.
PUD's tend to bring in development in a more orderly way with more attractive homes. Otherwise there is a tendancy to have a really nice home next to a broken down shack.
1. More diverse social, cultural, and economic base. 2. Increased tax base.
Economic benefits to home construction and vendors who sell to that industry. Additional economic benefits to merchants who have more customers.
None, really.
Bringing more diversity to the valley
A larger tax base for the community.
We have already set the standard. One can not say to one you can have more and to another you are limited. The rules were broken too long ago to allow anything else. By allowing 5 acre limits and such we are setting the county up for litigation as there are too many examples of homes long in exisitance on smaller parcels by having a name or paying for the favor.
There are no benefits of growth in the County. The Cities should be allowed to grow into the county. This reduces the cost of growth. Water, sewer, police, etc. are real expences the could be saved. Wasatch County wants to be a city at the expence of the tax payer of the incorporated areas of the county. The benefits of letting the cities grow in the the county whould certainly keep the unincorpated area RURAL.
It is the trend for our area. Too many places are under development to limit growth of those who have not sold out yet. Maybe all the impact fees will help build better roads and services we don't get living rural.
New growth will help to broaden the ideas of those who have only seen one way.
development brings change and change is good. It makes you appreciate what you have so you stand for theose things that mean the most to you.
I don't think that it is a benefit it just means that people found a new place to develop.
None
Developers monetary gain. The wealthy move into their dream homes and the less fortunate are on waiting lists to apply for housing assistance.
Not any benefits.
More tax dollars
I don't see benefits. The more houses that are built, the less our house is worth and the more saturated the housing market is
none
none, we have enough.
increased property tax revenue for the county/ The are benifits if the developor puts in parks, trails open to everyone
More property taxes for the county.
large one acre lots often become unkept and cluttered, half acres are large, but can be kept looking nice. New developments benefit housing needs.
none Big box forces businesses out..
Lower Tax
New talent to the vally people with life experance that can give us insigned adds some tax base maybe some new bussness.
Increased tax base to be used on community projects, improvements, etc. Higher standard for property aesthetics. New people and new businesses to add to local diversity.
New poeple moving into the area
gives and option for the people that grew up here to find a home to start of their own.
add to tax base
Very little
economic growth, new people with new ideas
Easier to buy drugs with more people, more people would speak spanish
tax revenue
Very little.
Hopefully more diversity a few better services. Small businesses are more likely to stay in business. Hopefully enough people to improve the High School
increasing propety values for existing landowners
None
Added tax base and continued increase in value of property in county for benefit of all. Need to be sure the new developments fully pay for themselves in relation to initial and ongoing costs of support and infrastructure.
none for me
tax base increased
None
More excellent people with talent, energy, and resources reside as our neighbors and help build this county as the best place to live in the nation.
Development has the potential of creating fresh ideas and creativity. HOWEVER. . . see 7.
There are none unless they bring with them plenty of capital to modernize access to and egress from the subdivision.
new property to be taxed
at the present time, as a developer, plenty. as a ciitzen not much. history has shown new developments do not pay their way. I an tired of picking up the pieces.
?????
Land owners get fair value. Community gets fresh faces with new ideas, talents, and varied interests. Steady growth keeps the whole area vibrant.
some new and interesting people
Slow sustained growth of population will eventually attract more and varied services
More taxes
Not much if anything.
I can't think of any. It seems there are always many existing homes for sale, so why do people feel they have to build new homes and take up rural land, while others are available.
from (#5) question- 30 houses clustered with open space. The benefits of new developments are CCR's so there are no dead cars in the front yard, underground utilities to eliminate power poles. They are inevitable, we have to make the best of them.
Nothing
To provide housing for the growing demand in the valley. To upgrade the housing supply. New housing provides the type of product that the current buyers are looking for using the current building codes and requirements.
To line the developers pockets.
More tax dollars spent to improve existing areas in the valley.
None
nothing but income from taxes
there are no benefits, unless developers pay their full way. Projects must be small and must bring something to the community besides people.
If planned correctly, with proposer lot sizes, open space, restrictive covenants on size and quality of homes, these new developments within the county could be a real asset. Improved/expanded services, increased retail options, and a more diverse culture.
affordable housing for families to remain in the valley if they can
Rapid economic growth for the county, fortunes for the landowners and developers.
Nice, beautiful homes in a well managed area. Parks and recreation facilities available. The increase in population will probably force businesses to improve their outward appearance and will, for certain, bring additional businesses into town.
PUD's tend to bring in development in a more orderly way with more attractive homes. Otherwise there is a tendancy to have a really nice home next to a broken down shack.
1. More diverse social, cultural, and economic base. 2. Increased tax base.
Economic benefits to home construction and vendors who sell to that industry. Additional economic benefits to merchants who have more customers.
None, really.
Bringing more diversity to the valley
A larger tax base for the community.
We have already set the standard. One can not say to one you can have more and to another you are limited. The rules were broken too long ago to allow anything else. By allowing 5 acre limits and such we are setting the county up for litigation as there are too many examples of homes long in exisitance on smaller parcels by having a name or paying for the favor.
There are no benefits of growth in the County. The Cities should be allowed to grow into the county. This reduces the cost of growth. Water, sewer, police, etc. are real expences the could be saved. Wasatch County wants to be a city at the expence of the tax payer of the incorporated areas of the county. The benefits of letting the cities grow in the the county whould certainly keep the unincorpated area RURAL.
It is the trend for our area. Too many places are under development to limit growth of those who have not sold out yet. Maybe all the impact fees will help build better roads and services we don't get living rural.
New growth will help to broaden the ideas of those who have only seen one way.
development brings change and change is good. It makes you appreciate what you have so you stand for theose things that mean the most to you.
I don't think that it is a benefit it just means that people found a new place to develop.
None
Developers monetary gain. The wealthy move into their dream homes and the less fortunate are on waiting lists to apply for housing assistance.
Not any benefits.
More tax dollars
I don't see benefits. The more houses that are built, the less our house is worth and the more saturated the housing market is
none
none, we have enough.
increased property tax revenue for the county/ The are benifits if the developor puts in parks, trails open to everyone
More property taxes for the county.
large one acre lots often become unkept and cluttered, half acres are large, but can be kept looking nice. New developments benefit housing needs.
none Big box forces businesses out..
Lower Tax
New talent to the vally people with life experance that can give us insigned adds some tax base maybe some new bussness.
Increased tax base to be used on community projects, improvements, etc. Higher standard for property aesthetics. New people and new businesses to add to local diversity.
New poeple moving into the area
gives and option for the people that grew up here to find a home to start of their own.
add to tax base
Very little
economic growth, new people with new ideas
Easier to buy drugs with more people, more people would speak spanish
tax revenue
Very little.
Hopefully more diversity a few better services. Small businesses are more likely to stay in business. Hopefully enough people to improve the High School
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)