McDonald, Franco and Potter - Winners

Heber City:  With a low voter turnout(~22%) , Heber Voters selected new faces for local offices.  First time candidates Heidi Franco and Kelleen Potter were the top vote getters for Heber City Council.   Four year Council member Alan McDonald will assume the role of Mayor in January.

With about 220 absentee and provisional ballots still uncounted, it appears there will be no changes to the results.

	early	Heber North		early	Heber West		early	Heber South		total		$/vote
Franco	60	360	420	39	218	257	17	105	122	799	27.8%	$2.63
Potter	58	261	319	58	259	317	27	94	121	757	26.3%	$2.11
Hopkins	70	391	461	31	128	159	23	63	86	706	24.6%	$3.40
Goode	54	189	243	42	217	259	20	91	111	613	21.3%	$3.75
	242	1201	1443	170	822	992	87	353	440	2875
Early %	16.8%			17.1%			19.8%		Turnout	20.0%

McDonald	69	331	400	55	259	314	22	97	119	833	54.7%
Bardole	1	35	36	6	34	40	1	13	14	90	5.9%
Rowland	51	262	313	29	158	187	22	79	101	601	39.4%
	121	628	749	90	451	541	45	189	234	1524
Early %	16.2%			16.6%			19.2%		Turnout	21.2%

Heber Mayoral Race and Council Support

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

AND it certainly can affect most of Wasatch County.   

(updated 1 Nov)

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

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

Specifically, Alan McDonald:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Heber Unplugged sufficient qualification to run Heber City government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wave Bias?

For many years, the Wave has been very willing to print my many epistles on various subjects.   Several years ago, I did have a letter returned because I mentioned a candidate's name during election season.   I was informed that the Wave did not allow political endorsements in letters and held a position of political neutrality for elections.

Many people are now wondering if somehow that Wave neutrality has been softened this year.   A few weeks ago, in an 'above the fold' front page article about the first "write-in" candidate in Heber City, the Wave extolled the virtues of the write-in campaign. Newsworthy? - perhaps - but this was a candidate who, a few months earlier, dropped out of the primary election for the same position.

The article even included a large picture of the candidate with his supporters.  No similar article or coverage of other candidates has appeared in print.

A week or so later, in an editorial, the Wave opined that "unfortunately . . . the write-in candidate ...won't be heard that night." at the CornerStone forum, because of their written policy.

Last week, yet another editorial, entitled "Absence Makes Voters Wander" (sic),  again pointing out CornerStones' supposed policy deficiencies and decrying the fact that 'write-ins' were precluded from invites.  The editorial also stated that one candidate "opted to not attend citing family commitments," so "Unfortunately, the voting public will not have the opportunity to evaluate all the candidate on a level playing field."

I must "wander" if the Wave might be showing some election bias in the Heber Mayoral race, counter to their policy.

Also unreported was the debate held on the Impact radio program on KTMP involving all Heber City Council candidates   A synopsis of the comments and a recording can be found at wasatch.blogspot.com or WasatchLive.com

(Letter published online Wed, 30 Nov, but without the 'Managing Editor's Note' to which I would respond) "Thank you so much for your "managing Editor's Note."   You made my point much better than I did.  In your six bullet points on my "fallacies," you were able to include 'write-in's' name five times in the "Letters" column - which was, I believe, counter to your policy.   

And to top it off, you included a thinly veiled insinuation about Alan McDonald as "a candidate (who) is not engaged and visible to the constituents."  

But perhaps it's an subconscious bias.

Again, thanks for your comments.  If you send me an electronic copy I'll be happy to post them on my blog.  Although MY letter is on the Wave website (thank you, 98 views), your 'note' was not.

Heber City Election Information

With the Heber City Municipal Election fast approaching, voters need to become educated on the candidates.   Here is a podcast of a discussion/debate among the Four candidates, seeking to represent Heber voters on the City Council:

Impact 10-22-13  Pt 1 Heber City Council Candidates

Impact 10-22-13  Pt 2 Heber City Council Candidates

Brief notes, thanks to an informed, thankful listener activist: (listen to the recording, with the notes - it is sometimes difficult to realize who is speaking) 

Impact debate with Heber City Council Candidates.10-22-2013

Opening remarks.

• Goode. – small business owner, children, and what is done going forward isimportant. Diverse community with empty nesters, young families. Concerned about HL&P
• Hopkins – opportunity. We are growing, Need positive leadership. Managed growth. Business growth. Better communications within the council.
• Potter- Reagan… has 5 children. Sees growth. Feels its important to plan for and manage growth. Wants people participation in government.
• Franco.– loves the valley. Moved here 20 years ago. Wants to give back. Wants to preserve rural atmosphere, the agricultural base. Needs private market incentives to preserve the valley. Most balanced property rights. Concerned about water and air quality.

Q1. Enlargement of airport. Citizens oppose. Plans are being made. Will have to use eminent domain. Do you support enlargement of airport.

• Hopkins. Must be environmental study. Can’t use eminent domain on another city. Timeline is 8-10 years out.
• Goode. Must consider how it will help the city. Who uses. It’s use is largely outside Heber City. Therefore, we shouldn’t be the Park City Airport. Sees no reason to now.
• Franco. – must consult constitution. She is adjunct at U. Property rights. FAA can condemn property in Daniels. Heber needs to be a good neighbor. Don’t need to be bossing Daniel around. Right now not in favor because of property rights. Will come up for a vote on whether or not to accept federal money. Valley should not be a transportation hub. Preserve quality of life. No no no.
• Potter– Have not seen enough information. Concern about benefits. Must wait on environmental study. Can’t make a decision. Must clearly see benefits.
• 2013-2014 budget has improvements to the Airport. Has a right to get as much federal money as possible. Supports maintenance.
• Franco.…Landing fees stay in the airport fund. No money for general fund.
• Goode.. Money stays in Airport. Taxpayers will end up paying without getting a benefit. Taxpayers bear a burden but Airport solely benefits.
• Potter – need to study benefits. Needs impact study.

Q2. Should Heber try to get as much money as possible

• Franco. teaches it. Federal budget under pressure. It’s discretionary spending can’t be sustained. When interest rates rise, interest of debt is a problem. SS, Medicare aren’t paying for themselves. Heber needs to be as self-sufficient as possible.
• Potter We don’t have the option of opting out of the taxes so we shouldn’t opt out of the money.
• Goode. You’ve got to be careful with the attached strings. Too much top down. Too many entanglements. Get back as much as possible but be careful of the strings.
• Hopkins. Looks like agreement. Good for moving forward. FAA strings is a maintenance upgrade which only defines engineering standards. Wants to maximize. Has talked to over 650 and people have concerns about the airport. They want people to be accountable, who will make sound judgments etc.

Q3. Taxpayers should vote on bonds because it is citizens who are responsible. Would you support taking to the public? City just bonded for 1M.

• Hopkins. Vote taken by council. Much unanimity that you have public comment period. Expect council to be unified. Paul had to repeat the question about citizens vote. Would be in favor of setting a limit where above a certain level.
• Goode. Supports a limit. Wouldn’t vote on every bond, might suggest $1M or more.
• Hopkins. City wants to know there is a consensus.

Bob had to repeat the question. Do you favor an ordinance.

• Potter Low turnout. Water bond. Study for a year. Most citizens aren’t interested. People want to elect people. Would support a limit. Can’t throw out a dollar figure
• Potter. Every vote counts. There is a level of interest that is needed. Some issues may be too complex.
• Franco. Need to bring the city government to the people. More information on websites. Citizens should vote. It’s their money. It’s their full faith and credit.

Q4. Development and finances. What are your thoughts about fiscal impact of costs and what do you think of annexing to expand.

• Potter Cities and counties are different. Cities have higher density. More roads and infrastructure. Likes to see the open fields. How can we accommodate but contain the development. We don’t want sprawl.
• Goode. Single family homes may broaden tax base, apartments do not. High density isn’t always good. Why expand the boundaries? Who benefits. Must be tax efficient…small government…keep taxes as low as possible….must be business friendly. Empty nesters want families to come back and have a good job.
• Franco. Heber shouldn’t be looking to annex into north fields or south fields, or the east side where the water district is. Like transfer of development rights. Farmers can kept he land and sell the density to a developer but keep their land. Can then buy other land and use the density. Wants to reserve. Never been enforced. Need City and county to work together. Developers have been granted high density through zoning rulings. City allowing higher density than county. Must slow down the high density.
• Hopkins. Boyer development was very large. Need to look at it. Heber city finally got back to where they were in 2007 with sales tax revenue. Was a boon. Annexation and density, not sure where he stands. It should be studied.

Q5. Sales tax from Boyer, there was a debate on where to put it. Should tax be shared between county and city?

• Hopkins. Revenue should stay in city.
• Goode. If there was a legal and binding agreement, otherwise, no sharing. City took the impact.
• Potter… agrees with Goode.
• Franco. Likes the idea of cooperation.
• Goode.. Likes competition. Midway has Ridley’s which is a WalMart type of store. Has no problem with another location. We should work together.
• Franco. Doesn’t want cities giving away the farm to get the next store.
• Potter. Who pays the impact.

Q6. What is view of tax breaks for business?

• Potter Times when it is appropriate. Look at on a case by case basis.
• Hopkins. Favors subsidies to draw businesses to economic zone.
• Franco.. Doesn’t agree. Too many abuses where cities give away the farm and the rest of the taxpayers foot the bill. Thinks businesses should want to come here without the tax breaks.
• Goode. He has a small business in valley. Does want to see businesses relocate to the valley to create good jobs. Must be looked at on a case by case business.

Q7. How long should subsidies last

• Goode. 5 years but must look at type of jobs.
• Hopkins. Would have to study but would prefer a longer study for a large economic boost
• Potter…Agrees with Hopkins.
• Franco. Disagrees. Too much abuse.

Q8. Impact fees paid by city.

• Man bought lot, developer went bankrupt and didn’t completely finish the hookups. Man spent money trying to get his property rights. Impact fees originally paid must be reasonable and cover the impact. Bond fee paid by bankrupt developer.
• Potter NC
• Hopkins. Agrees with Franco. Land owner claimed that city employees had not been forthcoming in a change to the plat. He thought city bore some responsibility.
• Goode. Citizen told a compelling story but that the city may have opened itself up to additional lawsuits. What are the facts? The city refunded his impact fee and maybe should not have. Doesn’t know the facts.

Q9. If city was partially responsible…what measures?

• City lawyer should handle. Not convinced city made a mistake.
• Franco. City did the right thing. She studies bureaucracies. They can be approved. Zoning code in city is loose. In the case, doesn’t like the idea of city favoring one individual. Developer paid the bond to the city. It wasn’t the property owners fault. The bond had been paid to the city. That should have covered it.
• Potter Process is a red flag
• Goode.…Not the job of the council. Job of the attorney.
• Franco. It’s more than attorney. It includes the planning function. Must be careful and close loopholes so that it is fair.

Q10. City owns 75% of HL&P and board took money they didn’t deserve. Do you support in depth audit? The mess may be a tip of the iceberg.

• Franco. Yes. Should be a performance audit perhaps by the state auditor. No retroactive pay increases. No pay increases until intervening election.
• Potter Agrees. Audit needed to restore confidence.
• Hopkins. Year end audit. There will be a new board. Wipe the slate clean.
• Goode. Absolutely.

Q11. Cooperation between city and county is low. What would you do?

• Potter Police is an example of cooperation. What are other counties doing? Need to find common purposes and build relationships.
• Hopkins. Has worked for the county as a contractor. Has spoken to county council members. It takes will and leadership. Need the bypass
• Goode. Must work together, develop common goals, improve communications etc. Must also communicate with primary.
• Franco. Agrees. Need much more collaboration.

Q12 Treatment of public

• Potter You are being hired by the people. Need to reach out to them. Town hall meetings. Use social media. Bring government to people.
• Goode. When someone comes to council, they need to be treated with utmost respect. Need better communications. Would produce newsletters.
• Hopkins. Agrees.. Better communications, likes open comment period. From talking to people, would propose Heber City Listen…and electronic panel that could be polled by the city.
• Franco.. Need to bring government to people. Set up volunteer neighborhood groups that mayor and council could meet with.

Q13. What about payment on boards versus more citizen involvement in boards

• Franco. Constitutional principles. People must protect their own rights. Elected officials are like coaches. Most concentrate on the basics, the protection of rights.

Q14 Why vote for?

• Goode. Has MBA. Wants to improve valley.
• Hopkins. It’s about leadership. Coming up with positive solutions. Is a consensus builder. Moderate.
• Potter Has lived in lots of places. Valley has amazing people. Must bring people together. Will work with people.
• Franco. Wants to give back. Has PhD in polysci. Believer in good government.   

Here's a recent interview with Candidate for Heber Mayor, Alan McDonald.

Impact 10-21-13  Pt 1 Alan McDonald

Impact 10-21-13  Pt 2 Alan McDonald

Heber City Mayoral Candidate Websites.

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

Mike Bardole       "Accountability and Transparency"

Heber City Council 

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

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

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

Heidi Franco     "I will protect the rural quality of Heber. I'm also a Zoning Judge.  I know how to protect what we love about Heber.  I will protect your property rights & stretch our tax dollars.   Let's grow & revitalize Local Business."

Fire Tax Flames Out

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.  (TS Eliot)

After nearly year of meetings, theatrics and a citizens' referendum, the 80% proposed and approved   TAX increase for the Wasatch Fire SSD, it all ended in confusion, lack of answers and NO tax increase.

Not because 20+ % of the voters (2156+) formally objected by signing the petition, 
Not because the Fire Board was convinced that the tax was too high,
Not because of lawsuits,
But simply because, they did not read, understand or follow the procedures and the law.


The Utah Tax Commission sent a letter to the Council explaining the deficiency.   Read the letter here


Apologies?
Explanations?
A new era of communication, transparency and proper budgeting to come???



Hopefully we will not have a recurrence of this same fiasco in 2014.

Wasatch Schools' GRADING

Heber City, Wasatch County:   The just released Utah School report grade indicates that Wasatch schools are, well,  . . . .  . . . average.

One news report indicates that "Eleven percent of Utah’s 855 public schools earned an A, 45 percent a B, 30 percent a C, 10 percent a D and 4 percent an F. Grades are based on a combination of student growth and student performance on criterion-referenced tests in language arts, math and science given in the spring of each year."

Another report states "School grades are calculated on a "bell curve," which means most Utah schools fall somewhere in the middle, "     This means a grade of 80% can earn a "A"  (JR Smith) and a 79% drops you to a "B"  (Old Mill).   That difference is accounted for by a grand total of FIVE points out of 600. 

The full graded report can be found here  ( the grades MAY be based on Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 2013 data, which does not seem to be available yet)  and here for the 2012 UCAS report .    For (apparently) the legislators' view of grading click here.  (Provides a spreadsheet download for ALL schools)

As "curve" grading is often seen as unfair (an A for 80% and a  C for 60% ??? )  and analyses based on more data generally provide more accurate results, this table gives an overview of both sets of data, with an Adjusted Grade (Adj) based on both ratings:

	Points	Percent	Grade	UCAS	Avg	Adj
HVE	368/600	61%	C	56%	59%	D
Midway	378/600	63%	C	65%	64%	D+
JR Smith	480/600	80%	A	86%	83%	B
Old Mill	475/600	79%	B	92%	86%	B+
Timp Inter	418/600	70%	B	69%	70%	C
Rocky Mtn Middle	446/600	74%	B	87%	81%	B
Wasatch High	508/750	68%	C	66%	67%	C-

It appears an $80 million High School may not have attained its suggested academic results, but, that may be OK to many because the primary purpose (sports) seems to be thriving.

As everyone likes to compare to "neighbors," here are some neighborly ratings:

Park City High	594/750	79%	B	86%	83%	B
No Summit High	556/750	74%	B	77%	76%	B-
So Summit High	485/750	65%	C	67%	66%	C-
Duchesne High	581/750	77%	B	88%	83%	B
Union High	431/750	57%	D	81%	69%	C-
No Summit Elem	414/600	69%	C	79%	74%	C+
So Summit Elem	439/600	73%	B	71%	72%	C
Duchesne Elem	383/600	64%	C	67%	66%	C-
Jeremy Ranch Elem	475/600	79%	B	78%	79%	B-

The idea of ratings on GROWTH and PROFICIENCY seems to be be valid - time will tell if it provides valuable information for system USERS. 

Fire, Fire, False Alarm

How dare the voters challenge our decision to raise property taxes 80% ?  

We'll show them:

"PUBLIC NOTICE is herby (sic) given that the County Council of Wasatch County will (sic) Special Meeting in the Council Chambers, at the County Administration Building, 25 N. Main St. Heber City, Utah, commencing at 4:30 P.M., Thursday August 29th, 2013."   (posted ca 4:10 PM 28 Aug)  

Purpose:  "Consideration of Resolution to call a special election on November 5, 2013 to place the Wasatch County Fire District certified tax rate increase for public vote." 

Meeting (unofficial) minutes (the Special meeting wasn't so special):

 I move we go into the WCFD board meeting.

 Chair Capson:  We just called the meeting to see if it was possible to put this on the ballot.  It wasn't.

    Someone?   You mean it's not on the agenda 
Capson:  Yes
    I move we go into executive session.
End of public meeting.

Has HL & P raised Board Pay to Cover Fake Insurance

Heber City, Wasatch County:    On July 16, the Utah Attorney General's Civic Review Committee issued an opinion and directive that the fake retroactive Board pay taken by the directors must be returned or face possible "formal enforcement actions."

Today, 652 days after approving this action, a year and half after terminating it and a month and a half since the AG letter, it still has not been effectively determine whether compliance in returning the tens of thousands of dollars has been completed.  In fact, other than a response letter from HL&P declaring the money WILL be returned, it can not even be determined if any action has been taken to accomplish this.

However, in the July warrant list (pg 6 payments) for HL&P this item is found:

This INDICATES is that HLP paid Heber City  $950.64 for the  two councilmen on the Board ($475.32/month/man) for "JULY BOARD STIPEND" to share with all councilmen per their internal city agreement.    HL&P then paid an additional  $1,901.28 for  "BOARD STIPEND JULY & EXTR"   as July Bonus pay (perhaps for all those extra meetings?)

It may be coincidental that these "extra" payments were listed as paid two weeks AFTER the AG letter.  As the warrants do not delineate individual payments to the other board members, it can only be assumed that similar TRIPLE payments were made to the entire Board.

At this time it is unknown if similar payments have been made in the past or are planned for the future.  If repayments of fake pay of, say, $10,000 were required, an extra $1,000 per month were certainly soften the blow.

In April, a smaller bonus was also given (only double pay)
601000 SALARIES ADMINISTRATIVE
601000 480 HEBER CITY CORPORATION BOARD STIPEND APR 13 EXTR 04/13 04/01/2013 950.64
601000 480 HEBER CITY CORPORATION BOARD STIPEND APR 13 04/13A 04/25/2013 950.64
Total 601000 SALARIES ADMINISTRATIVE: 1,901.28

Who knows how many more payments have been (will be) made. 

(for more history on this issue click on "H L & P" in the column on the left or here for a slightly different list.)

Pool Bond election Doesn't Float

While the County Council felt they acceded to the wishes of the minority by a 4 to 3 margin, they apparently failed to read the fine print.

Utah Code requires a 2/3 majority for a Special Bond Election.    The logic is, if you are going to ask the voters, you should wait until there is an election.

Caution:   Of course, you must realize that 4/7 = 2/3 may be correct in the new Common  Core  math  because 4 = 2x2 and 2x3 = 6  and 7 is greater than 6. 

So the whole 2013 Bond Election has gone down in FLAMES, wait that's for another post.

Fire TAX approved at 80%

After hearing (but apparent not listening) to the public, the Fire Board approved the 80% TAX INCREASE.    Despite their promise to answer the question posed two weeks earlier, they failed to do so.

A people's referendum to allow the voters to weigh in on the issue is 

ready for signatures (1500 needed by October 5)

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid that a many questions from the public were left unanswered at the continuation of the "truth" hearing Wednesday.   I would also suggest that while Steve Capson gave an excellent overview of websites that can provide a great deal of information, there may have been a few, shall we say, inconsistencies with the declaration that the Fire Department SSD is "transparent."

• Transparent Utah is not optional;
•  "Participating state entities shall submit detail revenue and expense transactions from their general ledger accounting system to the UPFW at least quarterly and within one month after the end of the fiscal quarter."
• Employee wages ARE required
  
•  "Participating state entities will submit employee compensation detail information on a basis consistent with its fiscal year to the UPFW at least once per year" 
• Wasatch County Fire district IS listed as a participant, but gives this result for 2013:
  
• "We're sorry, but we did not find any transactions that met your criteria.
  Please revise your search above, or visit this entity's profile page for more information:"
• AND the same for 2012
• 2011 does have some figures, but NO names on salaries.
• http://wasatchcountyfire.com/  is a very nice website and provides quite a bit of information
  
• It does NOT, however include wages and salaries after 2011
• The 2013 budget is not the same as posted on the SAO website, and shows a deficit.
  
• Although Utah law requires posting minutes and recordings shortly (3 days?) after meetings, the only one seen today under http://wasatchcountyfire.com/public-information/fire-board-minutes/audio-recordings/  is the Aug 7, 2013 TnT Hearing   (which  might be helpful for you all to listen to so you can again hear the question which were asked in public comments.)
• While most minutes may be posted, the 11/29/12 meeting, wherein the Tax increase hearing was approved, required several GRAMA requests and the aid of the ombudsman to finally get a couple of days before the August 2013 hearing.

I could continue, but I hope the point is made - this is NOT transparency, either that required by law or that openness which fosters communication and trust.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that there are MANY well qualified, competent and available people who are, or would be if asked or considered, in this county who would be more than happy to serve.   

As noted in the county code mentioned below, this is what your rules and direction are - The council is encouraged to cooperate with and fully utilize the county's special service districts and special service areas elected administrative control boards, appointed boards and commissions, and to give full consideration to information and recommendations communicated by such boards and commissions, in order to maximize citizen participation in county government.
I fail to understand why this is seems so difficult to understand or to put into place.   The more citizen involvement, the better the government, while we also include the standard that "That government is best, which governs least."

Regards, in transparency and openness, still looking forward to answers,

Say NO to 80% Fire TAX increase

An Open Letter to the Wasatch County Council aka Fire SSD Board:

Thank for listening at the Fire Tax Truth in Taxation Hearing.  I look forward to hearing the answers to the many excellent questions that were asked by the public.

As you contemplate your decision on whether to raise taxes or not, I hope that you continue with your historical fiscal conservative principles of avoiding tax increases and continue to seek alternatives for economic balance.   (For example, reducing expenditures, cutting redundant services, greater efficiency).

A few specific points:

• Any tax increase tends to be permanent.  Past experience shows that many entities will spend the maximum that can be garnered through taxes received.
• Tax increases should (must) be fully justified by a proper budget.
•  The budget includes a capital expenditure of $86K, while there is a Capital Project Fund of over $500K - an amount which was somehow added to "balance" the budget after approval.
• The proposed budget includes such items as:
•  Litigation $300K, one would hope that this would NOT continue to be an expense at this level as it has been for the last few years ($1 Million)
•  If that previous litigation is successful an amount of $900K should come to the county (according to statements made at the Dec tax hearing)
•  Director Fees, which were rescinded in 2013, remain in the budget ($17K)
•     If those fees were, in fact, illegal, the funds should be returned from prior years. ($70K+ to offset the budget)
•  Salaries were all increased by 5%, a virtual stealth increase with little explanation or justification, in the near nonexistent budget hearings
  

Wasatch County modified Fire Impact fees on new dwellings in 2011, where are those funds accounted for in the budget?

We have all the appearance of another SSD that is NOT 'well controlled,' as we had in the SSD Legislative Audit in 2001

If I may, let me repeat some suggestions I made at the Hearing:

• Insure that the County Auditor AND County Manager have full oversight control over the Fire SSD budget, we can't budget properly without coordination.
  

• Establish an Administrative Control Board to manage the Fire SSD    The COUNCIL is legislative – NOT administrative
• Wasatch Co Code: A primary purpose of this plan is to provide a greater separation of executive and legislative powers than exists with the current commission form of government. Where the plan is silent on the distribution or placement of a particular power, it hereby authorized the allocation of powers according to an executive-legislative distinction.
• .1.03(2) It is preferred that special service districts (SSDs) and special service areas (SSAs) shall be governed by administrative control boards or trustees elected as provided for in state statute
• Consistent with this plan's provisions increasing the size and reducing the compensation of the council, it is the intent of this plan to establish the council as a citizen body whose members serve on a part time basis in a legislative, policy making role, and membership on the council is not intended to be a full time position involving day to day oversight of county operations and functions. The council is encouraged to cooperate with and fully utilize the county's special service districts and special service areas elected administrative control boards, appointed boards and commissions, and to give full consideration to information and recommendations communicated by such boards and commissions, in order to maximize citizen participation in county government.
• Consider control boards over ALL SSD's or decommission at least county wide SSD's unless real justification can be be given for their usefulness.   Wasatch County continues to have more than nearly any other county in Utah.
  

• If it is necessary to increase the Fire Capital Project Fund for appropriate expenditures and to avoid future lending costs, then present a proper plan and put limits on the use of the funds.  If there are proper capital needs,  a BOND at least is not open ended, but has a specific time limit and is specific to the NEED.  Property taxes become eternal.    Where are the Fire IMPACT fees?
• If ANY tax increase at all, it should be minimal, perhaps 10% - (unless the county is admitting that the Jordanelle assessment area isdead.)  Then a series of NECESSARY, and justified, tax increases could be considered, with each increase requiring a TRUTH hearing, NOT a mil rate or 'neighbor' county and pretty picture presentation.

From my viewpoint, other than 'less than optimal' planning, fiscal efficiency and overblown litigation, little has been produced to justify anything near an 80% increase in property taxes.

Regards,
Robert Wren
435 654-4667
More questions and comments can be found here

HL & P Board agrees to RETURN money

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

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

HL&P Board - AG says Return the Money at Once

As a result of follow-up to the State Auditor's Office report on the citizens' filed complaint, the AG's office has issued a letter on the faux health pay asking for HL&P Board members  to "return the funds at once."      A more detailed report should be out soon.
(see HL& P link to left for more history)