How's the Event Center Doing???

Addendum May 22, answers to some questions included below
           (Apparently, It's doing "better than it was.")

After ten years and a several million dollar investment, many wonder how's it doing (for the taxpayers)?    (Click here to See Some 12 year old History)     (It wasn't several.  How much was it? Maybe a few.  How much is a few?  Less than several)

For many years, we've been told that the County Council (aka Parks and Rec SSD Board) receive periodic reports about the events.   For many years, a profit and loss or revenue and expenditure statement has been requested.    A few promises, but no results.

A couple of months ago, an additional request was made to get the revenues and expenditures for each event held over the last year of so.  The response was revenues would be easy, but expenses are harder to define to each individual event.   The request was modified to ask about providing it within six months.

About two weeks later, some revenues were given, with the comment that the public should really have all of this information and they would work to get it made available.   As usual, the data raised a few questions.     Data was provided for not only EVENTS, but, apparently, the entire Event Center/Rodeo Complex.  A summary of the data is presented here:

	2012	2013	1st qtr 2014
Outdoor Facility	$1,500.00	$3,900.00
Shavings	$2,894.25	$1,940.00	$440.00
Stall Rentals	$11,803.00	$28,306.85	$2,380.00
Ride Passes	$192.00	$1,677.00	$1,175.00
Misc Revenue	$1,535.00	$5,491.00	$1,964.05
Events	$28,324.50	$77,994.50	$11,265.00
Cowboy City (RV park)	$470.00	$6,005.00
Concessions	$10,009.67	$5,384.72
Advert Sponsor		$7,418.00
Sponsorship & Advertising		$59,590.00	$7,812.00
Membership		$175.00
Totals	$56,728.42	$197,882.07	$25,036.05

On May 4, this Email was sent, with a few of the questions:

"Thank you for the revenue data.  I had actually requested a profit and loss statement for individual events over the last couple years, but this was also of interest.

hopefully you can enlighten me, as I assume you would have an idea about these items:

• If the revenues were only $57K in 2011, what  were they in previous years?
• 1. The event complex was put into the parks and recreation department in 2011 and only have records from that time forward.
• How much has been invested in the Event Center?  (They are working on that one, see the History 
• What caused the LARGE increase from 2012 to 13?  What caused the event revenue increase?
• More events, larger events. Started an advertising and sponsorship program for businesses to advertise at events and the Events Complex on a yearly basis. Wasatch County parks and Recreation received monies from TRRT for two (2) large events. The Wilderness Circuit Rodeo Finals and the Professional Bull Riders event along with percentages of tickets sales from these events.
• What was the cost of the marketing?   Where are those cost in the budget?
• 1. The cost are on an event by event basis. The Mountain Valley Stampede has an advertising budget the County Fair has an advertising budget. They are listed as advertising in the area of the budget listed Rodeo and County Fair. Events are required to pay for their own advertising for their specific event. Wasatch County Parks and Recreation does not pay for advertising for event that are not Wasatch County Parks and Recreation sponsored events. Events may apply for grants thru the Wasatch County Tax advisory Board for advertising their events.
• Why did the concession revenue drop drastically? 12 to 13?
• 1. The concessionaire contract expired at that the end of 2012. The previous concessionaire was paying 15% of gross income. An RFP was put out and the new concessionaire that received the bid is required to pay 8% in the new contract. Midway Food Services was awarded the bid from the Wasatch County Parks and Recreation Board and the new contract to runs thru December 31, 2018.
• When was Cowboy Village enlarged or improved, is that the cause of the 12/13 increase?
• 1. Cowboy Village has not seen any capital improvements since it was completed. The revenue difference is from the LDS church. We rent the village to the church camp missionaries when they are unable to get up to the camp due to weather. In 2012 they did not need the village and in 2013 they paid $5640.00 for the services.
• How many people are involved with "Ride Passes"?
  
• No response
• What's the difference between the two 'advert sponsor' and 'Sponsorship and Advertising' categories?  
• 1. 1 is for the Event complex and 1 is for the Recreation Center. We just started the Recreation Center this year. The $7418.00 was put into the wrong account number and has been transferred to the correct account. The Event Center total for 2013 was $67008.00.
• Is the increase in stall rentals due to new construction?    At what cost?
• 1. We have not added any stalls on the Events Complex recently. The revenue increase is due to added and larger equestrian events. 
• What are the projections for 2014?
• 1. The adopted 2014 budget has projections as followed
  Revenue: $2,434,361.00
  Expenditures: $2,351,062.00
• Does the P&R 2014 budget include all expenses and revenue for the event Center? 
  
• If not, where is the Event center budget?
  
• If so, how can it be determined? 
  
• 1. Yes, The Wasatch County Events Complex is part of the Parks and Recreation budget as of January 1, 2012. It also includes Parks, Recreation, Recreation Center, Wasatch County Fair, Demolition Derby, Memorial Day Celebration and the Mountain Valley Stampede.

In searching for more info, I tried Transparent Utah, SAO audits, UASD,  the county website and, even, the Utah Public Meeting Notice website..  Could you tell me why there is no information from the Wasatch Parks and Rec SSD?  

  ("We obey all the laws.  We trust our managers."   answer, Trust - but,verify.   We have payroll on utahsright.com.   answer, that's a private website.
I assume . . .  that you are familiar with the "Little Manual" for SSD's. "

Answers received May 22,  posted Above under each question :

• PS: There ARE still 5 mos. to fulfill the 6 mo. request 
• PPS:  The 2014 Parks and Rec SSD proposed budget is $2.4 Million (up 17% in one year) - For comparison, the entire COUNTY budget is $16.5 M (which does NOT include P&R, which is a separate government entity)
• PPPS:   The proposed Aquatic Center will be under Parks and Rec. 

HL&P 4.5% Rate Increase

Heber Light & Power is proposing a RATE INCREASE for all users.    (Well, it may be for all users, except the large ones.)  
PUBLIC HEARING   May 29

Apparently , this increase was approved in the budget by the previous Board (You know the one with the faux PAY increase, which they were required to return.)

While analyzing the proposed rate structure a few questions arise:

Why are rates for residential going up by 4.5%, while commercial seems to be less?

In the rate examples given, residential rates are a constant 4.5%, 'small' commercial increases 4.5%, but that percentage decreases with increases usage above the 3,600 Kwh example.   The 'large' commercial' example at 4.3% increase also appears to decease with increase usage.   In fact, in the given "large" commercial example showed a peak of 250 kW vice the 370 kW used the monthly rate

I'm unsure of the rate increase goals (except for revenue increase) of this complex rate structure are (other than the general "shift demand, green energy supply, economic development"), nor am I certain how, when or if the proposed changes will accomplish those goals.

It appears the examples given might have been chosen to demonstrate an 'equal' % increase, but usage will modify that.  The rate increase appears to benefit increased usage.

(HL & P  Interactive rate computer  This spreadsheet should allow you to create your own suggested rate structure and SEE the results.)

Columns K, L and M of the rate spreadsheet, compiled from the proposed rates, offer a simple two tiered systems which creates a similar proposed rate schedule and a third tier could be added to further reduce the high end users' costs, if needed for 'economic development' and accomplishing your goals.   (Various cells can be modified to determine the results.  As the formulas achieved the same results as the HLP presentation, I assume they are correct.).

It appears the intent is to lower modify the peak DEMAND, but not necessarily the usage.  There could be a HUGE disparity between a 249kW demand and a 251kW (small vs large) bill at marginal rates of $0.0805 vs $0.037 per kWh, thus benefiting a larger peak demand.

It seems like the small households get the most relative dollar hurt - mainly because of the Service charge. 

Rather than raising that service charge by 4.5%, lowering it to, say $5, would help out the 'average' resident by 10 to 20%, -  AND would only decrease HLP revenues by $70K (assuming 10K accounts)

Last comment/question: do hookup, or impact, fees for new connections cover the actually increased cost or is new growth being subsidized by current residents?

One response: "For infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc.  We would never charge %100 because at least 25% of necessary upgrades for these new builds benefits the whole system."
 
If HLP had NOT spent $200 (?) for the new "super" meters ($2,000,000), it may not have needed a rate increase.   Are they really paying for themselves?  If so, how?

My second guess is that there are areas are continuing costs that might be reduced.   Has the money from the loans and credit cards misuse been recovered? 

Reports are circulating that some higher echelon employees receive high six-figure salaries with bonus and 'comfortable' benefit packages.

If HLP had NOT spent $200 each (?) for the new "smart" meters ($2,000,000?), it may not have needed a rate increase.  Have they actually proven their value?  If so, how?

Have the dividends to the cities increased for 2014?   (apparently not = $300K)

Who is actually paying for street lights?   Is the $73,819 'donated' by HLP?  For what lights? What determine who pays the other $20K? (see *below)   Do 'rural' developments get donated light electricity?   If so, why not let the HOA pay?

 *WHEREAS the Heber Light & Power Company (“the Company”) practice is not to
charge municipalities or the county for the energy charges for street lights (“energy charges for
street lights”).
 
 WHEREAS, to implement this practice, the Company records the estimated energy
charges for street lights but annually writes-off these charges.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
HEBER LIGHT & POWER COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
 
 The Company hereby writes-off the 2013 energy charges for street lights in the amount of
$66,963.

 I appreciate slide 29 ("? ? ?") pg 54

In short, my suggestions are reduce expenses, eliminate the service charges, implement a simpler rate structure and ensure that growth is covering its costs.   All these proposals for no extra cost.

PUBLIC HEARING   May 29 6:00 PM,   Heber City Council Room      Click on the link for MORE info.

Tax Receipt Bonanza

What do you call it when you receive more property tax money than requested or budgeted?

• Very good planning
  
• The joy of growth
• Magnificent management
• Inflation
• Pure luck
• More money to SPEND
  
• Time for a tax CUT
  
• Shh, don't tell anyone

In 2013, most Wasatch governmental entities collected between 5 and 12% MORE than budgeted.
WCFD, which is requesting a near 80% tax increase, received 6.61% over budgeted.

Here are the figures for the largest recipient of property taxes:

The Airport Advisory Bored

Update 11 Mar:  Feb 12 board minutes contain this statement - 

"280  Chairman Rowland proposed that the Board’s composition be looked at because right

281 now the bylaws are fairly vague. Other than the requirement of residing in Wasatch 
282 County there are no other requirements." 

If it is now agreed that residence in Wasatch County IS a requirement, how can the board operate with three current members???  Reportedly Mr. AbuHaidar lives in summit Co, Mr. McQuarrie in Salt Lake.   (Mr. Rowland's term expired in 2013, or possibly earlier)

Further in the minutes 

379 MOTION 
380 
381 Boardmember McQuarrie made a nomination, he said, “I’ll take the seat and he (Dave Hansen) 
382 can be the vice”. 
383 
384 Chairman Rowland summarized the motion; we have a motion to accept Mel as the chair and 
385 Dave as the vice chair. Voting Aye: Board Members McQuarrie, AbuHaidar, Rowland, McFee, 
386 and Hansen. Voting Nay: none. The motion passed.

End of the addendum

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

This is a review of the rules of the Airport Advisory Board and terms of office from a search of minutes and other web information. Some minutes may not show properly due to the vagaries of various document formats, thereby possibly missing some appointments)

The apparent key to the current appointment controversy might be found in this excerpt from the minutes of 11/17/2011:
"The Airport Board was also considering an upgrade to the airport from B2 to C2, and wanted to get input from the Council.     
Council Member McDonald stated the upgrade would be a substantial cost to the City and it would take out hangar row. Council Member Horner asked what would happen if the Council was against it. Anderson stated the upgrade would be taken from the Master Plan.  Council Members Horner, McDonald, and Mergist stated they were against upgrading to a C2 size airport."

The expansion of the Airport was an issue most residents of Heber City (and Wasatch County) was thought to be an issue that was laid to rest over ten years ago.   Apparently not so!

The Heber City Airport Advisory Board consists of:

• Nadim AbuHaidar    (2011?)
• David Hansen         (2010/14)
• Jeff Mabbutt           (2011)
• Mel McQuarrie       (2012)
• Kari McFee           (2012)
• Erik Rowland         (2009)
• 
  

  Tom Melville (No longer listed on the website, but was  a member in 2013)

Appointment dates were not listed, but added from info below:

History:

July 3, 2003 Heber General Plan Future Vision 2020 “Heber City owns the Heber City Airport, and is responsible for all planning issues surrounding airport and related businesses. The airport should be self sustaining. Revenues from the airport need to support maintenance and development. This includes both short range and long range goals. Recognizing the important role the airport plays in the community; Heber City created an Airport Advisory Board to assist in this planning.”

5/18/2006 “Koze Hallows has resigned from the Airport Advisory Board: It was explained Koze Hallows had resigned from the Airport Advisory Board. Mayor Phillips said there was a need to find someone to fill his term. He asked for recommendations from the Council. They recommended whoever was appointed be a citizen of Heber without economic ties to the airport”

01/15/2009: Appointment/Reappointment to the following Boards:

Airport Advisory Board 4-year term (Norm Eiting 2009)

Airport Advisory Board 4-year term (Kathryn Berg 2009)

Airport Advisory Board (David Remington 2011) remaining two years of Remington term

3/5/2009 “Mayor Appointment to Airport Advisory Board: Councilmember Hokanson moved to approve the appointment of Erik Rowland to serve on the Airport Advisory Board as recommended by Mayor Phillips.”

2/18/2010 Steve Capson appointed (no term listed)

1/21/2010 Dave Hansen appointed (no term listed)

1/6/2011 Jeff Mabbut appointed (no term listed)

10/20/2011 Mayoral Appointment – Heber City Airport Advisory Board Member: Mayor Phillips stated Tom Melville was being recommended as a member of the Airport Advisory Board. He also recommended that Nadim Abuhaidar or one of his associates from the FBO be appointed to the Board. (no term listed), and it's unclear if this was the actual appointment for Abuhaidar, as this does NOT seem like a proper motion!  No further appointment has been found.    BUT on 8/16/2012: “Jim Morgan, Park City, stated it was his intention to move to Heber. He remarked that the 75x75 hangars were built for big business jets. Then the prices and the market declined. He thought the lease fee should not matter to the hangar sale because a buyer for that size would not be renting it. He was also concerned that the FBO owner was on the Airport Advisory Board.”

6-21-2012 Mel McQuarrie appointed (no term listed)

“Appointment of Airport Advisory Board Member: Council Member Mergist asked if Melvin McQuarrie owned a hangar at the Airport. Mark Anderson said yes he did. Council Member Mergist asked how many board members owned hangars at the airport and Anderson replied there were three board members that owned hangars and one that leased a hangar. Council Member Mergist voiced concern over whether ownership mattered while serving on the board. Council Member Rowland answered that while serving on the board he had noticed most of the time the board members did have some ownership in the airport hangars, etc. Recusal, etc. has been implemented in order to avoid conflict of interest, etc” . . . Mayor Phillips also mentioned the City needed someone to serve on the Board of Adjustment, as well as an Airport Advisory Board Member”

May 17, 2012 Kari McFee appointed (no term listed)

01-16-2014 Dave Hansen reappointed (no term listed)

Of the board members listed on Heber City's website:

One current member is not “from throughout the cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.” and has a clear and continuing 'conflict of interest.”

A second member is not “from throughout the cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.” and has possibly failed the attendance requirements.

A third member (and 2013 Chairman) has reportedly completed his term of office.  

A fourth member has also possibly failed the attendance requirements.

Up until 2014, there was little controversy over Airport Board appointments, certainly no refusals to consent to the Mayor's recommendations.

It appears that the Bylaws of 2011 have been virtually ignored - perhaps rather than rewriting the bylaws, it might be helpful to try to USE them.

By apparently not following the Bylaws of 2011, this current membership does not appear to be an appropriate group to “Discuss the makeup of the Airport Advisory Board” or even to elect a Chairperson as noted in the Public meeting notice for Feb 12. 
 In fact, it may be an improperly constituted board, which could have bearing on past actions of the board.  But, as they are an advisory board, all "decisions" should have been brought to the Council.

2013 Attendance

	Jan 9	Feb13	Mar	apr	May	Jun12	Jul10	Aug14	Sep18	Oct15	Nov13	Dec11
Nadim AbuHaidar		1	1		1	0		1	1	1	1	0	7	78%	Non Resident
David Hansen		1	1		0	1		1	0	1	1	1	7	78%
Jeff Mabbutt		0	0		1	0		0	1	1	1	1	5	56%	Below 60% ?
Mel McQuarrie		0	0		1	1		0	1	1	1	0	5	56%	Non Resident
Kari McFee		1	1		1	1		1	1	0	1	1	8	89%
Erik Rowland		1	1		1	1		1	1	1	1	1	9	100%	term expired 2012 ?
Tom Melville		1	1		0	1		1	1	1	1	0	7	78%
	not avail	5	5	none?	5	5	cx	5	6	'oct 9	7	4
										cx

Meeting notices (and packets) are now found on Utah PMN http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html#

Appointment notices should be found in Heber City Council minutes.

Heber City Airport, Rules and Regulations – Adopted by the City Council November 17, 2011

EXCERPTS:

Article 3:

15 Appointment and Terms of Members

16 A. The Airport Advisory Board shall consist of (7) members;

17 B. Membership shall be as follows:

18 1. Membership will include persons of diverse interests from throughout the

19 cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.

20 2. A Technical Assistance Committee will be formed as needed to help

21 understand technical and other issues associated with the Airport or other

22 entities that might be affected by it.

23 C. The Airport Advisory Board will interface with and be supported by the City

24 Manager, his designee, and/or the Airport Manager. Heber City will also

25 provide a secretary and staff support as needed.

26 D. The terms of office for the seven appointed Airport Advisory Board members

27 shall be four years. The initial appointments shall be for, three positions two

28 years, two positions three years, and two positions four years from January 1,

29 2005.

(i.e. 3 terms expired in 2007, 2 terms in 2008 and 2 in 2009, then 2011, 2012, 2013, etc.)

Any vacancies in these positions shall be filled by a recommendation

30 from the Mayor and confirmation by the City Council. The appointment will be

31 for at the remaining time of the member whose vacancy is being filled.

32 E. Improper conduct and non-performance of duties shall result in a

33 recommendation to the Heber City Council for removal of said member.

34 Members may be removed after a public hearing, by a majority vote of the City

35 Council.

36 Article 4:

37 Airport Advisory Board Officers and their Duties

38 A. Chairperson

39 1. The Airport Advisory Board shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice-

40 Chairperson from among its members at the first regular meeting in

41 January.

42 2. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall serve for a term of two years,

43 beginning the first regular meeting in February.

44 3. The Chairperson shall preserve order, and decide all points of order, subject

45 to appeal of the Airport Advisory Board membership. Such appeal shall be

46 decided by a majority vote of the members present. The Chairperson may

47 vote on all matters before the Airport Advisory Board.

48 a. The Chairperson with the concurrence of a majority vote of the

49 Airport Advisory Board and the City Council may create such special

50 subcommittees as he/she may, from time-to-time, deem necessary

51 or desirable.

52 b. In the event of absence or disability the Chairperson, the Vice-

53 Chairperson shall preside. In the absence of both, the members

54 shall appoint a Chairperson for that meeting.

55 B. Vice-Chairperson

56 1. Perform all of the above duties in the absence of the Chairperson;

57 2. Conduct the annual review of the Airport Advisory Board actions;

58 3. Coordinate and conduct the annual meeting of the Board; and

59 4. Provide orientation to new Airport Advisory Board Members.

60 C. Secretary Article 12:

61 1. Assure true recording and maintenance of the public record, record the

62 proceedings of all hearings and meetings; and prepare the minutes of the

63 Board. Minutes shall include:

64 a. The date, time, and place of the meeting;

65 b. The names of members present and absent;

66 c. The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided, and a

67 record, by individual members of votes taken;

68 d. Findings and conclusions;

69 e. The names of all citizens who appeared and who gave comments

70 and the substance in brief of their testimony;

71 f. Any other information that any member requests be entered in the

72 minutes.

73 2. All recommendations to the City Council, involving changes in the City

74 ordinances shall be submitted by the Secretary to the City Attorney for

75 review. After the review, the proposed ordinance shall be returned to the

76 Airport Advisory Board to evaluate any comments or suggestions before

77 being submitted to the City Council.

179 Conduct of Members of the Airport Advisory Board

180 A. Members of the Airport Advisory Board shall prepare themselves for hearings

181 and meetings.

182 B. Appointed members of the Airport Advisory Board shall attend at least 60

183 percent of all meetings within a calendar year. Failure to do so may be deemed

184 by the Airport Advisory Board as cause for removal.

185 C. An Airport Advisory Board member with a conflict of interest in a matter before

186 the Board must state that such a conflict of interest exists and withdraw from

187 participation in the public hearing, work session, or regular meeting on such

188 matters. Participation of a member of the Airport Advisory Board with a conflict

189 of interest may be cause for removal. The interests of that Airport Advisory

190 Board member may be represented before the Board by agenda or legal

191 representative at the public hearing, regular meeting, or work session and

192 entered into the public record. The prohibition from “participation” does not

193 exclude an Article 7.B.2 presentation or a response solicited from one of the

194 other Board members.

Meeting Excerpts

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

4:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

APRIL = No meeting???

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

4:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

6

7 4:00 p.m. - Regular Meeting

8

Members Present: Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Alan Robertson Airport Advisory Board for Nadim

AbuHaidar

Absent: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Public notice is hereby given that the July 10, 2013, Heber City Airport Advisory Board Meeting has been cancelled.

October 9, 2013 | 4:00 PM

Description/Agenda:

MEETING CANCELLED

Airport Advisory Board Meeting

6 Tuesday, October 15, 2013

7

8 4:00 p.m.

9 Regular Meeting

10

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

November 13.2013 http://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/83337.pdf

All present

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?