HUB Intersection - Gridlock Coming Soon???

Let's talk TRAFFIC - Most Wasatch County residents have, I'm sure, noticed a massive increase in traffic in recent years to the residential growth. A new study has been released showing the effect of the Boyer Development (Valley Station, formerly Crossings at Heber, aka Walmart, Big Box, etc.) on the most crowded intersection in the Valley. US 40 and SR 189 or the Hub Intersection.

The DMJM Harris summarized results of the study can be downloaded here. This summary is based on the Boyer traffic analysis on the Heber City website. While that analysis contained a lot of numbers, it was short on conclusions. A private citizen hired a firm for an interpretation of the numbers.

The Conclusion: "The addition of project (Boyer development) traffic significantly increases the delay at the two intersections that operate poorly, and also cause the 910 South/100 West and US-40 and/1000 South intersection to change from an acceptable LOS (level of service) to LOS F."

Here's UDOT's definition of LOS F: "LOS F represents the breakdown of traffic flow – “failure” of the system.The condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds its capacity. Queues form behind such locations and vehicles may progress in a stop-and-go fashion. It can take two or more cycles to wait through a signal operating at LOS F."

The Harris study also reports that "Based on the Heber City criteria all intersection should be improved to LOS C or better." (Does this mean Heber City did not understand the numbers - or were ignoring them?)

As a result of this report another enterprising citizen has started a Petition to "request that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) WITHHOLD APPROVAL of the Boyer/Heber City access agreement for the US-40/US-189 intersection in Heber City, UT until a safer plan is in place."

The petition is available at various local businesses and online for signatures.

UDOT held a meeting in Heber in 2007 where the intersection was discussed a report of the meeting is available here. The complete official minutes are here.

Heber City Salaries and Population Density

Heber City public employee Salaries are now posted online.
Top Ten:

Mark Anderson	City Manager	Administration	-	$95,513
Bart Mumford	Engineer	Engineering	-	$78,977
Edward Rhoades	Chief Of Police	Police	-	$77,323
Steve Tozier	Public Works Director	Public Works	-	$66,646
Wesley Greenhalgh	Building Official	Building	-	$66,560
Jason Bradley	Police Sergeant	Police	-	$65,674
J.m. Smedley	City Attorney	Legislative	-	$64,368
Mike Clegg	Police Sergeant	Police	-	$60,053
G.a. Fawcett	Planning Director	Planning	-	$59,995
Robert Mcknight	Lead Worker	Public Works	-	$55,798

County Salaries have been available for some time.

While surrounding school districts have been posted, Wasatch Schools are still missing.

Heber City now ranks as the 27th most densely populated municipality in the state.

Hideout Incorporation Vetoed

The Wasatch County Council dismissed the Hideout annexation at its meeting 2/6/08. SLTrib and DNews reported on the meeting.

A little further info: The meeting was held before an overflow crowd of more than 100. Hideout's attorneys and owners present their interpretation of compliance with the 2007 Incorporation law.

Hideout indicate "the law is, what the law is" and the 'people' wanted to incorporate to control their destiny. Further explanation showed that the vast majority of the population was housed in the Todd Hollow apartment complex.

Because of potential litigation, the Council went into an Executive session.

Following that session, the discussion focused mainly on the Todd Hollow's request to opt out of the incorporation as allowed under Utah law. Todd Hollow owned 13% of the land value, only 1% was required. Hideout presented a unofficial list of resident desiring to remain in and argued that Todd Hollow could not be allowed to opt out because they were an "urban" development.

There are references to "urban" in Title 10 Chapter 2 Incorporations et al. Urban is used in reference to ANNEXATIONS and expansions NOT incorporation. I fail to see the connection with its use in this instance.

After discussing the ambiguity of the law, and the pressure being exerted on the County by Rep. Greg Curtis to 'not delay' the approval of Hideout suggesting a delay in the bill to remedy the flawed legislation, a motin was made by Councilman Jay Price to reject to request to opt out. This would allow the incorporation to go forward because there would be sufficient population (700+ in Todd Hollow) The motion failed 3-4. Price, Kohler and Bangerter in favor. A ubsequent motion to ALLOW the opt out was passed 4-3 Anderton, Farrell, Crittenden and Draper in favor.

Incorporation Law - background

The incorporation law passed in 2007 was hastily passed and badly flawed. It effectively allow a "company town" or a large land-owner to incorporate residents into a town controlled by the developer without there permission or even their KNOWLEDGE.

The bill was presented as assisting a group of people to acquire municipal services and requiring a feasibility study. The wording of the bill is now being interpreted (by developers) as carte blanche approval of nearly anything.

As widely reported that bill was hastily conceived in the last legislative session HB466 (Sponsor Mel Brown) and passed unanimously by both houses.

Brown introduced this in committee 2/20/07 (click here for audio): (paraphrased) We've had a problems with municipal services for growing areas, this will provide for a petition to incorporate as a town with 1/3 of value and property owner signatures to "require the county to do a feasibility study. . ." Jodi Hoffman (ULCT atty) says Mel described the bill very well. There is no good law now for incorporation of a town (referred to Daniel). question on feasibility study and cost analysis. Line 113 requires fiscal inequities to be mitigated.

Q. Difference between base and qualifying
A. Hoffman: 1/3 vs 1/2 of property value ; qualifying "goes through a more expedited feasibility study" More talk of municipal services. click for audio: Total hearing time 11 min.

2/22/07 House floor debate Brown: Easier process for incorporation for providing services. A group of people get together for a petition. base requires feasibility study - qualifying county can grant petition citizen friendly NO QUESTIONS from Reps. Total time 3 minutes

2/28/07 Senate Floor debate Sen. Killpack "only involves townships" - both tracts require petition - qualifying provides "expedited process for the uncontested incorporation" endorsed by cities and counties. Total time 3 minutes - (incl roll call vote)

INCORPORATIONS

Aspen - Independence - Hideout - Woodland - will Podunk village be next?

HB 466 has launched an open season on incorporation in Wasatch County. Thankfully, someone in the legislature is trying to change the law.

Sen. Stowell is looking for comments, Wasatch residents should have quite a few!!!

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 Becoming a Town By Dennis Stowell Utah State Senator, District 28 Clearly we need to amend last year's HB 466, in a way that empowers citizens as the gatekeepers. The proposal for a new Town Incorporation Process (for populations of 100 to 1000 people) mirrors the incorporation steps for cities with populations greater than 1000 which is currently on the books. The proposed new process: * Landowners file a petition with the County Clerk. * The County Commission decides if a feasibility study should be required. If not, the incorporation proposal would go straight to a public hearing. * If the feasibility study shows that revenues exceed expenditures by more than 10%, (5% for a city incorporation) then the County Commission could negotiate conditions to make the proposal work for the county. This should prevent cherry picking of high revenue areas. * The proposal would then go to a public hearing. * Following the public hearing an election would be held to decide if the area should be incorporated. If it does not pass, the proposal dies. * If it passes, a second election would be held to elect town officers. * The new mayor may then file articles of incorporation with the Lt. Governor's Office. Here's a flow chart (draft). I would appreciate comments on this proposal, especially from citizens who have lately been introduced to the unintended consequences of HB 466. How would this new process work for your community?

Update on Proposed Developments

Wasatch County has updated its monthly development report.

13,000 new houses waiting in the wings.

Heber City has also updated its too!!

About 3,000 additional coming.

County Payrolls

With Budget hearings now in progress, you may be interested in the Wasatch County payroll.

These figures seem to be base salaries, without fringe benefits, overtime etc. The site has many other municipal payrolls, but does NOT include Heber City:

Here are the top 12 on the payroll of 243 listed:

Phil D Wright	-	Health	-	$97,631
Michael Davis	-	County Manager	-	$88,866
Dennis Hansen	-	Prevention	-	$86,491
Alfred S Mickelsen	-	Planning and Zoning	-	$85,735
Kent J Berg	-	Public Works	-	$83,059
Thomas L Low	-	Attorney	-	$81,224
Don Jay Wood	-	GIS Date Processing	-	$77,725
Gordon Paul Wilson	-	Engineering	-	$75,868
Corinna A Porter	-	Mental Health	-	$75,599
Tracy Richardson	-	Health	-	$71,436
Kenneth Vanwagoner	-	Sheriff	-	$71,269
Sharon Jensen	-	Mental Health	-	$68,014

Wasatch County 2007 Budget

Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment

If any of you readers have desire to serve and attempt to assist in the planning of Wasatch County, here's a limited time (one month, or less, to apply) opportunity (Similar positions may be available at the municipal level):

There are two County Planning Commissioners (George Holmes and Bob Gappmayer) whose terms expire at the end of December. Plus possibly one additional available who has not met the attendance requirements. (John Price) (Co. Council Rep Kipp Bangerter's term is also up. SO . . .

Notice of Board Position Openings

Current Openings:

Daniel Township

Skate Boarding Park Advisory

**Planning Commission

**Board of Adjustment

**Please note: If you have previously served on these Boards and are interested in maintaining your position, re-application is necessary. Please call 657-3180 for more information.

Applications and copies of Board Member powers & duties may be acquired at the Reception desk in the Administration Building at 25 N Main Street, Heber, or by following the links below:

Wasatch County Code related to Boards:

You may also download the Board Application Form:

application (PDF)
application (Word)

Here are the official QUALIFICATIONS to become a member of the Planning Commission:

"members of the Planning Commission shall be qualified electors of Wasatch County."

That's IT folks!!! nothing more

"There is hereby established a county-wide Planning Commission consisting of seven regular members. Six of the regular members of the Commission shall be appointed by the County Manager with the advice and consent of the County Legislative Body. The remaining member of the Commission shall be a member of the County Legislative Body and shall be appointed by majority vote of the County Legislative Body."

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

"The planning commission has perhaps a greater opportunity to affect community change than any other public agency. Planning Commission decisions and recommendations can impose a significant impact on the physical and social development of the community they represent.

The planning commission is an authorized function of local government. The planning commission will vary in a number of respects from one community to the next. Planning commissioners are advisors, assisting the local elected officials in the decision-making process regarding the manner in which community development takes place. The commission also deals with the delicate balance between the public interest and private rights.

The work of planning commission must be conducted with a constant recognition of its responsibility to assure due process of law to every citizen who participates in the local planning process."
The Planning Commission, pg 1

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

What determines a "Conflict of Interest?"

A conflict of interest is “A situation in which a person’s individual interests are in opposition to the interests of his duty to others. As an example an elected public official who owns real estate may approve a ruling or a change in zoning that would increase the value of his property.” (Quoted from The Plain Language Law Dictionary)

There are various specific laws on conflicts depending on the position held, one of the more restrictive 'rules' applies generally to Planning Commissions.

The Planning Commission (CPPA, U of U)

The work of the planning commission influences the future of a community, and through certain planning measures can have impact upon the value of property. It is therefore important that the actions and behavior of commission members are at all times legally sanctioned and completely ethical. (pg 2-15)

Conflict of Interest:

A planning commissioner to whom some private benefit may be derived as the result of a planning commission action should not be a participant in the action. (pg 2-16)

The private benefit may be direct or indirect, create a material personal gain or provide an advantage to relatives, friends or groups and associations which hold some share of a person's loyalty. (pg 2-16)

State law requires that a public official experiencing a conflict of interest declare the conflict publicly. It is strongly recommended, however, that a planning commissioner with a conflict abstain from voting on the action in question and leave the room during consideration of the action. The commissioner should not discuss the matter privately with any other commissioner. The vote cast by a planning commissioner who has a conflict of interest, but who has not excused him or herself, shall be disallowed. (pg 2-16)

********** Wasatch County has even more specific rules:
By-Laws of the Wasatch County Planning Commission

- Sect XI: (C) No member shall act or vote on any matter which he or she has a direct financial interest, which involve a conflict of interest as found in he Utah Code, or which a member cannot fairly and impartially act or vote on any matter before the Commission.
Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and shall leave the room and not participate in the discussion and vote pertaining to that particular matter.

Update on County RA-1

The Plan to "encourage innovative site planning" with the objective for "Achieving a Rural Landscape Character and, specifically, to "maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character" and to promote a rural feel along county roads" and all sorts of wonderful platitudes is nearing completion and passage by the County Council.

This proposal was discussed here in September. It hasn't improved in the interim and will allow a near certain guarantee of an increase in RA-1 density over pre-moratorium (2005) days by 30%.

Growth has been the prime election issue in Wasatch County for years and county (and city) government continues to lead in allowing MORE density.

Consider this, for each average house built a NEGATIVE fiscal impact of $1 to 2,000 must be imposed on all of the taxpayers. A ONE house increase to a developer is worth about $100 to 200,000 in profit. So who is looking out for the taxpayers and who is maximizing the developer profit? (answers - NO ONE and your elected officials)

What are the potential results of this change?

Current number of houses existing in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) = 625

• potential houses under current law ca. 4700
• potential houses under new law ca. 6250
• A potential 33% INCREASE in an area with a current approval of about 1500 houses

NOTE: this is only in the Eastern Planning Area (Center/Lake Creek area) and only in the RA-1 Zone.

NOTE also that there are currently development approved in Wasatch County (not including municipalities of Heber, Midway, etc.) of over 13,000 housing units which are yet to built. There are currently about a total of about 10,000 houses in the County. Oh, the 13,000 does not include an additional 3,600 recently awarded to the Sorenson development (Jordanelle Ridge)

Where are we being led and why are being led there? Answer - Wasatch City and I have no idea.

Click here or on the zoning or planning links in the left column for more information.

The current downturn in the real estate market may provide us with the breathing room to do a little proper planning - of we would only use it!!!

People's Referendum Fails

Regrettably, too many listened to the propaganda by Boyer/Walmart outspending the local citizenry by probably 50 to 100 to one. (as predicted) The valiant effort by the citizens' referendum failed to stop the Big Box behemoth, proving once again that massive advertising campaigns with cutesy slogans seem to work (e.g. $900,000 benefits).

On the positive side there will be some new faces on the Council in January.

HOWEVER, the final decision has not been made on the design of the development. A few things can still be done to soften the blow to the Valley.

Especially with the 20 units per acre (or more) which will be requested under the newly approved zone. Explanations and lobbying must be offered to the Planning Commission and City Council members on at least TWO items:

1. Planning for the location of the Bypass must be made BEFORE approving the Boyer Project.
2. A proper fiscal IMPACT analysis must be made on the COSTS of the entire project (including housing) to Wasatch County residents (which all Heber residents are) - including potential education and school construction costs. Any benefits (sales tax) should be based on population - NOT on sq ft of the proposed stores. It would seem likely that a store in a market of 22,000 will not have the same revenue as one in a large metropolitan area.

They also should be reminded that just because MURCZA may ALLOW 20 per acre and 150K sq ft, Heber does NOT have to allow these maximums. The project should be built to conform with the general plan AND the wishes of the community. The vote, while legally binding, represented less than 23% of the registered Heber voters and barely 10% of County voters.

Hardly an overwhelming mandate!!

ALL county residents WILL be affected by this development.

Recommended/required for all concerned:

• The MURCZ code itself (Voter Info pamphlet)

• The Wikstrom study

• The Poll results - read and analyzed carefully
  

• It would also be helpful to hear Mark Webb (Planning Commissioner) on the subject

• AND City Manager Mark Anderson or excerpts

Previous posting on this blog may also be helpful.

VOTE NO on Big Box Mixed Up zone

Tomorrow's the big day for Heber Citizens to vote on the rezoning issue to allow 150,000+ sq. ft. big box retail stores AND 20 housing units per acre in Heber City. I strongly urge a vote AGAINST this proposal.

1 The project will cost Heber City resident MORE in property taxes, not less. No analysis has been done showing the COSTS to Wasatch County residents (which includes Heber City) of the proposed residential portion of the project. The resultant cost in school taxes will totally offset any increase in "revenues."
Heber City routinely has chosen to neglect ALL of the costs of projects and merely focuses on the Heber City portion of potential tax receipts as their deciding factor.

2 Heber Valley does NOT NEED a Big Box. While many may seek the convenience of "closer" shopping, the downside of the vastly increasing growth (which a big box will encourage to maintain
financial viability) will completely overshadow that supposed convenience. Increased traffic may even cause longer travel times than now required to get to Park City or Orem.

3 The proposed financial benefit (to Heber) is based on a sales $/ sq.ft. generated by similar sized stores - NOT on population. This is an inflated erroneous assumption designed to "sell" the project. The $15,000 Wikstrom study demonstrated the problems associated with a Big Box; the warnings apparently went unheeded.

4 This is absolutely the worst location for a large shopping center - at the busiest intersection in the valley AND on the route for the proposed Heber truck bypass/

5 Boyer (WalMart) is spending a tremendous amount of money on advertising, surveys, freebies, handouts, etc. to BUY your vote. I hate to tell you this, but these expenditure may be self serving.

6 A recent letter to Heber residents (?) (actually mailed to what appears to be the Boyer list) talks of tax dollars, intercity competition for the store, and local businesses. The letter points out that Heber is now longer a "small-town," but, at 10,000 population, it is certainly NOT to "big city " status yet. The "I think" letter is signed by five couples and appears to be the thinking of recent transplants who escaped from the city and now want to recreate in our (still somewhat) rural valley, what they left .

VOTE no (AGAINST( the mixed use Zone)


For more comments and in depth analysis click here.

Big Box Advertisement response

ADD your name to the No Big Box for Heber Valley Petition

In response to the full page 10/10/07 ad in the Wasatch Wave (one of a $$$ series), I offer this response:

MIXED UP Chaos Zone

So why would someone like me vote AGAINST the proposed Mixed Use Big Box ordinance?

10 Shopping Convenience: Many Heber Valley residents enjoy an occasional shopping trip to the "big city" only to return to the rural, small town in which they enjoy living.

9 More Time With the Family: If you are spending two trips a week solely to shop in Provo, you may need to either plan better, shop locally or take the family with you.

8 A Stronger Local Economy: Generating a large customer base to support Big Boxes will only cause MORE Growth to feed the incipient beast sending revenues out of the valley.

7 Improved Roads: How in the world does drastically increasing traffic into the most congestion intersection in the Valley improve roads? That congestion may even eat up the suggested saved "time with the family" with local traffic delays.

6 More Money for Education: Sure, there may be some increase in property tax - which will be OFFSET by the education costs of the NEW High Density development allow in the new zone - 20 units per acre or 200 to 300 units stacked 55 ft high, (or 300 new children at $4,000 education cost each or $1.2 Million - for starters.) How much DID your taxes increase this year?

5 A Better Environment?: MORE traffic, MORE emissions, MORE pollution and LESS rural and small town, which the community has said for years is our desire.

4 Additional Restaurants: Will this offset the "Family Dinner Day"? (Eat with your children and save the family resolution) Are more Fast Foods NEEDED?

3 It's the Wrong Time: Why fuel even more explosive growth? Is there never an end to expansion, if Heber City can't grow OUT must it grow UP? Or should it just 'grow up' and respect the community wishes.

2 More Money in your Wallet: The overestimated gas saving predicted will be offset by in INCREASED taxes to cover the extra costs of the proposed development. An annexation study (potential tax income) is NOT a fiscal IMPACT study (costs to the Heber/Wasatch County residents - Heber residents are also county taxpayers)

1 Voting AGAINST the Mixed Up Residential Chaos Zone will help maintain the small town desire clearly expressed by the community.

As always, call their comment line to listen to the circular recording and to have your telephone number collected.

It's a matter of choice - Big city vs. Small town We may already be too late for the "small" town can we at least try to avoid the CITY.

Regrettably, as a non Heber City resident I'm unable to vote on the issue in the upcoming election; hopefully my fellow County residents living inside Heber will not be swayed by thousands of dollars for a series of full page ads to promote a narrow self interest ($$$) but will speak for the community as a whole and reject this proposal!

Here We Go Again - Development History

Once again the County Council has understood that the current RA-1 zoning ordinance is in need of repair. Since the moratorium of September 2005, the County has enacted two RA-1 laws to maintain our "rural" atmosphere. At that time (2005) a group of citizens tried to suggest a solution to the growth, as usual it was met with a gaping yawn of indifference.

The first try called for 50% open space, a convoluted "clustered" development, and various bonuses to achieve a "one unit per acre density" which would provide for a increase in density (number of houses) of 30%. (Historically RA-1 meant each house requires one acre of land, and each lot required 200 ft of road frontage; meaning on a ten acre parcel, about seven houses could be built after the roads were put in.)

A few short months under the new ordinance brought the realization that the ordinance was virtually unworkable, somewhat equivalent to trying to place eight pounds of substance in a five pound bag. A second moratorium was called and a second plan formulated, nearly as bad as the initial change, both proposing/allowing/encouraging a large increase in the number of houses (a 41% increase in density over pre-moratorium, with 40% LESS open space than the previous ordinance). This also included the subjective bonuses amounting to a possible 70% or so with only30% needed to maximize.

Needless to say, a minor flood of pent up development demand jumped on the bandwagon, with the usual disastrous result - more houses on smaller lots with a generlaly serpentine nominal "open space" winding it way between the potential McMansions. The Planning Commission generally approved near the maximum density, Council often cut it down somewhat.

Result - further erosion of the universal desire for rural, small town environment. The increased workload on the Planning Department and subjectivity of the bonus system, brought us to the current dilemma - and solution (NOT). After the Planning Commission decided to recommend the worse of two options, the Council opted for a third option. Basically, just give the developer one unit per acre by jumping through some small hoops or coughing up a little cash.

The hoops:

• 30% "open Space
• 20% of lots with animal rights (= over one acre)
• trails, enhanced minimum landscaping (which may be required by any development)
• I think that was it folks!!! (as no written copies were available, it may be slightly different and, as always, the devile is in the details)

An option was being offered to buy out of the open space requirement for 50% of the raw land cost. For example, on ten acres parcel, the three acres of open space could be avoided by paying ca. $150,000 (half of raw land cost). Although this was presented as a open space buy out, it certainly appears to be an increased density purchase. The $150K would provide for three lots to sell for $250,000 each PLUS the profit in the building of the McMansion.

That amounts to 3 lots at $200K plus 3 houses at $50K (??) profit or roughly $750,000 - a five to one return on investment.

One more step on the road to Wasatch City. The County has added to their website a new listing of developments, with a map and their size, density and status. It's a well conceived report which should be helpful to those wanted to follow the progress of citification.

More later, maybe.

Heber Council Primary Results

Congratulations to the winners of the Heber City Council Primary.
1 Eric Straddeck - - 43% of voters
2 Robert Patterson - - 38%
3 Nile Horner - - 30%
4 Terry Lange - - 29%
5 Michael Thurber - - 28%
6 Kieth Rawlings - - 27% of voters

The voters of Heber City achieved an anemic 14% turnout (911 votes cast), with each voter casting an average of 2.8 votes. The first columns below are probably from votes cast at the old Senior Center, the second from the North School polling and the last the New Library.

Straddeck	53	38.1%	239	55.8%	104	30.4%	396	43.5%
Patterson	58	41.7%	147	34.3%	145	42.4%	350	38.4%
Horner	38	27.3%	128	29.9%	107	31.3%	273	30.0%
Lange	34	24.5%	125	29.2%	104	30.4%	263	28.9%
Thurber	80	57.6%	89	20.8%	87	25.4%	256	28.1%
Rawlings	42	30.2%	104	24.3%	103	30.1%	249	27.3%
Rose	29	20.9%	111	25.9%	102	29.8%	242	26.6%
Lazenby	17	12.2%	123	28.7%	75	21.9%	215	23.6%
Mahoney	28	20.1%	89	20.8%	91	26.6%	208	22.8%
Drew	13	9.4%	56	13.1%	38	11.1%	107	11.7%
Total	392		1211		956		2559	39.9%

Heber Council Candidates

With the upcoming Primary Election for Heber City Council coming up, several people have asked my opinion on the ten candidates, of whom four will be eliminated. Heber City residents will be able to vote for up to three of the ten. Many worthy candidates available, but the tough choices need to be made; no offense herein to any willing to to step up and run for office!!

As I am not a city resident, I have no vote; but the results of the election in November will affect the entire Heber Valley. The two overriding issues are GROWTH and Big Box - or more correctly the proposed mixed up Residential Chaos Zone - MURCZA - which would allow large retail stores in Heber. That said, and based on my personal observations and radio interviews and debates between the candidates, below are my ratings. I strongly suggest clicking on the links and hearing their comments in their own words. . Of course, it is election time. Interestingly, they indicated that Heber City was in the process of changing the Potential Annexation Zone to REDUCE it. Perhaps they are finally listening to the people, we'll see. Also there was a great deal of talk about transparency in government and openness, we may be making an IMPACT!!!

The candidates expressed nearly unanimous support for slowing growth and annexation into Heber

Top tier:

Sandy Mahoney and Eric Straddeck
Sandy is a long time resident, has a good grasp of the issues, experience on the Board of Adjustment and would work diligently on the RIGHT side of the main issues.
Eric is relatively new to the Valley, a successful entrepeneur, thoughtful and contemplative and would bring a fresh view to the Council.

Second Tier:

Danny Drew and Terry Lange

Danny is a young enthusiastic man with generally good ideas and would be a good addition to the mix.

The venerable Terry has a wealth of historical knowledge and is often on the right side and a consummate politician.

Third Tier - but wrong on the Big Box or growth

Robert Patterson, Mike Thurber and Nile Horner

Robert presented himself well in the debate with some interesting observation as did Mike (especially on developments) Nile was on the right side of Big Box but came up with the strange observation that annexations should depend on WHO was annexing.

Bottom three

Kieth Rawlings, Shari Lazenby and Perry Rose

Kieth and Shari as Planning Commission Chair and incumbent Council member, respectively, need to take some responsibility for the current City philosophy on growth, etc. Perry opted not to show up for the debates or interviews.

Truth (?) Part 2

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.

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. . . . .

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.

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."

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

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

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

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.

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?