Demolition or devolution

School Demolition  (expansion of a local Letter to the Editor)

About two weeks ago the School District was seeking public comments concerning demolition of the old high school. I responded with this Email to the board (to their .edu addresses):

“As I was not able to attend your public comment period concerning the disposition of the old high school, I will offer you my 'outside the box view,' if I may.

I would strongly oppose demolishing the old High School. I maintained when the new school was proposed that it was a viable building and continue to view it as such. I have not yet seen the analysis of the financial 'benefits' of the demolition, but question whether the school district should become a developer or land manipulator.

All schools are, obviously, built with taxpayer dollars. (mainly local). I understand an attempt was made to sell the building to the County for several ($9 ?) million when it was vacated. That exchange would have simply transferred money for the taxpayers left pocket to the right pocket. A simple transfer may have been a benefit to all. It could have provided office space, theater and a rec center (for which the county subsequently spent other tax millions on).

I would strongly urge, before demolition, a sincere consideration of:

• (1) using the building as a school (I understand that is apparently not given much approval by the education establishment.)
• (2) selling, trading or donating the building to Heber City, which is currently considering a large expenditure for a public safety building. Again it is nearly the same basic taxpayers (Heber has about 60% of the county population) There is also a problem with required impact fees (which would not be a problem if Heber owned the building)
  

Demolishing the building would NOT necessarily guarantee a sale. So, if that becomes the chosen avenue, I would urge including the demolition in any sales agreement and hold out hope that the building might be used.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal to transfer the property to Heber City. I trust it will yield a discussion with the officials involved. The transfer might also solve a problem with Heber's eventual need for larger office space AND possibly allow Wasatch County additional meeting space. WIN, WIN, WIN
In any event, we, the taxpayers, will continue to pay the bills. Let's look for ways to minimize taxes wherever levied.”

No response, of any type, was received.

Last week in the Wave, I read that Supt. Shoemaker said, “It may be time to look at the property without the existing buildings.” However, it appears that the decision had already been made and plans were well underway well before the public comment meeting!   (Note that there is already discussions with Mountain America CU as a buyer of Lot 1)

Heber City received proposals from the school district for a commercial development last month (or earlier).  Click here for the development plans  (about page 12)   C

Given that school districts are given some exceptions to zoning laws, impact fees and various regulations, a few more questions need to be answered.   

Is it appropriate for a school district to be a land developer? Are they going to be involved with “redevelopment agencies”? Is their any guarantee of a sale after the $700K demolition, and additional development costs? What will be the full cost of the redevelopment, history shows than some previous financial estimates have been more than a little bit off.

The Wave reported Mr Shoemaker saying that “many local government entities expressed interest,” but none acted. Perhaps it was the proffered price which was millions higher than the latest suggested 'value.' Board Chair Baird suggests that the “school would retain rights to types of businesses” on the property. Is the proposal really to sell, or to manage, the proposed 11 lot subdivision with offices, gas stations, restaurants and retail?  (At least no high rises dwellings were suggested.)

If this is such a potentially profitable deal, why hasn't some enterprising individual, or company, jumped on the opportunity? Or will it be easier for the school district to get approval than a normal commercial developer? Just consider how much tax money could have been saved by working WITH “local government entities,” five years ago rather than trying to extract top dollar from the left tax pocket to the right? Let's have the real discussion.
****************
Addendum:  the Heber Planning Commission gave concept approval in their 9 Jan 2014 meeting  The link contains the agenda, info packet and audio.

WSD estimates demolition cost at $700K for the old high School, Heber suggest $350K (?) for the old central school to build the proposed Public Safety building.

Need, Want, or Ineptitude

The Fire Board (aka the Wasatch County Council) will meet again this week to consider the near 80% increase in property taxes for the Fire District SSD.   (as of today 12/16, no notice has been posted)
Below are a few reasons, in no particular order, it should NOT be approved.

• Failure to explain the REASONS to the public for the increase in 2013 or 2014.
• In 2013, it was needed to balance a $500K shortage although the 'truth' hearing indicated a new for new trucks.
• $1 million in recent litigation fees and growing ($179K in 2014)
• The suits seem to be running out of appeals, many think that a loss could be in the millions. Summary judgments have been issued, the suits seem to stem from improper procedures by the district. 
• Lack of openness and transparency
• Although the relatively new WCFD website DOES provide a lot of info, the only audio available is from last August.  It required several questions from the public to even confirm that a pay increase was included (in a deficit budget.
• Using “mil rates,” rather than budget expenditures, for comparisons
• See the post below
• Using Park City as a comparison (or goal?)
• PC is probably the wealthiest entity in Utah, they have chosen to spend $10 Million on fire protection
• Illegal, or improper, Board Pay in previous years
• Utah code 17B-1-308 states "board members may not receive compensation for their service as board members in addition to compensation they receive as members of a county or municipal legislative body."  While they discontinued the pay in 2013, nothing was done about previous years.  
• A SURPLUS of $121,691 in the proposed 2014 budget
• Simply reducing the proposed surplus, the tax increase could be drastically reduced.
• $2,000 for training, but $6,000 for uniforms
• It seems training might be more important than appearance
• Public Safety Impact fees (fire) unaccounted for in budget
• Collected by the county from new houses being build, and responsible for added fire services, a $100K is expended each year - and not accounted for in the budget.
• Last year, 22% of Wasatch voters petitioned to have a vote on this issue
• While ending a moot question, it gave a strong indication of the wishes of the voters and taxpayers.
• Failure to follow law and procedures for a similar increase last year, requiring correction by Tax Commission
• With little acknowledgement, the idea of the 80% tax increase was reversed
• Failure to follow law in transparency (posting audios, financial statements) 
• While I understand that more information may have been discussed in the Dec 5 Hearing, that information is not readily available to the general public.  Utah Code requires posting audio of meetings within 72 hrs.   It's been over 7.2 DAYS.  It is possible it could be posted 'somewhere,'  The only audio found on WCFD site is from August.    However, Wasatch Taxpayers have posted some video clips from that meeting. 

Last, but not least, the idea that taxation mil rates have not been raised for years is NOT a justification for such a large increase.  May I suggest talking to your Council prior to their decision, they may have other opinions?

Mil Rate or NEEDS

The idea of "we haven't raised the mil rate in years" or "we have a much lower rate than our neighbor" is at best a specious argument for a tax increase.   (At worst, it is intentional deception)
(Gee, our taxes would be CHEAP compared to Park City. even with an 80% increase)

You may have noticed the chart on the front page of the Wave demonstrating how much Wasatch needs/deserves/wants a tax increase.  The chart is basically mil rate expressed as property taxes 

As we should be aware, the question is NOT about mil rates, but about expenditures, the continuing discussion of mil rates simply disguises the truth.   Higher property values result in MORE revenue with lower rates.    Below is another look at the issue:

• It appears that some fire expenses may be contained in County budgets.
• Many cities apparently provide fire protection.
• Most entities do NOT have Special Service District.
• http://propertytax.utah.gov/library/pdf/taxrate_pdfs/budgetratesbyentity2013.pdf'

The first two columns are from the website, property value is computed as calculated as budget/mil rate.   The asterisks indicate the ones which  were used for WCFD propaganda purposes.   A better comparison would consider population, someone else can do that one.

Fire districts	mil rate	Fire budget		Property Value
Park City	0.00095	$10,248,496	*	$10,787,890,526.32
Wasatch	0.000244	$782,364		$3,206,409,836.07
Millard	0.000314	$659,762	*	$2,101,152,866.24
No Davis	0.001444	$1,922,516		$1,331,382,271.47
Weber No. View	0.001131	$1,432,722		$1,266,774,535.81
No Tooele	0.000771	$804,700		$1,043,709,468.22
Moab	0.000489	$415,873	*	$850,456,032.72
Juab	0.000793	$634,460		$800,075,662.04
So Summit	0.000311	$221,575	*	$712,459,807.07
No Summit	0.000589	$268,264	*	$455,456,706.28
Castle valley	0.000427	$37,939		$88,850,117.10

Here We Go Again - 80% Deja vue

The Fire Board (aka County Council) apparently likes the idea of a 76+% tax increase, but they continue to fail to answer the simple question – why? Or, for that matter, many of the question that were raised last year in a similar attempt.

(That attempt caused a citizens' petition which gather signatures from 22% of Wasatch registered voters for a chance to vote on the issue.  However the Fire District did not follow proper procedures, so no election was proffered.)

When entities are not open andforthcoming, as has been demonstrated by the Fire Board over at least the last year, doubts arise. When transparency is not readily apparent, questions arise. (Speaking of which, the entries on transparent.utah are not meeting the requirements.)   

Doubts and questions about proper management finally overcome citizen apathy and result in action, including referenda.

• Is the proposed increase to purchase new fire equipment, if so what and when?
• Is the increase to cover potential liabilities from pending lawsuits?
• Is it to cover litigation expense in excess of $1 million in recent years, and $179K in 2014?
  • Was that litigation caused by failure to follow proper procedures for the "enterprise" fund?
• Is it to offset the possible loss of “assessment” funds?
• Or is it to cover the 5% pay increase which was instituted in 2013 (a deficit budget)?
• Or possibly for the current budget shortfall which was covered from other funds.
• Why does the 2014 WCFD budget show a $121,691 surplus?
  Won't that money simply stay on the general ledger/fund or CapProj or ??? The budget shows $300K for Capital Projects already - what is it for - specifically? It appears that all of these funds are simply different names for excess funds.
  (Simply deleting that surplus would decrease the increase to about 60%)

It appears WCFD has (or had) sufficient money recently:

   (From the 2012 WCFD Annual Financial Statement)

"The assets of Wasatch County Fire District exceeded the liabilities as of the close of the most recent year by $4,503,658 (net position).Of this amount $2,192,750 (net position ‐ unrestricted) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. "

"At the end of the year 2012, the Wasatch County Fire District’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $2,155,721.The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the District. At the end of the current year, the unassigned fund balance of the General Fund was $657,511."

"The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for the costs incurred in acquiring and improving sites, constructing and remodeling facilities and procuring equipment necessary for providing programs for the citizens of the District."

Then there are Impact Fees for “Public Safety”  which are now being used for fire station improvements. Over $100K of spending reported for 2013 and $500+K for the next few years, but it does not appearing in the WCFD budget as they are “county funds.” These are fees (taxes) paid for new home construction to partially offset their causing the need for more services. To maintain a clearer, and more transparent, of the financial situation of the district they should be reported in the budget.

What of fees paid by other entities for service rendered by the WCFD (wildfires, etc.), where is that information? In Dec 2012, Chief Giles mention $750,000 (?) in grants received in the past, was the use of that money budgeted openly and transparently?

The recent proposed budget shows interest accrued of $14,302 would indicate a balance of ca $700K in the Capital Project Fund.

When asking about the amount in that fund, I am told “there is not a lot of activity in Capital Projects fund from 1999 to present.” and that “The District accounts for its activities in one of three different funds and each fund has a budget. “ (apparently General, Enterprise and Assessment – NOT Capital Projects or Impact fees)

According to the annual Report:

“The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for the costs incurred in acquiring and improving sites,

constructing and remodeling facilities and procuring equipment necessary for providing programs for the

citizens of the District.”

“As of December 31, 2012, $1,498,210 was available for use and is shown as an assigned fund balance of the Capital Projects Fund.”

Are there OTHER funds, transfers and moneys elsewhere? Was, or is, money being transferred to cover other “needs” of the county?

This report is not about the Firemen, but of the management of the fire department. Openness, honesty and integrity will go a long way to restore the faith of the people. Further “stonewalling” will simply make it harder to work together to solve the problems and continue to insure that citizens receive what they deserve – protection at a proper price.

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.