Allow me once again to attempt to explain Truth in Taxation. A hearing would not have been required if the School District had accepted the Certified Tax Rate, which would have allowed the same revenue to be collected as the prior year. By looking at individual property tax bills, each tax payer can see that, in general, most individual tax items apparently accepted the growth revenue increase and consequently many taxes went down or stayed about the same as the prior year. Only the property tax payment for the School District proposed very large increases. For each individual property, Heber City and Wasatch County’s portion of the property taxes $$ remained about the same. The assessed value went up, but the tax $$ remained the same! The “School Dist Bond” levy $$ increased in the area of 40 to 60% on individual tax notices. The “Wasatch Co. School Dist” item $$ increased about 25 to 35%.
The recent School Board letter states that RATES were maintained to . . . capture not only additional monies from growth, but ALSO MONIES FROM INCREASED ASSESSED VALUES.” Mr. Powell, in his letter, submits calculations again attempting to “prove” that the assessor/ment made them do it (raise taxes). However, he does admit to basings his calculations “from the proposed new tax rate.” Ladies and gentlemen, the School District raised their rates, which raised your taxes! This is, of course, their legal “right” to do, but Truth in Taxation “allow(s) elected officials to explain the reasons for the proposed increase.”
Second, let me compliment and thank the School District for adding their Email addresses to their website and for putting up the Hearing PowerPoint presentation. Contrary to Mr. Powell’s assertion that Ms. Taylor was inaccurate in mentioning the lack of email addresses; it appears that this information was posted AFTER the meeting. Now, as the Board is “happy to explain any item in our budget,” perhaps the budget could also be posted on the website, along with an itemization of what specific categories the increased revenues of $7 million (TnT notice) or $5 million (budget) will be used for.
Third, this reminds me that Mr. Powell was astounded that I did not mention that Mr. VanTassell, of the Utah Taxpayers, apologized for his “disingenuous” remark. (Disingenuous: “not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness”) I am astounded that Mr. Powell did not report that I mentioned, in my brief remarks, that the tax increase seemed to be more like $5 million than $7 million and, I believe, that discrepancy in the amount was what Mr. VanTassell apologized for. As Mr. Powell has access to a tape recording of the meeting, perhaps he could check that. The CD that I tried to listen to was in a proprietary format that couldn’t be deciphered with the usual computer programs. If the school district chooses not to post the recording on their website, I’d be happy to do so - if I can obtain a working copy.
Finally, “Utah's "Truth in Taxation" laws are revenue-driven, not rate-driven. That means the requirement to hold a "Truth in Taxation" hearing is based upon the collections of a taxing entity, not the rate charged. Utah law requires "Truth in Taxation" hearings to be held when a taxing entity elects to collect more revenue than was collected the previous year, although the entities are permitted to keep revenues generated by "new growth" -- such as value added to the tax rolls from a new subdivision or a new business.”
I believe, this is the primary problem presented by most of last week’s letter writers (at least mine) - no explanation or justification was presented for the tax increase, except in the most general of terms. No budget numbers were presented. Not even an estimate of the total teacher salary could be readily given. Many questions were, and are, left unanswered. For example - What is the purpose of the increase from $3.4 to $4.2 million in Capital Projects? Why did the school bond taxes increase by 85% ($3.1 to $5.7 million) - if the total school building costs has decreased to a mere $10.95 per $100K (as reported by the Wave Education Writer or increased by that amount per Mr. Powell)? What is the proposed specific use of the “fund balance” which “has increased to a healthy level,” mentioned in the School Board letter? Why have the overall school expenditures increased by over 50% to $41,680,711 from 2004 to 2008 with a less than 10% increase in students? Oh, and how can a teacher salary increase of 3.5% be $2.6 million, with a current payroll of $11,000,000? (It was certainly interesting to read in the Salt Lake Tribune that there was a local increase above the state mandated one.) Why does the District continually proclaim we need to “keep up with the Joneses” (Park City)? Neither the two minutes allowed to ask questions nor the 45 minute formal “mil rate” presentation were sufficient to obtain answers - inquiring people would like to know.
I eagerly anticipate some answers, from Mr. Powell, any representative of the School District, or anyone else for that matter.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
TRUTH (?) in Taxation
I took the opportunity to attend the “Truth in Taxation” for the proposed 49.34% in “School District property tax revenue for the prior year.” I’m sad to have to report that there were two major losers at that meeting - Wasatch County taxpayers and the TRUTH.
To no one’s surprise, the tax increase was passed unanimously by the school board. Many in attendance felt the School Board was as confused as the audience. The hearing began with an archaic, involved and totally irrelevant dissertation on tax, or mil, rates. Nine basic levies, certified rates, maximums, minimums, assessments, etc.; the end result being "It’s not our fault, the assessor made us do it.” People actually wanted to hear about DOLLARS, tax revenues, school expenditures, and, particularly, individual property tax payments!
An overview of the historical budget can be found here. 2004 to 2008 = 55% increase in school expenditures, with a 9% increase in students.
Continuing with the fairy tale presented by the Wave Education Writer (and District publicist) that, according to Superintendent Shoemaker, “the growth of (the) tax bill is reflective of an increase in property value;” school officials carefully tried to place the blame for higher taxes on the County Assessor and the increase in property values. Au contraire, dear school officials, the increase is due to the actions of the School Administration/Board in RAISING THE TAX RATE, which was the very reason for the hearing being held. Strike One on truth and the taxpayer.
Royce van Tassell, of the Utah Taxpayers Association publicly described the presentation as disingenuous. He may have been too kind. Through various machinations, manipulations, sleight of hand and outright chicanery, school officials concluded that “the total debt service (not just the high school) has dropped to $10.95 per hundred thousand dollars” as reported by the Wave Education Writer (does the Wave pay him for his articles?) and reiterated that idea at the meeting. Anyone with a modicum of math ability can look at their tax notice to determine the cost is closer to $100/per $100K; the increase alone from 2007 to 2008 is more than the $10.95. Strike Two against truth and the taxpayer.
Anyone fortunate enough to find a copy of the debt fund budget can easily see that the (annual repayment) increased by 85% from 2007 to 2008. (See category 31- and also note that the Capital project fund increased by 25%) School officials explained that the "great reduction" resulted from lower rates and the fact they only borrowed $45 of the $60 million. They neglected to mention that the remaining $15 million will be accessed next year or that some of the excess tax revenues received in 2007 (through new growth) may have been used to pay down some debt. Nor did they mention that the Capital Project fund might be used to fund some of the school "frills" or pet projects. They also failed to mention that the first year of payment is apparently interest only (sounds like some current subprime loans)
And the wind up and the pitch . . . To massive adulation by many of the teachers present, we, the truth seekers were informed that the school district was awarding a 3.5% pay increase to the school teachers at a cost of $2.6 million to the district. State legislative officials at the meeting were unclear if the district was taking credit for the pay increase mandated and funded by the state or if the local district had funded an addition increase. However, when asked for an estimate of the total payroll, (10, 20 or 80 million??), school officials were unable to come up with an a ready estimate. The figure, according to the 2007 budget, was $10,669,428. (Page 5, item 131) 3.5 % of that is $373,000 NOT $2.6 million. Stee-rrriiicke THREE, you’re OUT of here. Truth and taxpayers lose!
There was more, of course, mostly equally embarrassing. The final question from the audience, “If you are increasing taxes by 50%, why are teachers only getting 3.5% increase?” While somewhat an apple and orange comparison the answer given by a school board member, ‘well. 39% of the 7 million is going to the salary increase.’ Presumably the aforementioned erroneous $2.6 million (sometimes mentioned as 2.7) was divided by the $7 million for THAT 39% result.
A teacher testified that the school was making vast improvements through vertical and horizontal collaboration and the recent understanding that they needed to focus on what was being learned rather than what was being taught.
(It might be noted that Wasatch scored quite poorly in math in UPASS Considering Albert Einstein's comment “Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach” judging from the mathematical prowess exhibited at this meeting, perhaps we've found the reason.)
Recently graduated student Jeremy Heftel may defy that mathematical mold; he exhibited more understanding by his comments than most of the others at the meeting seemed to have.
In the middle of the public discussion, the audience was entertained by a commercial interruption of a Boyer Co. development representative extolling the tax benefits of their proposed development.
Many from the public decried the lack of information provided at the meeting and on the website. Particularly missing was budget information and even addresses or contacts for the Board members. As witnessed by the links above in this blog, it is not difficult to provide the public with budget information. If anyone wants the full 29 pages, it could be easily posted AND at NO COST!!!
Several people attempted to determine the total cost of the new High School, but were told the information was not available yet.
Oh, by the way, in the latter part of the meeting the contracts for the School Superintendent and Business Administrator were approved, no mention of a pay increase.
Wait, there's more, but my cynicism meter has pegged out, so I conclude on a positive note. The School Board promised to include some Email addresses on the website . . . . but indicated they may not consistently read them.
All is well in Wasatch. . . . .
To no one’s surprise, the tax increase was passed unanimously by the school board. Many in attendance felt the School Board was as confused as the audience. The hearing began with an archaic, involved and totally irrelevant dissertation on tax, or mil, rates. Nine basic levies, certified rates, maximums, minimums, assessments, etc.; the end result being "It’s not our fault, the assessor made us do it.” People actually wanted to hear about DOLLARS, tax revenues, school expenditures, and, particularly, individual property tax payments!
An overview of the historical budget can be found here. 2004 to 2008 = 55% increase in school expenditures, with a 9% increase in students.
Continuing with the fairy tale presented by the Wave Education Writer (and District publicist) that, according to Superintendent Shoemaker, “the growth of (the) tax bill is reflective of an increase in property value;” school officials carefully tried to place the blame for higher taxes on the County Assessor and the increase in property values. Au contraire, dear school officials, the increase is due to the actions of the School Administration/Board in RAISING THE TAX RATE, which was the very reason for the hearing being held. Strike One on truth and the taxpayer.
Royce van Tassell, of the Utah Taxpayers Association publicly described the presentation as disingenuous. He may have been too kind. Through various machinations, manipulations, sleight of hand and outright chicanery, school officials concluded that “the total debt service (not just the high school) has dropped to $10.95 per hundred thousand dollars” as reported by the Wave Education Writer (does the Wave pay him for his articles?) and reiterated that idea at the meeting. Anyone with a modicum of math ability can look at their tax notice to determine the cost is closer to $100/per $100K; the increase alone from 2007 to 2008 is more than the $10.95. Strike Two against truth and the taxpayer.
Anyone fortunate enough to find a copy of the debt fund budget can easily see that the (annual repayment) increased by 85% from 2007 to 2008. (See category 31- and also note that the Capital project fund increased by 25%) School officials explained that the "great reduction" resulted from lower rates and the fact they only borrowed $45 of the $60 million. They neglected to mention that the remaining $15 million will be accessed next year or that some of the excess tax revenues received in 2007 (through new growth) may have been used to pay down some debt. Nor did they mention that the Capital Project fund might be used to fund some of the school "frills" or pet projects. They also failed to mention that the first year of payment is apparently interest only (sounds like some current subprime loans)
And the wind up and the pitch . . . To massive adulation by many of the teachers present, we, the truth seekers were informed that the school district was awarding a 3.5% pay increase to the school teachers at a cost of $2.6 million to the district. State legislative officials at the meeting were unclear if the district was taking credit for the pay increase mandated and funded by the state or if the local district had funded an addition increase. However, when asked for an estimate of the total payroll, (10, 20 or 80 million??), school officials were unable to come up with an a ready estimate. The figure, according to the 2007 budget, was $10,669,428. (Page 5, item 131) 3.5 % of that is $373,000 NOT $2.6 million. Stee-rrriiicke THREE, you’re OUT of here. Truth and taxpayers lose!
There was more, of course, mostly equally embarrassing. The final question from the audience, “If you are increasing taxes by 50%, why are teachers only getting 3.5% increase?” While somewhat an apple and orange comparison the answer given by a school board member, ‘well. 39% of the 7 million is going to the salary increase.’ Presumably the aforementioned erroneous $2.6 million (sometimes mentioned as 2.7) was divided by the $7 million for THAT 39% result.
A teacher testified that the school was making vast improvements through vertical and horizontal collaboration and the recent understanding that they needed to focus on what was being learned rather than what was being taught.
(It might be noted that Wasatch scored quite poorly in math in UPASS Considering Albert Einstein's comment “Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach” judging from the mathematical prowess exhibited at this meeting, perhaps we've found the reason.)
Recently graduated student Jeremy Heftel may defy that mathematical mold; he exhibited more understanding by his comments than most of the others at the meeting seemed to have.
In the middle of the public discussion, the audience was entertained by a commercial interruption of a Boyer Co. development representative extolling the tax benefits of their proposed development.
Many from the public decried the lack of information provided at the meeting and on the website. Particularly missing was budget information and even addresses or contacts for the Board members. As witnessed by the links above in this blog, it is not difficult to provide the public with budget information. If anyone wants the full 29 pages, it could be easily posted AND at NO COST!!!
Several people attempted to determine the total cost of the new High School, but were told the information was not available yet.
Oh, by the way, in the latter part of the meeting the contracts for the School Superintendent and Business Administrator were approved, no mention of a pay increase.
Wait, there's more, but my cynicism meter has pegged out, so I conclude on a positive note. The School Board promised to include some Email addresses on the website . . . . but indicated they may not consistently read them.
All is well in Wasatch. . . . .
Friday, July 20, 2007
Bypass, Big Box
Wasatch County (via MAG RPO) gave a good presentation (large file) to the Transportation Commission this morning about Heber Main Street traffic, the West Bypass road, the River Road intersection and "the Hub" US40/189 intersection. Included were resolutions from Wasatch and Heber supporting the bypass.
The reported traffic study (2005) showed 25,000 vehicles per day on Main Street, they estimate it is probably up to 28,000 now, which should be no surprise to those in the valley. That appears to be the third highest traffic numbers in Wasatch and Summit counties; compared to 44,000 on I-15 at Parley's Canyon and 33,000 on the road by the Canyons Resort and about the fourth highest in all of northern Utah outside of the metropolitan areas of Utah and Salt Lake Counties.
Five percent of the Main St. traffic are trucks. 46% of the through traffic uses 189; 32 % US 40; and 22% 189 to 40 East Councilman Mike Kohler mentioned it was important to get this done before the current plan date of 2030.
The first comment after the presentation, from UDOT (Commissioner Glen Brown) was about the Hub intersection: (paraphrased) "Putting a big development at that intersection will really cause a lot more congestion. Why are you permitting it?"
A minor discussion resulted in Heber City Councilman Terry Lange's comment (paraphrased), "There's a referendum on the issue this November." Brown responded, "Oh, it's that controversial."
A UDOT employee (?) said, "We'll be happy to give you traffic information on big developments."
UDOT Commission Chair Adams then asked, "Will there be commercial (Big Box developer) participation in the Hub intersection costs?"
Discussion ensued on the development's frontage, bypass location between 189 to 40, etc.
Kohler: "It's proposed as limited access, there's no plan for access to the development from the Bypass, we haven't decided on the final part of the road to US 40."
Adams: "I think we need to get working on that intersection now, why wait."
On the subject of the interchange at River Road, the UDOT Committee indicated that they thought the plan was already in process and had been delayed by needed funding for Provo Canyon. Corridor preservation funds should be available to the required property.
Committee members were very impressed with the current work being done for the project and seemed quite encouraging about the entire project, but no motion was made for action.
Minutes of the meeting should be available in a month or so.
On the subject of the interchange at River Road, the UDOT Committee indicated that they thought the plan was already in process and had been delayed by needed funding for Provo Canyon. Corridor preservation funds should be available to the required property.
Committee members were very impressed with the current work being done for the project and seemed quite encouraging about the entire project, but no motion was made for action.
Minutes of the meeting should be available in a month or so.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Heber City Council Candidates
In reverse alphabetical order:
Michael Thurber - 1162 W Countryside Cir; 654-1926; Midway Postmaster; former Planning Commissioner; member Big Box study committee; Wife is Heber City recorder;
Eric Straddeck - 446 N 1300 E; 657-0891; Effective Business Solutions, Inc.; Owner (?) TigerLight, Inc
Kieth Rawlings - 126 W 500N; 657 1999; Planning Commission ; Voted for Big Box on PC
Perry Rose - Former Heber City Police Sergeant; Checker Auto
Robert Patterson - school teacher; wife also
Sandy Mahoney - 418 S 200 W; 654 3244; Board of adjustment; KTMP owner
Shari Lazenby - 809 E 220 N; 654-2964; incumbent; Voted for Big Box
Terry Lange - 1030 N. Willow Way; 654-3568; incumbent; Big Box?
Nile Horner - 777 E 600 S; 6541804; wife on school board
Daniel Drew - 602 E 550 S; 657 9642; teacher; ran against Snow for UT Rep
10 total Primary Sep 11 to narrow to six for November election
Issues: Big Box, Growth, Annexations
2005 Election
For Mayor
David R. Phillips 959 58.12%
Shari K. Lazenby 691 41.88%
For Councilmember Vote for 2
Jeffery M. Bradshaw 921 29.44%
Elizabeth Hokanson 817 26.12%
John Hayes Burns 707 22.60%
Michael Thurber 683 21.84%
2003 Election City Council
Shari Lazenby 547
Vaun A. Shelton 504
Terry Wm. Lange 491
- - - - - - - - -
Michael Thurber 416
Julie Hardman 395
Sherman Christen 352
Big Box comments by candidates June 6, 2005 when the CAP was set at 60,000 sq.ft. on retail business:
Councilmember Terry Wm. Lange – “We came to listen. We have learned from all of you the general way people feel.” He said it was important to him to know how the general pubic felt. He suggested this might be a very long-term ordinance change or it might be very short ordinance change. He indicated he would vote the way most of the public wanted. “I hope, as a City Council, we can take the advice and make the best decision we can.” He thanked those that attended and participated in the Hearing.
In 2006, he voted against the MURCZA ordinance allowing Big Box ???
Councilmember Lazenby indicated she had no opinion for it or against it. “Its not about me, its not about my store.” She indicated she would go with the majority. She reviewed the breakdown of the survey of individual responses. She concluded that the majority was for a cap on retail size buildings. Councilmember Lazenby reviewed her summary of the survey. She commented on page 25 and 38 of the General Plan. She indicated her vote would be for the CAP but because it was not perfect, there needed to be further study. In 2006, she voted FOR the MURCZA ordinance allowing Big Box
2005 election comments
• (Mayoral candidate) Lazenby, 34, wants city government to start treating constituents like customers. Lazenby, who owns a shoe store, said Heber officials should respond better to residents and business owners through "a mission-driven work environment that gives them the authority to perform their jobs more effectively." That approach would help the city "be better prepared to serve and find obtainable solutions" to its problems.
• Kieth Rawlings, 50, wants to make city government "more open through accessible, honest and accountable city officials." Rawlings, who owns a property management company, thinks that "through communication we can develop a better relationship with our business community."
• Mike Thurber, 59, said that projects residents want can't be funded with existing tax revenue. "Without commercial opportunity in the city, seniors and young families on limited incomes are most negatively impacted by rising property taxes to fund special projects." Thurber, a postmaster, wants Heber "to plan ahead for new areas for industry and other commercial growth and then actively pursue new business."
Michael Thurber - 1162 W Countryside Cir; 654-1926; Midway Postmaster; former Planning Commissioner; member Big Box study committee; Wife is Heber City recorder;
Eric Straddeck - 446 N 1300 E; 657-0891; Effective Business Solutions, Inc.; Owner (?) TigerLight, Inc
Kieth Rawlings - 126 W 500N; 657 1999; Planning Commission ; Voted for Big Box on PC
Perry Rose - Former Heber City Police Sergeant; Checker Auto
Robert Patterson - school teacher; wife also
Sandy Mahoney - 418 S 200 W; 654 3244; Board of adjustment; KTMP owner
Shari Lazenby - 809 E 220 N; 654-2964; incumbent; Voted for Big Box
Terry Lange - 1030 N. Willow Way; 654-3568; incumbent; Big Box?
Nile Horner - 777 E 600 S; 6541804; wife on school board
Daniel Drew - 602 E 550 S; 657 9642; teacher; ran against Snow for UT Rep
10 total Primary Sep 11 to narrow to six for November election
Issues: Big Box, Growth, Annexations
2005 Election
For Mayor
David R. Phillips 959 58.12%
Shari K. Lazenby 691 41.88%
For Councilmember Vote for 2
Jeffery M. Bradshaw 921 29.44%
Elizabeth Hokanson 817 26.12%
John Hayes Burns 707 22.60%
Michael Thurber 683 21.84%
2003 Election City Council
Shari Lazenby 547
Vaun A. Shelton 504
Terry Wm. Lange 491
- - - - - - - - -
Michael Thurber 416
Julie Hardman 395
Sherman Christen 352
Big Box comments by candidates June 6, 2005 when the CAP was set at 60,000 sq.ft. on retail business:
Councilmember Terry Wm. Lange – “We came to listen. We have learned from all of you the general way people feel.” He said it was important to him to know how the general pubic felt. He suggested this might be a very long-term ordinance change or it might be very short ordinance change. He indicated he would vote the way most of the public wanted. “I hope, as a City Council, we can take the advice and make the best decision we can.” He thanked those that attended and participated in the Hearing.
In 2006, he voted against the MURCZA ordinance allowing Big Box ???
Councilmember Lazenby indicated she had no opinion for it or against it. “Its not about me, its not about my store.” She indicated she would go with the majority. She reviewed the breakdown of the survey of individual responses. She concluded that the majority was for a cap on retail size buildings. Councilmember Lazenby reviewed her summary of the survey. She commented on page 25 and 38 of the General Plan. She indicated her vote would be for the CAP but because it was not perfect, there needed to be further study. In 2006, she voted FOR the MURCZA ordinance allowing Big Box
2005 election comments
• (Mayoral candidate) Lazenby, 34, wants city government to start treating constituents like customers. Lazenby, who owns a shoe store, said Heber officials should respond better to residents and business owners through "a mission-driven work environment that gives them the authority to perform their jobs more effectively." That approach would help the city "be better prepared to serve and find obtainable solutions" to its problems.
• Kieth Rawlings, 50, wants to make city government "more open through accessible, honest and accountable city officials." Rawlings, who owns a property management company, thinks that "through communication we can develop a better relationship with our business community."
• Mike Thurber, 59, said that projects residents want can't be funded with existing tax revenue. "Without commercial opportunity in the city, seniors and young families on limited incomes are most negatively impacted by rising property taxes to fund special projects." Thurber, a postmaster, wants Heber "to plan ahead for new areas for industry and other commercial growth and then actively pursue new business."
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Open Letter to County Council
A few comments on the developments discussed in the County Council meeting 7/11:
I believe it should be noted that the County is NOT required to approve any bonuses for RA-1 developments, such approval is purely a discretionary legislative act for planned unit/performance developments and, if considered, the subjective ratings for the bonuses are completely at the discretion of the County. The 'simple' RA-1 of one lot per 1.3 acres does not have that discretion.
Grand Haven: Development was approved under the previous code at 91 ERU's. Under the new code the base density would be 101 (a 10 percent increase), the requested approval is for a bonus of up to 40%. This proposal was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, 7-0 with a density of 121 ERU's. There is apparently now no "public" open space, but a substantial portion of the 30 % (min. required) open space is planned for farm/grazing and is located along 2400 E which will, at least, give some visual "rural' open area for the neighborhood.
Staff suggested (and PC approved) a large bonus (8%) for "10% usable open space within the 30%." That 8% bonus would equate to 8 bonus lots at a nominal $300K per lot for about $2 million in lot sale profit alone to the developer. That usable 10% would be a landscaped private park for the use of the development residents. Some mention was made of public use as a soccer field, which may warrant a small "public use" bonus - if guaranteed in the development agreement.
Staff suggested a landscape bonus of 5% or 4.5 ERU's ($1+million in lots) for $250K (?) of trees. A "large animal" bonus of 1% was suggested for animal use on 21 lots (15% of development). While animals might maintain some semblance of rural, that might be high for the percentage of available lots.
If this openspace is deemed beneficial to the county a total bonus of perhaps 12 lots might be more appropriate; even that would still be an increase of 23 over the prior approval of 91 - a 25% increase.
As Councilman Neil Anderton commented, "I think we are heading in the wrong direction." (concerning density awards)
Eagle View: While this nominally may meet the 30% open space requirement, it is nearly totally within the development and is made up of blocks of space connected by trails, with little functionality for the public in general. It does not seem to meet the code designated intent for "achieving rural character" and does not "promote a rural feel along country roads" (The 50 ft buffer strip is a general requirement for all RA 1 developments)
Saddlebrook: Still contains NO open space and there is currently NO code enacted to allow for opting out of that requirement.
Sleeping Indian: This will be the first proposed development in the M Zone and may set a precedent for M Zone developments and awarding of bonuses. With the possibility of up to 115% bonuses, the M Zone will effectively become an "RA-2.3 zone" allowing twice the density of the RA-5 zones on the valley floor. M Zone is theoretically a transition zone from the valley floor to the P160 preservation zone and was nominally created for "clustering" which doesn't appear to have occurred in this proposal.
The M Zone PPD Performance Chart (16.29) is even more subjective, complicated and confusing than the RA-1. Planning Commission discussion on the bonuses, in general and specifically for the Indian Ranch project was very limited.
The first graded category "Extra unusable Open Space" refers, in this case, to the constrained land (30%+ slope) (unbuildable) and specifies "For each ten percent of extra open space that is unusable, the bonus density would apply as written." With a range of 1-10%, I have no idea what that means. As a maximum of 10 is allowed this would seem to say that 35.35 acres would yield 4 "10% of open space" or a 4% bonus, or does it mean that 8.9 acres of unusable space would be worth 10% bonus??.
"Density bonuses may not be stacked upon each other and more than one bonus given for the same item." Items 7, 8 and part of 10 seem to be giving duplicate credit for the same 10 acre park of which 8.9 acres (10% usable open space) is a basic requirement to get any bonus consideration. The concept of a 0.5% sales fee on lots (item 10) for construction of a fire station is an interesting concept. 150 lots at $300K x 0.5% = $225,000 Is that worth a 15% bonus or 5.6 ERU's at $300K = $1.6 million in lot sales??? That same park also may be a consideration for a bonus in the RA zone portion. The fee/tax on lot sales (a transfer tax) is something the County might enact to offset some of the costs of new developments - without awarding any bonus to developers.
While the 10 acres park and land for a fire station would be great assets to the County, it needs to be asked if the benefit is greater than the cost in extra density.
Items 11 through 16 are basically enhancements to the development and its residents. The bonus starts at 5% rather than 0% Is the mere request for a bonus worth a 30 % bonus? (6 categories at 5% minimum).
The RA Bonuses are also suggested by staff for internal non public parks and land and street scape for large bonuses. See comments above on cost vs. benefit to developer.
This entire M Zone bonus system needs to be reworked, IMO.
North Village Code amendments: 'Minor' modifications are being requested by the developer to allow maximizing the number of potential ERU's available for the Wasatch Commons development. Without the proposed changes to maximum lot size and width requirements, perhaps 5 to 10% fewer units (of 393 proposed) could be built and it would necessitate a few small "parks" especially on corners which may not be able to conform to current North Village Code. Wasatch Commons is forecast to have a negative fiscal impact of $900,000 (primary residences) to $300,000 (secondary). This impact is 'planned' to be offset by a commercial development on the lower mixed use area which forecasts a positive fiscal impact of $900,000 - IF a Big Box were allowed (current NOT allowed under Wasatch Code) or $230,000 as other retail.
Spring Hollow/Summit Creek: This is another development that had received approval under prior code for 19 lots. It is now back with a request for 25 on 26 acres. (a 32% increase) It has many similar problems as Grand Haven and Eagle View above, but no agricultural open space. The integral open space may be beneficial to the development, but little to the community. It does not yet have the required secondary access. The fiscal impact went from +$44,000 in Aug '06 to negative $66,000.
As County Manager Mike Davis has asked,"Is it the function of the County to maximize the profit of developers?" click here for audio
I believe it should be noted that the County is NOT required to approve any bonuses for RA-1 developments, such approval is purely a discretionary legislative act for planned unit/performance developments and, if considered, the subjective ratings for the bonuses are completely at the discretion of the County. The 'simple' RA-1 of one lot per 1.3 acres does not have that discretion.
Grand Haven: Development was approved under the previous code at 91 ERU's. Under the new code the base density would be 101 (a 10 percent increase), the requested approval is for a bonus of up to 40%. This proposal was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, 7-0 with a density of 121 ERU's. There is apparently now no "public" open space, but a substantial portion of the 30 % (min. required) open space is planned for farm/grazing and is located along 2400 E which will, at least, give some visual "rural' open area for the neighborhood.
Staff suggested (and PC approved) a large bonus (8%) for "10% usable open space within the 30%." That 8% bonus would equate to 8 bonus lots at a nominal $300K per lot for about $2 million in lot sale profit alone to the developer. That usable 10% would be a landscaped private park for the use of the development residents. Some mention was made of public use as a soccer field, which may warrant a small "public use" bonus - if guaranteed in the development agreement.
Staff suggested a landscape bonus of 5% or 4.5 ERU's ($1+million in lots) for $250K (?) of trees. A "large animal" bonus of 1% was suggested for animal use on 21 lots (15% of development). While animals might maintain some semblance of rural, that might be high for the percentage of available lots.
If this openspace is deemed beneficial to the county a total bonus of perhaps 12 lots might be more appropriate; even that would still be an increase of 23 over the prior approval of 91 - a 25% increase.
As Councilman Neil Anderton commented, "I think we are heading in the wrong direction." (concerning density awards)
Eagle View: While this nominally may meet the 30% open space requirement, it is nearly totally within the development and is made up of blocks of space connected by trails, with little functionality for the public in general. It does not seem to meet the code designated intent for "achieving rural character" and does not "promote a rural feel along country roads" (The 50 ft buffer strip is a general requirement for all RA 1 developments)
Saddlebrook: Still contains NO open space and there is currently NO code enacted to allow for opting out of that requirement.
Sleeping Indian: This will be the first proposed development in the M Zone and may set a precedent for M Zone developments and awarding of bonuses. With the possibility of up to 115% bonuses, the M Zone will effectively become an "RA-2.3 zone" allowing twice the density of the RA-5 zones on the valley floor. M Zone is theoretically a transition zone from the valley floor to the P160 preservation zone and was nominally created for "clustering" which doesn't appear to have occurred in this proposal.
The M Zone PPD Performance Chart (16.29) is even more subjective, complicated and confusing than the RA-1. Planning Commission discussion on the bonuses, in general and specifically for the Indian Ranch project was very limited.
The first graded category "Extra unusable Open Space" refers, in this case, to the constrained land (30%+ slope) (unbuildable) and specifies "For each ten percent of extra open space that is unusable, the bonus density would apply as written." With a range of 1-10%, I have no idea what that means. As a maximum of 10 is allowed this would seem to say that 35.35 acres would yield 4 "10% of open space" or a 4% bonus, or does it mean that 8.9 acres of unusable space would be worth 10% bonus??.
"Density bonuses may not be stacked upon each other and more than one bonus given for the same item." Items 7, 8 and part of 10 seem to be giving duplicate credit for the same 10 acre park of which 8.9 acres (10% usable open space) is a basic requirement to get any bonus consideration. The concept of a 0.5% sales fee on lots (item 10) for construction of a fire station is an interesting concept. 150 lots at $300K x 0.5% = $225,000 Is that worth a 15% bonus or 5.6 ERU's at $300K = $1.6 million in lot sales??? That same park also may be a consideration for a bonus in the RA zone portion. The fee/tax on lot sales (a transfer tax) is something the County might enact to offset some of the costs of new developments - without awarding any bonus to developers.
While the 10 acres park and land for a fire station would be great assets to the County, it needs to be asked if the benefit is greater than the cost in extra density.
Items 11 through 16 are basically enhancements to the development and its residents. The bonus starts at 5% rather than 0% Is the mere request for a bonus worth a 30 % bonus? (6 categories at 5% minimum).
The RA Bonuses are also suggested by staff for internal non public parks and land and street scape for large bonuses. See comments above on cost vs. benefit to developer.
This entire M Zone bonus system needs to be reworked, IMO.
North Village Code amendments: 'Minor' modifications are being requested by the developer to allow maximizing the number of potential ERU's available for the Wasatch Commons development. Without the proposed changes to maximum lot size and width requirements, perhaps 5 to 10% fewer units (of 393 proposed) could be built and it would necessitate a few small "parks" especially on corners which may not be able to conform to current North Village Code. Wasatch Commons is forecast to have a negative fiscal impact of $900,000 (primary residences) to $300,000 (secondary). This impact is 'planned' to be offset by a commercial development on the lower mixed use area which forecasts a positive fiscal impact of $900,000 - IF a Big Box were allowed (current NOT allowed under Wasatch Code) or $230,000 as other retail.
Spring Hollow/Summit Creek: This is another development that had received approval under prior code for 19 lots. It is now back with a request for 25 on 26 acres. (a 32% increase) It has many similar problems as Grand Haven and Eagle View above, but no agricultural open space. The integral open space may be beneficial to the development, but little to the community. It does not yet have the required secondary access. The fiscal impact went from +$44,000 in Aug '06 to negative $66,000.
As County Manager Mike Davis has asked,"Is it the function of the County to maximize the profit of developers?" click here for audio
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Report of recent Planning Commission meeting:
The current "standard" development in Wasatch County is described in 16.27.09 and more specifically 16.27.10(2). (regrettably not available on the County Website) "Bonuses" above the "standard" of one house per 1.3 acres, with an average lot size of one acre, may be available at the discretion of Wasatch County by following procedures described in 16.27.10.
It appears that since the passage of the bonus system, virtually every development, as reflected by applications, expects to be able to attain the "full" allowable density of one unit per acre. The County Council and County Manager have repeatedly (and the Planning Staff has dutifully recorded in staff reports) stated that "a full density bonus will not be easy to attain. . . grading should be tough . . . and full density would need to be the best that could be proposed" (Or similar terminology)
At recent Planning Commission meetings in May and June, several developments were recommended by less than a unanimous vote that did not comply with the Land Use Law.
There are certain specific guidelines, requirements and objectives written into 16.27.10 concerning Rural Landscape Character, Open Space, cluster developments, etc. to attain any bonus density. Many (most) of the recent proposals did not meet the intent of the law, much less the actual wording thereof.
The problem of the requirement of 30% Open Space requirement now seems to be acknowledged and clarification are now being considered. The subjectivity and amount of the bonuses is now apparently being reconsidered.
I would again strongly suggest that approval of any development desiring densities above the standard be discouraged or not allowed for consideration. Any bonus density is at the sole discretion of the County as a legislative act in approving the development.
A few specific comments:
Eagle View: has open space but, while nominally contiguous, runs snake-like through the property and is of far more value to the development than the County as a whole.
Falcon Ridge: All but ten acres of the open space is unbuildable land, but receives credit and extra bonus. A substantial bonus is being suggested for "minimal" expense on landscaping, etc.
Grand Haven: It was approved last year at 91 ERU’s and failed to qualify under the previous ordinance for 131 ERU’s with 50% Open Space is now "qualified" with 30%. Base density increased by 11% and total by 44%. It has a large negative fiscal impact to the remaining County taxpayers (based on primary residences.)
Lakeside at Deer Valley: Previously had been awarded 62 ERU’s, a new request was made for an increase to 325 and they were awarded 362 per a last minute recommendation change from Planning Staff.
Pine Shadows was recommended by the Planning Commission to the County Councel without the required 30% Open Space. The developer was told by the Planning Commission that it was not needed, even thought the developer planned (an offered) to purchase additional open land elswhere.
Saddlebrook was approved with the standard density with a provision for a bonus if "fee in lieu" was adopted. It had NO proposed Open Space.
Sleeping Indian Ranch has brought us into the question of the desirability of the massive bonuses allowed in the M Zone, which effectively creates a denser (1 per 2.3 acre) zone the RA-5. While a nicely designed project with a ten acre park and proposed "fee" on land sales for a firehouse, it appears that multiple bonuses may have been given in several categories for the same items.
Summit Creek or Spring Hollow is another previously approved development (19 on 26 acres) to return to take advantage for the increased densities allowed under the new (RA-1 code.) Base density up 5% and total up 32 %. Again the bonuses proposed are for items that greatly benefit the development but add little to the County other than a trail, more houses and traffic and an increase in negative fiscal impact of $107,000 from the 19 original (may be partly due to parameters of the calculations)
Wasatch Commons in the North Village is requesting a change to the code because it is too restrictive to allow them to receive their "allowed" density under the current restriction. It has a negative fiscal of over $800,000 which is supposed to be offset by an adjoining commercial development which may produce over $800,000 if a "big box" is allowed (currently NOT allowed under County Code).
These are just developments under consideration by the Wasatch County Planning Commission for May and June, more to come in July and . . .
Heber City and Midway have also recently approve a bevy of annexations and subdivisions.
Click on the link for some of the developments approved Pre 2003 and in 2004-2006
The current "standard" development in Wasatch County is described in 16.27.09 and more specifically 16.27.10(2). (regrettably not available on the County Website) "Bonuses" above the "standard" of one house per 1.3 acres, with an average lot size of one acre, may be available at the discretion of Wasatch County by following procedures described in 16.27.10.
It appears that since the passage of the bonus system, virtually every development, as reflected by applications, expects to be able to attain the "full" allowable density of one unit per acre. The County Council and County Manager have repeatedly (and the Planning Staff has dutifully recorded in staff reports) stated that "a full density bonus will not be easy to attain. . . grading should be tough . . . and full density would need to be the best that could be proposed" (Or similar terminology)
At recent Planning Commission meetings in May and June, several developments were recommended by less than a unanimous vote that did not comply with the Land Use Law.
There are certain specific guidelines, requirements and objectives written into 16.27.10 concerning Rural Landscape Character, Open Space, cluster developments, etc. to attain any bonus density. Many (most) of the recent proposals did not meet the intent of the law, much less the actual wording thereof.
The problem of the requirement of 30% Open Space requirement now seems to be acknowledged and clarification are now being considered. The subjectivity and amount of the bonuses is now apparently being reconsidered.
I would again strongly suggest that approval of any development desiring densities above the standard be discouraged or not allowed for consideration. Any bonus density is at the sole discretion of the County as a legislative act in approving the development.
A few specific comments:
Eagle View: has open space but, while nominally contiguous, runs snake-like through the property and is of far more value to the development than the County as a whole.
Falcon Ridge: All but ten acres of the open space is unbuildable land, but receives credit and extra bonus. A substantial bonus is being suggested for "minimal" expense on landscaping, etc.
Grand Haven: It was approved last year at 91 ERU’s and failed to qualify under the previous ordinance for 131 ERU’s with 50% Open Space is now "qualified" with 30%. Base density increased by 11% and total by 44%. It has a large negative fiscal impact to the remaining County taxpayers (based on primary residences.)
Lakeside at Deer Valley: Previously had been awarded 62 ERU’s, a new request was made for an increase to 325 and they were awarded 362 per a last minute recommendation change from Planning Staff.
Pine Shadows was recommended by the Planning Commission to the County Councel without the required 30% Open Space. The developer was told by the Planning Commission that it was not needed, even thought the developer planned (an offered) to purchase additional open land elswhere.
Saddlebrook was approved with the standard density with a provision for a bonus if "fee in lieu" was adopted. It had NO proposed Open Space.
Sleeping Indian Ranch has brought us into the question of the desirability of the massive bonuses allowed in the M Zone, which effectively creates a denser (1 per 2.3 acre) zone the RA-5. While a nicely designed project with a ten acre park and proposed "fee" on land sales for a firehouse, it appears that multiple bonuses may have been given in several categories for the same items.
Summit Creek or Spring Hollow is another previously approved development (19 on 26 acres) to return to take advantage for the increased densities allowed under the new (RA-1 code.) Base density up 5% and total up 32 %. Again the bonuses proposed are for items that greatly benefit the development but add little to the County other than a trail, more houses and traffic and an increase in negative fiscal impact of $107,000 from the 19 original (may be partly due to parameters of the calculations)
Wasatch Commons in the North Village is requesting a change to the code because it is too restrictive to allow them to receive their "allowed" density under the current restriction. It has a negative fiscal of over $800,000 which is supposed to be offset by an adjoining commercial development which may produce over $800,000 if a "big box" is allowed (currently NOT allowed under County Code).
These are just developments under consideration by the Wasatch County Planning Commission for May and June, more to come in July and . . .
Heber City and Midway have also recently approve a bevy of annexations and subdivisions.
Click on the link for some of the developments approved Pre 2003 and in 2004-2006
| Development | Date | ERU | acres |
| Eagle View | 05/10/07 | 16 | 17 |
| Falcon Ridge | 06/14/07 | 66 | 102 |
| GrandHaven | 05/10/07 | 131 | 133 |
| Lakeside DV | 06/14/07 | 360 | 38 |
| Pine Shadows | 05/10/07 | 22 | 22 |
| Riverside | 06/21/07 | 10 | 10 |
| Saddlebrook | 04/12/07 | 18 | 24 |
| Sleeping Indian | 06/14/07 | 151 | 295 |
| Summit Ck | 06/21/07 | 25 | 26 |
| Wasatch Commons | 05/10/07 | 393 | 112 |
| Woodland | 06/14/07 | 13 | 75 |
| Woods Cobblestone TOTAL | 06/21/07 | 11 1216 | 12 866 |
Monday, June 18, 2007
Scriptural warnings
Planning and Zoning??
Isaiah 5:8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
9 In mine ears said the LORD of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.
Micah 2:2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.
Isaiah 5:8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
9 In mine ears said the LORD of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.
Micah 2:2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Wasatch City - Part 27
Many of you long-time residents of delightful rural Wasatch County remember the good old days of green fields, pastures and open spaces that you cherished about the lovely Heber Valley. Many of you newcomers were enticed to this area because of the same features.
Most of you are aware that we live in one of the fastest growing areas of the country, partly because of the valley's desirability that is recognized by new and old alike. About two years ago, some county officials finally seemed to realize that we were losing the small town atmosphere that everyone seemed to agree was desirable - as shown through polls, comments and, even, campaign speeches. A moratorium was placed on development in the county.
The supposed purpose was to provide for open space on the valley floor to attempt to retain some of that desired and elusive open space and rural character. The resultant law from that 2005 moratorium was a convoluted "cluster" requiring each development to have 50% open space, with bonus density for pretty landscaping. This was quickly found to be unworkable for various reasons, mainly because it tried to put eight pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.
A second moratorium was enacted and the RA1 development law was again changed to now require only 30% open space in each development, again with bonuses for cosmetics. A possibility of a "fee in lieu" was included, as a teaser, to allow the purchase of additional density (building lots) above the base of one lot per 1.3 acres.
Land developers are very shrewd in interpreting law and configuring their acreage to maximize their investment. Very quickly the idea arose that "each proposed cluster development shall provide thirty (30%) dedicated open space" did NOT mean 30% of the land must be open space, but it meant that open space could be someone's back yard, or a road, or unbuildable land, or anything that would allow the maximum number of houses to be built and maximum profit to be made. Recent (maybe two months ago) INTERPRETATION of this development law indicated the REQUIRED 30% open space could be offset by a fee - for which there is NO LAW to allow this to happen.
The end result to date: Before the 2005 moratorium, in the RA1 zone, one acre was required to build one house. Meaning, quite simply, on 100 acres about 69 houses could be built, because of required roads and lot layouts designed of a minimum of one acre. The first resultant RA 1 law changed this to a base density of 76 houses on that same 100 acres (a ten percent increase); or, with 50% open space, 100 houses could be built (a 40 % increase). That second law kept that density increase but required a 30% open space.
The latest INTERPRETATION: The open space may be someone's backyard and is contained in the 1.3 acre per house calculation - which will now allow 1 house per acre and NO open space is required. This amounts to a 40% increase in density before the moratoriums to increase open space and "To maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character" - the avowed and expressly written purpose of section 16.27.10 of the County Land Use Code.
Thus the continuing slide towards Wasatch City continues, not even considering the massive and growing density increases caused by city annexations. Is this 40% density increase really in the interest of the "health, safety and welfare of the community?"
In rural Wasatch County, is this truly the desire of the residents?
Most of you are aware that we live in one of the fastest growing areas of the country, partly because of the valley's desirability that is recognized by new and old alike. About two years ago, some county officials finally seemed to realize that we were losing the small town atmosphere that everyone seemed to agree was desirable - as shown through polls, comments and, even, campaign speeches. A moratorium was placed on development in the county.
The supposed purpose was to provide for open space on the valley floor to attempt to retain some of that desired and elusive open space and rural character. The resultant law from that 2005 moratorium was a convoluted "cluster" requiring each development to have 50% open space, with bonus density for pretty landscaping. This was quickly found to be unworkable for various reasons, mainly because it tried to put eight pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.
A second moratorium was enacted and the RA1 development law was again changed to now require only 30% open space in each development, again with bonuses for cosmetics. A possibility of a "fee in lieu" was included, as a teaser, to allow the purchase of additional density (building lots) above the base of one lot per 1.3 acres.
Land developers are very shrewd in interpreting law and configuring their acreage to maximize their investment. Very quickly the idea arose that "each proposed cluster development shall provide thirty (30%) dedicated open space" did NOT mean 30% of the land must be open space, but it meant that open space could be someone's back yard, or a road, or unbuildable land, or anything that would allow the maximum number of houses to be built and maximum profit to be made. Recent (maybe two months ago) INTERPRETATION of this development law indicated the REQUIRED 30% open space could be offset by a fee - for which there is NO LAW to allow this to happen.
The end result to date: Before the 2005 moratorium, in the RA1 zone, one acre was required to build one house. Meaning, quite simply, on 100 acres about 69 houses could be built, because of required roads and lot layouts designed of a minimum of one acre. The first resultant RA 1 law changed this to a base density of 76 houses on that same 100 acres (a ten percent increase); or, with 50% open space, 100 houses could be built (a 40 % increase). That second law kept that density increase but required a 30% open space.
The latest INTERPRETATION: The open space may be someone's backyard and is contained in the 1.3 acre per house calculation - which will now allow 1 house per acre and NO open space is required. This amounts to a 40% increase in density before the moratoriums to increase open space and "To maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character" - the avowed and expressly written purpose of section 16.27.10 of the County Land Use Code.
Thus the continuing slide towards Wasatch City continues, not even considering the massive and growing density increases caused by city annexations. Is this 40% density increase really in the interest of the "health, safety and welfare of the community?"
In rural Wasatch County, is this truly the desire of the residents?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
New High school over budget??
Ogden School District grapples with a $40 million shortfall, with plenty of projects in the pipe - excerpt:
Ogden district isn't alone.
Wasatch School District voters approved a $59.5 million bond in November 2006. The district estimated $50 million to construct its new high school and $9.5 million for the land purchase and furniture.
Bids are still coming in and could be decided in mid-June. But Wasatch district officials believe the total will be much higher than was originally projected.
"All of us (school districts) are going through sticker price shock," said Wasatch Superintendent Terry Shoemaker.
"Cost of square footage has gone up in the last few months," Shoemaker said. "It doesn't take a genius to know part of it is gas and diesel prices making construction costs go up."
He said the district hopes it won't have to cancel its new high school project in Heber City. Instead, officials will look at economizing on materials or cutting back on square footage.
Wasatch district is using architect and construction companies different from those Ogden district is using. "We are talking about economic forces at work here -- not bad data," Shoemaker said.
Ogden district isn't alone.
Wasatch School District voters approved a $59.5 million bond in November 2006. The district estimated $50 million to construct its new high school and $9.5 million for the land purchase and furniture.
Bids are still coming in and could be decided in mid-June. But Wasatch district officials believe the total will be much higher than was originally projected.
"All of us (school districts) are going through sticker price shock," said Wasatch Superintendent Terry Shoemaker.
"Cost of square footage has gone up in the last few months," Shoemaker said. "It doesn't take a genius to know part of it is gas and diesel prices making construction costs go up."
He said the district hopes it won't have to cancel its new high school project in Heber City. Instead, officials will look at economizing on materials or cutting back on square footage.
Wasatch district is using architect and construction companies different from those Ogden district is using. "We are talking about economic forces at work here -- not bad data," Shoemaker said.
Monday, April 16, 2007
New Telephone Poll on Big Box
A telephone poll is being conducted in Wasatch County by "Western Research" for an unnamed client:
Questions:
Does Heber City have enough retail?
Would you prefer services (like police and fire ??) to be paid by propertytax or sales tax.
Does Heber need a WalMart?
Development proposes Lowe's and other stores, do you favor that being built?
If the vote were held today, would you vote to repeal the ordinance?
Questions:
Does Heber City have enough retail?
Would you prefer services (like police and fire ??) to be paid by propertytax or sales tax.
Does Heber need a WalMart?
Development proposes Lowe's and other stores, do you favor that being built?
If the vote were held today, would you vote to repeal the ordinance?
Friday, April 13, 2007
Wal-Mart Gears Up for Campaign in Heber
Apr 11, 2007 by Julie Rose (KCPW News)
Anti-big box organizers in Heber collected enough signatures to get the city's big-box zoning ordinance on this November's ballot. But now they'll have to campaign against one of the world's wealthiest corporate giants for enough votes to quash "big box" stores in Heber.
Wal-Mart spokesman Gray McGinnis thinks a "silent majority" of voters will welcome his store with open arms: "A well-organized minority can very effectively drive the agenda, regardless of the needs and wants of a silent majority," says McGinnis. "So in the past we have run campaigns to bring out our supporters and ensure the city council knows that Wal-Mart is very welcome in the community."
Heber City has an estimated population of nine-thousand people, of whom some 14-hundred registered voters signed the petition to put big-box zoning on the ballot. Citizens group "Put Heber Valley First" is trying reverse a recent Heber City Council decision to allow retail outlets larger than 60-thousand square feet. The group worries big retailers like Wal-Mart will force locally-owned shops out of business.
McGinnis says Heber will benefit by keeping more shoppers in town:
"Currently the majority of the Heber shoppers are driving to Provo to fulfill their everyday shopping needs," says McGinnis. "And these sales tax dollars directly benefit the community - to funding parks, police, fire and other municipal services in Summit County."
Don't expect to see Wal-Mart's name splashed on campaign signs and pamphlets leading into the November election. McGinnis says The Boyer Company, which is proposing the development, will lead the campaign with funding from Wal-Mart.
SL TRIB EDITORIAL!!!
Big-box on ballot: Heber voters score a chance to vote on Wal-MartSalt Lake Tribune, UT - 19 hours agoAnd they found more than 1400 fellow citizens who want a chance to tell the big-box retail giant to peddle its cheap wares elsewhere. Put Heber Valley First ...
Anti-big box organizers in Heber collected enough signatures to get the city's big-box zoning ordinance on this November's ballot. But now they'll have to campaign against one of the world's wealthiest corporate giants for enough votes to quash "big box" stores in Heber.
Wal-Mart spokesman Gray McGinnis thinks a "silent majority" of voters will welcome his store with open arms: "A well-organized minority can very effectively drive the agenda, regardless of the needs and wants of a silent majority," says McGinnis. "So in the past we have run campaigns to bring out our supporters and ensure the city council knows that Wal-Mart is very welcome in the community."
Heber City has an estimated population of nine-thousand people, of whom some 14-hundred registered voters signed the petition to put big-box zoning on the ballot. Citizens group "Put Heber Valley First" is trying reverse a recent Heber City Council decision to allow retail outlets larger than 60-thousand square feet. The group worries big retailers like Wal-Mart will force locally-owned shops out of business.
McGinnis says Heber will benefit by keeping more shoppers in town:
"Currently the majority of the Heber shoppers are driving to Provo to fulfill their everyday shopping needs," says McGinnis. "And these sales tax dollars directly benefit the community - to funding parks, police, fire and other municipal services in Summit County."
Don't expect to see Wal-Mart's name splashed on campaign signs and pamphlets leading into the November election. McGinnis says The Boyer Company, which is proposing the development, will lead the campaign with funding from Wal-Mart.
SL TRIB EDITORIAL!!!
Big-box on ballot: Heber voters score a chance to vote on Wal-MartSalt Lake Tribune, UT - 19 hours agoAnd they found more than 1400 fellow citizens who want a chance to tell the big-box retail giant to peddle its cheap wares elsewhere. Put Heber Valley First ...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
BIG BOX repeal on the ballot
The referendum petition was reportedly certified by the County Clerk today.
1658 Signatures submitted
1424 Certified as valid - others were not registered, duplicates, non Heber, etc.
As under 1200 were required by law to put the item on the ballot; it appears that Heber citizens WILL have the opportunity to repeal the MURCZA zone allowing 150,000 (or more) sqft retail businesses and five story condo units at 20 (?) units per acre.
Heber City Council basically ignored the petition signers:
Ballot box may decide big-box issue in Heber City
By Christopher Smart The Salt Lake TribuneSalt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:04/09/2007 12:24:49 AM MDT
The Heber City Council voted last week to zone 70 acres for big-box retail - despite a petition drive to allow voters to determine whether such large structures should be built within city limits.
A grass-roots organization called "Put Heber Valley First" needed to gather the signatures of 1,160 registered Heber City voters to put the referendum on the November ballot. They submitted 1,595 names to City Hall before the April 1 deadline.
Wasatch County Clerk Brent Titcomb is in the process of certifying the petition signatures. That tally should be complete this week. The petition push came in reaction to a February council vote to increase the limit on large retail outlets from 60,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet. That could set the stage for Wal-Mart.
Mayor Dave Phillips said Friday he believes there is a good chance the issue will go to voters. The Boyer Co., which is acquiring most of the 70 acres in question, had requested the rezone, Phillips said. "The developer knows it could go to a referendum," he said. Nonetheless, the council voted 4-1 for the rezone. Councilman Terry Lange cast the lone vote against the change.
Councilwoman Elizabeth Hokanson said the council didn't wait for the petition to be certified because "we wanted our intentions known." She pointed to a 2005 study that showed 90 percent of Heber City residents' nongrocery retail spending takes place outside Wasatch County. In addition, Hokanson said, Heber City leaders fear big-box retail could come to Wasatch County but be located outside city limits. "We want to broaden our commercial area and our tax base."
1658 Signatures submitted
1424 Certified as valid - others were not registered, duplicates, non Heber, etc.
As under 1200 were required by law to put the item on the ballot; it appears that Heber citizens WILL have the opportunity to repeal the MURCZA zone allowing 150,000 (or more) sqft retail businesses and five story condo units at 20 (?) units per acre.
Heber City Council basically ignored the petition signers:
Ballot box may decide big-box issue in Heber City
By Christopher Smart The Salt Lake TribuneSalt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:04/09/2007 12:24:49 AM MDT
The Heber City Council voted last week to zone 70 acres for big-box retail - despite a petition drive to allow voters to determine whether such large structures should be built within city limits.
A grass-roots organization called "Put Heber Valley First" needed to gather the signatures of 1,160 registered Heber City voters to put the referendum on the November ballot. They submitted 1,595 names to City Hall before the April 1 deadline.
Wasatch County Clerk Brent Titcomb is in the process of certifying the petition signatures. That tally should be complete this week. The petition push came in reaction to a February council vote to increase the limit on large retail outlets from 60,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet. That could set the stage for Wal-Mart.
Mayor Dave Phillips said Friday he believes there is a good chance the issue will go to voters. The Boyer Co., which is acquiring most of the 70 acres in question, had requested the rezone, Phillips said. "The developer knows it could go to a referendum," he said. Nonetheless, the council voted 4-1 for the rezone. Councilman Terry Lange cast the lone vote against the change.
Councilwoman Elizabeth Hokanson said the council didn't wait for the petition to be certified because "we wanted our intentions known." She pointed to a 2005 study that showed 90 percent of Heber City residents' nongrocery retail spending takes place outside Wasatch County. In addition, Hokanson said, Heber City leaders fear big-box retail could come to Wasatch County but be located outside city limits. "We want to broaden our commercial area and our tax base."
Monday, March 19, 2007
Council Approves Red Ledges
It continues to amaze me how some elected officials are seemingly oblivious to the desires and wishes of their constituents. Last week (3/15/07) the Heber City Council unanimously approved the annexation of the 1400 unit Red Ledges development. That application, submitted 11/22/06, had previously attempted approval through Wasatch County, but was brought to Heber City when it became apparent that the desired density increase from about 50 to 700 was not going to be approved.
Heber City officials, from the first inkling of the project, seem to have coveted for the perceived tax revenues which they felt would flow into the city's coffers. (see blog of 9/16/06)
Throughout the entire process, the 'public' was overwhelmingly opposed to the project for various reasons - traffic, congestion, density, gated exclusivity and little direct community benefit. At the 'final' approval meeting before a packed room,s several people spoke against approval primarily for traffic and fiscal reasons. A request was repeated for a deliberate analysis of the potential community fiscal impact prior to annexation. At the conclusion on the public comments, the City Manager Mark Anderson, was asked about that impact.
Reported, as it were, from a quick crayon scribbled analysis on the back of a napkin (figuratively), he acknowledged that the house "values" presented by the developer may be inflated by 30% and the benefit to Heber Light may be exaggerated. He also agreed that the percent of secondary residences was probably way off, etc. While not giving any real analysis of the potential costs to the average taxpayer of Heber AND Wasatch County, he concluded that (paraphrased) "I'm certain that it will be revenue positive for the city." and that his decision was not based solely on money and that we need a "diverse" community and affordable housing. Anderson also declared that there is correlation between retail business and population and that increasing housing will bring more business which will offset the cost of the residential. (A recurring philosophy, he has promulgated for some time in his quest for more annexations and growth.)
Council member Hokanson, then asked if a berm could help the road impact to surrounding neighbors. Anderson replied that with a 102 ft wide property being purchased for the road (connection to Mill Rd.) and only 56 ft required for the road, Heber would have a surplus of 36 or 38 ft (sic) (An example of his analytical prowess?) which could be sold to the neighbors or landscaped.
Council member Bradshaw then indicated that he is just a regular guy and knew there are certain thing government should and should not do and it wasn't government's business how much profit a business should make. He said we should ensure that this project is a benefit to the community and he had confidence in the City Manager and he was favorable to approval.
Council member Lange, gave a delightful homily about a man riding his horse in a neighbor's cornfield and respecting property rights which warmed the cockles of one's heart.
Council member Lazenby said something about if we don't approve it the county will at the same density (A statement which, on its face, failed as the reason for the annexation was DENSITY). Council member Shelton was present. Mayor Phillips was out of town. Approval to annex passed five to nothing.
Now that we have the additional 1400 houses we assuredly will need a Big Box (or two), per the Anderson dicta on growth. Coming soon at a meeting near you.
Heber City officials, from the first inkling of the project, seem to have coveted for the perceived tax revenues which they felt would flow into the city's coffers. (see blog of 9/16/06)
Throughout the entire process, the 'public' was overwhelmingly opposed to the project for various reasons - traffic, congestion, density, gated exclusivity and little direct community benefit. At the 'final' approval meeting before a packed room,s several people spoke against approval primarily for traffic and fiscal reasons. A request was repeated for a deliberate analysis of the potential community fiscal impact prior to annexation. At the conclusion on the public comments, the City Manager Mark Anderson, was asked about that impact.
Reported, as it were, from a quick crayon scribbled analysis on the back of a napkin (figuratively), he acknowledged that the house "values" presented by the developer may be inflated by 30% and the benefit to Heber Light may be exaggerated. He also agreed that the percent of secondary residences was probably way off, etc. While not giving any real analysis of the potential costs to the average taxpayer of Heber AND Wasatch County, he concluded that (paraphrased) "I'm certain that it will be revenue positive for the city." and that his decision was not based solely on money and that we need a "diverse" community and affordable housing. Anderson also declared that there is correlation between retail business and population and that increasing housing will bring more business which will offset the cost of the residential. (A recurring philosophy, he has promulgated for some time in his quest for more annexations and growth.)
Council member Hokanson, then asked if a berm could help the road impact to surrounding neighbors. Anderson replied that with a 102 ft wide property being purchased for the road (connection to Mill Rd.) and only 56 ft required for the road, Heber would have a surplus of 36 or 38 ft (sic) (An example of his analytical prowess?) which could be sold to the neighbors or landscaped.
Council member Bradshaw then indicated that he is just a regular guy and knew there are certain thing government should and should not do and it wasn't government's business how much profit a business should make. He said we should ensure that this project is a benefit to the community and he had confidence in the City Manager and he was favorable to approval.
Council member Lange, gave a delightful homily about a man riding his horse in a neighbor's cornfield and respecting property rights which warmed the cockles of one's heart.
Council member Lazenby said something about if we don't approve it the county will at the same density (A statement which, on its face, failed as the reason for the annexation was DENSITY). Council member Shelton was present. Mayor Phillips was out of town. Approval to annex passed five to nothing.
Now that we have the additional 1400 houses we assuredly will need a Big Box (or two), per the Anderson dicta on growth. Coming soon at a meeting near you.
Monday, February 26, 2007
An Open Letter to Heber City Council
The Heber Big Box issue was recently on KSL Click here: broadcast on KSL!!!
Dear Heber City Council members,
Some momentous decision are apparently soon to be made on two items which will have a lasting and unchangeable effect on the Heber Valley. The removal of the cap on retail business (Big Box) and the approval of the Red Ledges development. I urge, in the strongest terms, that a slow and deliberate process be made in the consideration of these items.
Probably the best thing that has happened as a result of the proposed Red Ledges development is seeing the County and Heber City working together to attempt to solve mutual problems. One of the saddest things about that cooperation is that the solution seems to be more to the advantage of the developer than the consideration of the health, safety and welfare of the Heber Valley community as a whole.
The issue of density was apparently not considered in the Interlocal agreement, the developer’s proposal of 1370 was accepted as the maximum density allowed. The original allowed density was under 100 ERU's, as purchased, on the current county portion of the land.
A plan is being formulated by the County Conservation/Open Space committee and was planned to be implemented for this development. This was to be in coordination with all governmental entities in the valley and talks are reportedly being held to implement the plan. Under the plan, the open space mitigation fee structure for "zone changes," which would include Red Ledges, is being proposed as 12.5% of the lot value times the density increase.
The proposed mitigation fee in the Interlocal Agreement of $4.5 Million is off by a factor of over 10. At an approximate 750 increase in houses requested by the zone change, times $600K average lot price at 12.5% equals $56 Million. With the annexation approval this would now be limited to $4.5 Million. Is this to the benefit of the community or the developer?
As is generally agreed by everyone interested in this issue, the primary (if not sole) reason for the annexation petition by the developer was DENSITY. The primary (if not the sole) reason for consideration of the petition by Heber City was money - in proposed taxes and fees. The city has NOT done any independent analysis of the fiscal impact figures presented by the developer as was promised by Heber City Manager (see podcast of interview with Mark Anderson labeled "city part I" and "city part II")
Many of the developer’s figures are suspect, in my opinion, and overestimated in the developer's favor. At the very least, an analysis needs to be done for a conservative impact of costs and benefits - to the City AND to the county, in general. ALL Heber City residents are also Wasatch County residents, but the City fiscal impact analyses generally ignore the County (and school) costs.
The Red Ledges project has little positive effect or benefit on the "health, safety and welfare" of the community as a whole, which is, or should be, the major deciding factor in these issues.
Dear Heber City Council members,
Some momentous decision are apparently soon to be made on two items which will have a lasting and unchangeable effect on the Heber Valley. The removal of the cap on retail business (Big Box) and the approval of the Red Ledges development. I urge, in the strongest terms, that a slow and deliberate process be made in the consideration of these items.
Probably the best thing that has happened as a result of the proposed Red Ledges development is seeing the County and Heber City working together to attempt to solve mutual problems. One of the saddest things about that cooperation is that the solution seems to be more to the advantage of the developer than the consideration of the health, safety and welfare of the Heber Valley community as a whole.
The issue of density was apparently not considered in the Interlocal agreement, the developer’s proposal of 1370 was accepted as the maximum density allowed. The original allowed density was under 100 ERU's, as purchased, on the current county portion of the land.
A plan is being formulated by the County Conservation/Open Space committee and was planned to be implemented for this development. This was to be in coordination with all governmental entities in the valley and talks are reportedly being held to implement the plan. Under the plan, the open space mitigation fee structure for "zone changes," which would include Red Ledges, is being proposed as 12.5% of the lot value times the density increase.
The proposed mitigation fee in the Interlocal Agreement of $4.5 Million is off by a factor of over 10. At an approximate 750 increase in houses requested by the zone change, times $600K average lot price at 12.5% equals $56 Million. With the annexation approval this would now be limited to $4.5 Million. Is this to the benefit of the community or the developer?
As is generally agreed by everyone interested in this issue, the primary (if not sole) reason for the annexation petition by the developer was DENSITY. The primary (if not the sole) reason for consideration of the petition by Heber City was money - in proposed taxes and fees. The city has NOT done any independent analysis of the fiscal impact figures presented by the developer as was promised by Heber City Manager (see podcast of interview with Mark Anderson labeled "city part I" and "city part II")
Many of the developer’s figures are suspect, in my opinion, and overestimated in the developer's favor. At the very least, an analysis needs to be done for a conservative impact of costs and benefits - to the City AND to the county, in general. ALL Heber City residents are also Wasatch County residents, but the City fiscal impact analyses generally ignore the County (and school) costs.
The Red Ledges project has little positive effect or benefit on the "health, safety and welfare" of the community as a whole, which is, or should be, the major deciding factor in these issues.
The Red Ledges developer extols three "benefits" on their website :
- Money - taxes which may be overestimated and costs which may be underestimated.
- Public Facilities - of which there may be a few for the community, a private golf course not included.
- Prestige - Wasatch County is already World Class as proven by all of those desiring to come and those desiring to stay.
There are similar financial analysis problems with the new "unlimited’ mixed use zone and the proposed Boyer development. An analysis of these financial impacts - other than that presented by the developer - should be a MINIMUM requirement for approval consideration. I strongly urge you to revisit Heber’s $10,000 study on the Big Box - it was far from a ringing endorsement of the concept. The Dan Jones survey - including the comments - also needs to be read and heeded - not to mention listening to the strong opposition shown consistently and recently by your constituents.
I won't even mention the traffic issues, which have dominated the discussion so far and still have NOT been solved. The Boyer development will virtually destroy the current concept for the Western bypass. Red Ledges agreement apparently builds a road to nowhere.
In the final analysis, these projects are mainly about one thing - profit for the developer. At the Aug 14 2006 joint County City meeting, the County Manager wisely asked this rhetorical question: "Is it the government's 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?"
The answer to that question, in my opinion, should be your guide to a decision to continue with the protest. To me the answer is clear; maximizing developer profit is not the responsibility of government; protecting the welfare and property rights of the community, as a whole, IS.
This is an opportune time to continue a discussion between all of the entities in the Heber Valley to work, in conjunction, to implement the various General Plans and attempt to retain the rural, small town environment that is cherished by the residents. I strongly urge you to do the right thing for the residents of your community.
Council people, the decision is yours now on both of these issues. Approval of either one will drastically change the face and future of this Valley, in ways not generally favored by the residents OR contemplated in the current Heber City and Wasatch County General Plans. Do the right thing, follow the wishes of the Heber Valley residents.
Heber City Council Comments on the Big Box Cap 2005
Comments from the Heber City Council about the Big Box June 6, 2005 when the CAP was set at 60,000 sq.ft. on retail business:
- Councilmember Terry Wm. Lange – “We came to listen. We have learned from all of you the general way people feel.” He said it was important to him to know how the general pubic felt. He suggested this might be a very long-term ordinance change or it might be very short ordinance change. He indicated he would vote the way most of the public wanted. “I hope, as a City Council, we can take the advice and make the best decision we can.” He thanked those that attended and participated in the Hearing.
- Councilmember (NOW mayor) Dave Phillips - “We have just experienced one of the greatest entitlements of being in this Country.” He said the Big Box Committee made a great presentation to the City Council last Thursday and indicated they had found some middle ground. They suggested the CAP be passed but incorporate some middle ground into it. “We can be the master of our own destiny,” he said. “We can have other opportunities to improve our tax base and have convenient shopping,” he continued. He suggested the Committee didn’t just pull 75,000 square feet out of the air--there was a reason for it.
- Councilmember Lazenby indicated she had no opinion for it or against it. “Its not about me, its not about my store.” She indicated she would go with the majority. She reviewed the breakdown of the survey of individual responses. She concluded that the majority was for a cap on retail size buildings. Councilmember Lazenby reviewed her summary of the survey. She commented on page 25 and 38 of the General Plan. She indicated her vote would be for the CAP but because it was not perfect, there needed to be further study.
The Council then approved a CAP of 60,000 sq. ft.
To read the complete minutes with public comments, CLICK HERE
Excerpts From Heber City Big Box Presentation 2005
(Selected Excerpts)
Big Box Presentation by Heber City 5/27/05 (*$15,000 of Heber Tax money)
109,000 Sq. Ft. Smaller towns
150,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas of 20,000-30,000
180,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas of 30,000-50,000
220,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas larger than 50,000
- Heber cannot rely on an increased trade area to mitigate impact of Wal-Mart
- 80 percent of supermarket managers cite Wal-Mart as their biggest concern In the past decade 29 chains have sought bankruptcy, 25 of which cite Wal-Mart as a catalyst (Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2003).
- Day’s Market and Smith’s Food and Drug will most likely experience a decrease in sales between 10 and 20 percent. (pg 26)
- Anticipated Wal-Mart Sales:
Square feet to be built: 107,000 Average sales per sf: $350
Estimated Wal-Mart sales: $37.5 million
Current County general merchandise sales: $2.1 million (pg 33) - Wal-Mart has provided seminars to local business owners on how to compete with Wal-Mart.cial Impacts
- Heber City Revenue (Two columns depend on how much in "current sales" are lost ~ 30 or 50%)
Highway tax (on sales) $88, 652 ..... $80,003
Sales tax revenues .... $177, 303..... $160, 006
Franchise tax revenues $7,313 ..... $7,313
Property tax revenues ..... $16,791..... $16,791
Total ............................... $290, 059 ..... $264,113 (pg 55)
TOTAL(Wasatch County) ..............$124,504 ..... $115,855 (pg 56) - It will cost Heber department $45,050 per year to hire an additional officer to cover Wal- Mart calls.
- Revenues ..............$290,000 ..... $264,000
Police ..................... -$45,000 ..... -$45,000
Public Works ......... -$26,000 ..... -$26,000
TOTAL .................. $219,000 ..... $193,000 (pg 65) - Overlay Zone: a zone that imposes a set of additional requirements to those of the underlying zoning. Used to address special features or conditions of large commercial project. (added comment - not in study)
- Local firms are better for local economy
• Local firms generate 70 percent greater economic effect per square foot than chain stores (Civic Economics, The Andersonville Study of RetailEconomics, October 2004). - Local firms generate 58 percent greater economic effect per dollar of revenue than chain stores (Andersonville Study).
Source: Heber City, Utah website
* From minutes 2/17/2005 (click for actual minutes)
Update on Big Box Committee – "Review Scope of Work: Anderson indicated Susie Becker, Wikstrom and Associates, attended the last meeting. She had been given information from the previous meeting and was there to address those issues. She received additional information from the committee to work on. Becker proposed a scope of work of $15,000; however, there would be some additional costs, such as a survey. The Council had authorized $25,000.
Anderson said he thought the group might be a little fuzzy as to their role but they were trying. Councilmember Phillips wondered if the group was focused and asked what had to be done to get them focused. Anderson talked that the group felt they needed to work with the Planning Commission to make sure ordinances deal with the issues.
Councilmember Phillips said his take from the beginning was that it was eventually going to happen so we ought to know the pluses and minus to the community. Anderson said if the ordinance is drafted along the line of the white paper, it would put the decision on the City Council.
Councilmember Phillips wanted the group to gather the facts and what the citizens feelings were. Then the elected officials would make decisions. (Mayor Adams arrived at 6:59.) Anderson talked to the group about the opinions of the city residents and how much weight ought to be given to the opinions of people that live outside the community."
Big Box Committee – Membership and Scope of Authority: Mayor Adams indicated there needed to be some representation from the County on the Big Box Committee. He discussed the fact that a moratorium had been put into place and that this Committee needed to start its work.
It was recommended that Al Mickelsen and one of the County Councilmembers be on the Committee. Mike Davis indicated he would take that recommendation to their next work meeting. Councilmember Phillips suggested Mike Thurber as a Citizen-at-Large. Councilmember Lazenby suggested Corbin Gordon. Mayor Adams suggested Mary Noonan if Corbin was not able or interested.
Wasatch County Al Mickelsen
County Councilmember
Citizen-at-Large Mike Thurber
Amanda Lund
Corbin Gordon
CAMS Bryon Day
Mike Johnston
Pat Kohler
WEDO/CHAMBER Nelson Carter
Dick Buys
Governmental Rep. 1 from Midway
1 from Charleston
Public Safety Chief Rhoades
Plus three more as recommended by the Committee
Councilmember Burns moved to invite these people to serve on the Big Box Development Committee and give authority to them to invite three more of their choosing. Councilmember Lazenby made the second. The voting was unanimous in the affirmative.
Anderson indicated that staff had put together some recommendations for the Committee and, if approved by the Council, at one of their first meetings staff would educate the Committee and let them know what was expected. He proceeded by recommending that Wikstrom complete their study as authorized by City Council some time ago. That would then be presented to the Committee. Additionally their Scope of Authority would include:
1. Review of the Impact Study by Wikstrom
2. Review what the Planning Commission ordinance are that relate to big box and make suggestions
3. Disseminate findings through the media or public meetings
4. Develop tools or surveys that query different members of the Valley to get a representation of the people and what they want
5. Present results of study to the City Council
Mike Johnston, Big Box Committee Member, asked to give a progress report to the Council since there had been rumors and nonsense reported about what the Committee was doing and had been doing. He said he didn’t know where the rumors were coming from but understood this was a very controversial issue. So that the Council was not “sucked into the rumor mill’ he reviewed the following:
* The Committee first met in January--was into the moratorium one month already--only had about 90 days to really work
* They set up an agenda and an order of things to happen—they are doing a lot in 90 days
* In February and March met every two weeks. Discussed the information obtained at that point. Hired Wikstrom to gather information. Held the public meeting. He felt bad the slides were “awful.” The rumor that this was planned was “ludicrous.”
* They are preparing a lengthy article for next week’s paper that will review all the information, good and bad.
* Sent out Request for Proposal for Survey--choose Dan Jones. They met with Dan Jones one and a half weeks ago--the survey will begin next week.
* The Planning Commission has two ordinances to review--the public hearing is scheduled.
* The Committee will make a presentation to the Council on June 2.
* Facts are collectable
* It is difficult to collect facts on “quality of life,” etc.
* Survey will be 250 in City and 150 out of City
Mayor Adams asked if it would be better to get more input from the City residents. Discussion about the survey and statistics. Councilmember Lazenby questioned if the Committee had created the ordinance. She wanted to clarify information she had been given. Mike Thurber discussed the inaccurate information coming from the Council and felt it would slant the survey. He felt his name and the Committee had been slandered on the radio on Friday and was very upset about it.
Johnston continued to talk about the survey and spending an additional $300 to increase the number of questions—some not related to big box at all but of a general nature. Johnston said he wanted to make another comment “in public.” The rumor was the Committee was “pro” Wal-Mart. It had also been said on the radio the Committee was purposely slowing down the process, wanted to delay the issue and they were taking money. “The truth is everybody on this committee is very concerned about a big box coming to town and we are striving with all our might to be somewhat objective about it and present to you an objective report and not just view it through our own opinion because that is what you asked us to do.
” Where the rumors come from he didn’t know but they are “180 degrees” from the truth. He said the Committee debates all the time on how to be objective. Mayor Adams indicated he appreciated the work of the Committee and felt they were being objective. Mayor Adams thanked Johnston for his time and his work.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
An Open Letter to the County Council - Annexation
A letter (Email) sent to County Officials 2/15/2007
(No response from any official)
Gentlemen,
While I can understand and applaud your attempts to work with Heber City officials on the annexation of Red Ledges, I strongly urge you to continue with the protest of the annexation to the boundary commission, and beyond, if necessary.
(No response from any official)
Gentlemen,
While I can understand and applaud your attempts to work with Heber City officials on the annexation of Red Ledges, I strongly urge you to continue with the protest of the annexation to the boundary commission, and beyond, if necessary.
- As is generally agreed by all interested in the issue, the primary (if not sole) reason for the annexation petition by the developer was DENSITY. The primary (if not the sole) reason for consideration of the petition by Heber City was money - in proposed taxes and fees. (see http://www.esnips.com/web/Impact for the Aug 14 County City meeting recording) The city has NOT done any independent analysis of the fiscal impact figures presented by the developer as was promised by Heber City Manager (see podcast of interview with Mark Anderson at the above site labeled "city part I" and "city part II") Many of the figures are, in my opinion, suspect and overestimated in the developer's favor.
- The issue of density is apparently not being considered in the Interlocal agreement. At one time, the agreement even included a further density bonus of 5% for signing the agreement (68 more ERU's at $1.7 Million average or $100 million in increased revenues). The original allowed density was under 100 ERU's on the land - as purchased.
- The proposed mitigation fee of $4.5 Million is off by a factor of over 10, under the proposed Conservation/Open Space fee structure. This was discussed at the County Planning Commission and, I believe, part of the proposal that was working through the county process. (approx. 750 ERU increase in houses requested, times $600K average lot price, times 12.5% equals $56 Million) Why should this be now limited to $4.5 Million?
- It appears that the proposed Interlocal agreement solves very few, if any, of the legal issues raised by the proposed annexation. In particular, it does not consider these important factors:
- The proposed annexation DOES create an unincorporated peninsula of Wasatch View Acres.
- The Annexation Area was specifically changed recently, solely to accommodate this annexation.
- Heber City will NOT be providing municipal services (sewer, water) to the development, possibly they might not even be able to. This is one the primary reasons for annexation, in general.
- The annexation is being done primarily (if not solely) for taxes as has been noted in many meetings.
This project has little positive effect or benefit on the "health, safety and welfare" of the community as a whole. The Red Ledges developer basically lists three "benefits" on their website:
- Money - taxes which may be overestimated and costs which may be underestimated.
Public Facilities - of which there may be a few for the community, a private golf course not included. - Prestige - Wasatch County is already World Class as proven by all of those desiring to come and those desiring to stay.
I won't even mention the traffic issues, which have dominated the discussion so far.
In the final analysis, this project is mainly about one thing - profit for the developer. One of our County Officials wisely asked this rhetorical question: "Is it the government's 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?"
The answer to that question, in my opinion, should be your guide to a decision to continue with the protest. To me the answer is clear; maximizing developer profit is not the responsibility of government; protecting the welfare and property rights of the community, as a whole, IS.
This is an opportune time to continue a discussion between all of the entities in the Heber Valley to work, in conjunction, to implement the various General Plans and attempt to retain the rural, small town environment that is cherished by the residents. I strongly urge you to do the right thing for the residents of your community - continue with the protest of the annexation to the boundary commission, and beyond, if necessary.
I'd be happy to discuss this further with anyone or provide whatever amplifying information I can.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Fear of Big Box - NOT ! ! !
A respect for the desires of the community, rather than "Fear of the Big Box," is what is motivating those "opposing" a Big Box. Someone opined in the Wave of the supposed "Fear" driving opposition.
A mere year and half ago the Heber City Council placed a cap on retail business at 60,000 sq. ft. in response to the expressed desires of the vast majority of the Heber Valley. This action followed a public hearing Jun 6, 2005; the public response was overwhelmingly in favor of the cap on retail business size. The minutes of that meeting can be found on Heber City’’s website.
Next week the Heber City Council will be considering eliminating that cap and raising the limit to 200,000 sq. ft. AND allowing 55 ft. high buildings (isn’’t that FIVE stories?) AND allowing a housing density of 30 dwelling units per acre of land.
Thousands of Heber citizens' tax dollars have been spent on a Dan Jones survey and a Big Box study on the issue. The survey of Heber, and other Wasatch County, residents clearly indicated they did not want (or need) a Big Box. More retail - yes! Big Box - NO!
Here are a few of the survey responses:
- 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 IMPORTANT!!
The $10,000 big box study showed the pros and cons of the potential arrival of a big box in the valley; mostly negatives. The report indicated a net financial gain to Heber’’s coffers of less than $200,000 on estimated gross sales of $37 million - hardly a massive windfall.
The Heber City General Plan clearly calls for promoting MAIN STREET business: "Main Street is the economic, architectural and historical heart of the community. The most powerful and lasting image associated with Heber City is Main Street. " "Promote downtown as a distinctive shopping area emphasizing it as an attractive meeting place and staging area for festivals, special events, celebrations and a variety of community activities."
The actual law capping the size of retail buildings includes the wording "Attempts to circumvent or exceed this maximum, 60,000 square feet, shall be strictly prohibited." This wording is in ALL of the commercial zones. I leave it to the Heber citizens to determine the meaning of those statements.
All of these reports are available on Heber City’’s website. I wish everyone would read them - especially the City Council, before they make a decision. Is this proposed increase being done for the "health, safety and welfare of the community" our, in other words, for the benefit of the Heber Valley as a whole; or is it merely another benefit being freely offered to developers (out of town ones, at that).
Fear of Big Box - no, I don’’t think so. Respect for the desires of the community - priceless.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Red Ledges Fiscal Impact Analysis - A Pig in a Poke???
It’s axiomatic that developers and promoters will use numbers to prove and promote their particular project. This appears to be the case with Red Ledges. Is it really the Cash Cow some in the Heber City Government expect??
Heber City Revenue
For the Heber City Tax revenue the study apparently uses a proposed SALE price as the assessed value. These sales prices are, at best, an estimate - probably optimistic at that. While tax value assessment is supposedly equal to "market" value, houses in the valley currently offered for sale at $600K often carry an assessment of about $300K. Therefore, it could be concluded that the tax revenues predicted by using the anticipated sales price may be inflated by a factor of TWO.
It is not clear whether the tax computation separates the land value from the house value. The general Fund revenue would then be $870K rather than $1,750K. The net benefit to the general fund would then be a negative $250K - rather than +$625.
School Costs
School Children are computed at 0.51 per household for a total of 699 students; the County uses 0.8 yielding 1096 students.
***To determine the number of school age children, wouldn't it be logical to divide the number of school children (~4300) by the number of primary homes (total minus the number of secondary homes) - for a school children per house ratio and then multiply by the number of houses in the development or use households: 4000/4743 = 0.84 (2000 enrollment guess and census households) or 4300/18974 * 3.18 = 0.72 (2005 pop.) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49051.html
(A computation of Timp Meadows showed about 1.6 students/household a few years ago)
Red Ledges study uses 2005 figures and does NOT include the new High School bond which raises the per student cost by $150 (?)
NCES figures show local share of education costs at $3305/student.
1096 students @ $3305 = $3,620,000 Education Cost
Including the increase from the new bond cost 1096 @$3450 = $3,800,000
School Tax generated based on the factor of TWO overestimate would yield $4,500K
Net Results
The net benefit to Heber City indicated in the fiscal report ($625K city + $6,900K school ) appears to be overstated and the more conservative figures might be -$250K and $700K.
The report indicates that the School District is able "to accommodate this proposed increase" indicating that the current taxpayer have, or will be, paying for the current "excess" capacity. A more rational scenario would be for the development to pay for one additional high School (current $60 million for 1500 students = $40M) one Junior High, ($10M); one Middle school ($8M), and on elementary ($7M) to educate the 1000 children brought with the development. (total $65M or $4700 per unit).
The figures also represent amounts at build-out which may be 10 - 20 years and is base on current cost rather than the additional costs which will be created by service required by the development. It does not seem to include the increase in infrastructure cost to the County (e.g. new roads - widening Center St. or Bypass, which would be required to handle the increased traffic; police protection, etc.).
Heber City Revenue
For the Heber City Tax revenue the study apparently uses a proposed SALE price as the assessed value. These sales prices are, at best, an estimate - probably optimistic at that. While tax value assessment is supposedly equal to "market" value, houses in the valley currently offered for sale at $600K often carry an assessment of about $300K. Therefore, it could be concluded that the tax revenues predicted by using the anticipated sales price may be inflated by a factor of TWO.
It is not clear whether the tax computation separates the land value from the house value. The general Fund revenue would then be $870K rather than $1,750K. The net benefit to the general fund would then be a negative $250K - rather than +$625.
School Costs
School Children are computed at 0.51 per household for a total of 699 students; the County uses 0.8 yielding 1096 students.
***To determine the number of school age children, wouldn't it be logical to divide the number of school children (~4300) by the number of primary homes (total minus the number of secondary homes) - for a school children per house ratio and then multiply by the number of houses in the development or use households: 4000/4743 = 0.84 (2000 enrollment guess and census households) or 4300/18974 * 3.18 = 0.72 (2005 pop.) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49051.html
(A computation of Timp Meadows showed about 1.6 students/household a few years ago)
Red Ledges study uses 2005 figures and does NOT include the new High School bond which raises the per student cost by $150 (?)
NCES figures show local share of education costs at $3305/student.
1096 students @ $3305 = $3,620,000 Education Cost
Including the increase from the new bond cost 1096 @$3450 = $3,800,000
School Tax generated based on the factor of TWO overestimate would yield $4,500K
Net Results
The net benefit to Heber City indicated in the fiscal report ($625K city + $6,900K school ) appears to be overstated and the more conservative figures might be -$250K and $700K.
The report indicates that the School District is able "to accommodate this proposed increase" indicating that the current taxpayer have, or will be, paying for the current "excess" capacity. A more rational scenario would be for the development to pay for one additional high School (current $60 million for 1500 students = $40M) one Junior High, ($10M); one Middle school ($8M), and on elementary ($7M) to educate the 1000 children brought with the development. (total $65M or $4700 per unit).
The figures also represent amounts at build-out which may be 10 - 20 years and is base on current cost rather than the additional costs which will be created by service required by the development. It does not seem to include the increase in infrastructure cost to the County (e.g. new roads - widening Center St. or Bypass, which would be required to handle the increased traffic; police protection, etc.).
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Why Does the County Council Want to Encourage MORE Houses than Before?
A couple of people (including a current County Councilman) have questioned my data on the increase in potential houses as a result of the new proposed change to the existing development code.
Here's a concrete example, that hopefully anyone (even the councilman) might understand:
A development called Grand Haven (2400 S & 2400 E) filed for a "conservation" subdivision of 133 houses on 133 acres with 50% open space. After much discussion, the proposal was finally withdrawn because it would have allowed MORE houses than the underlying zoning. The developers opted, and were approved for, 91 houses on one acre lots - the maximum they could fit onto the property.
Hearing of the NEW proposal, I understand that Grand Haven developers are already considering a modification of the approved 91 unit subdivision to a 129 unit development with 30% open space. That's a 41% INCREASE in houses with 40% LESS open space than under their previous proposal.
This exemplifies the problem with the proposal which could be magnified by a HUGE factor. I would reiterate that the recently adopted proposal will allow an increase in density of about 33% on most of RA-1 zoned property.
Briefly, under the prior law, with 25% removed for roads, 'only' 75 houses could have been built on 100 acres. Prior to that law, the general rule was that each lot required one acre of land and 200 ft of road frontage - which had basically been in effect since 1972, with minor changes for clustering, etc. One acre and 200 ft. frontage generally resulted in substantially less than 100 houses on the proverbial 100 acre lot.
The new proposal WILL allow, and is apparently formulated to create, the "right" to build 100 houses on 100 acres. In actuality, with the proposed "bonuses" it will allow 10 houses on a 10 acres lot, six on six acres, etc. - again with out consideration of the need for roads to service the houses. Lots from 5 to 15 acres will be required to have NO open space and can build on any size lot they desire (1/3acre min).
In the Eastern Planning Area alone, there are approximately 400 parcels of land with an acreage of greater than 5 acres ( the proposed floor of the one per acre allowance); there are currently 3300 acres of land with NO house on the parcel; and 1100 acres, in 100 parcels, with ONE house on the parcel.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's a lot of acreage on which to allow a 33% increase in allowable houses - and that 's just the Eastern Planning Area.
We constantly hear reference to the "property rights" of landowners; I would humbly submit that if we are using Land Use Management (which we are) principles (zoning); we must"protect" the rights of those who HAVE built, in addition to those are want to built. If we are to have Land Use Management for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, then we must respect the property rights of those who reside in this county to expect a semblance of continuation of reasonable zoning to the ends elaborated in the General Plan and the expressed desires of the residents.
Expansion of the "rights" of developers and land owners to get more and more density on smaller and smaller lots in NOT consistent with the general principles expressed in our planning documents. This proposed law change is not even consistent with the "purposes" expressed in the law itself.
The Utah Supreme Court has said: “If an ordinance could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of the general welfare, we will uphold it.” “The selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the city, and does not, in and of itself, evidence an abuse of discretion.” See Bradley v. Payson, 2001 UT App 9, aff’d, 2003 UT 16; Harmon City v. City of Draper, 2000 UT App 31.
Here's a concrete example, that hopefully anyone (even the councilman) might understand:
A development called Grand Haven (2400 S & 2400 E) filed for a "conservation" subdivision of 133 houses on 133 acres with 50% open space. After much discussion, the proposal was finally withdrawn because it would have allowed MORE houses than the underlying zoning. The developers opted, and were approved for, 91 houses on one acre lots - the maximum they could fit onto the property.
Hearing of the NEW proposal, I understand that Grand Haven developers are already considering a modification of the approved 91 unit subdivision to a 129 unit development with 30% open space. That's a 41% INCREASE in houses with 40% LESS open space than under their previous proposal.
This exemplifies the problem with the proposal which could be magnified by a HUGE factor. I would reiterate that the recently adopted proposal will allow an increase in density of about 33% on most of RA-1 zoned property.
Briefly, under the prior law, with 25% removed for roads, 'only' 75 houses could have been built on 100 acres. Prior to that law, the general rule was that each lot required one acre of land and 200 ft of road frontage - which had basically been in effect since 1972, with minor changes for clustering, etc. One acre and 200 ft. frontage generally resulted in substantially less than 100 houses on the proverbial 100 acre lot.
The new proposal WILL allow, and is apparently formulated to create, the "right" to build 100 houses on 100 acres. In actuality, with the proposed "bonuses" it will allow 10 houses on a 10 acres lot, six on six acres, etc. - again with out consideration of the need for roads to service the houses. Lots from 5 to 15 acres will be required to have NO open space and can build on any size lot they desire (1/3acre min).
In the Eastern Planning Area alone, there are approximately 400 parcels of land with an acreage of greater than 5 acres ( the proposed floor of the one per acre allowance); there are currently 3300 acres of land with NO house on the parcel; and 1100 acres, in 100 parcels, with ONE house on the parcel.
The finalization of these changes to RA 1 development and the ending of the moratorium may be discussed/reconsidered at the Council meeting on Wednesday (12/20).
Ladies and gentlemen, that's a lot of acreage on which to allow a 33% increase in allowable houses - and that 's just the Eastern Planning Area.
We constantly hear reference to the "property rights" of landowners; I would humbly submit that if we are using Land Use Management (which we are) principles (zoning); we must"protect" the rights of those who HAVE built, in addition to those are want to built. If we are to have Land Use Management for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, then we must respect the property rights of those who reside in this county to expect a semblance of continuation of reasonable zoning to the ends elaborated in the General Plan and the expressed desires of the residents.
Expansion of the "rights" of developers and land owners to get more and more density on smaller and smaller lots in NOT consistent with the general principles expressed in our planning documents. This proposed law change is not even consistent with the "purposes" expressed in the law itself.
The Utah Supreme Court has said: “If an ordinance could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of the general welfare, we will uphold it.” “The selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the city, and does not, in and of itself, evidence an abuse of discretion.” See Bradley v. Payson, 2001 UT App 9, aff’d, 2003 UT 16; Harmon City v. City of Draper, 2000 UT App 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)