Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Petition turned into City, Article from Daily Herald
Scott L. Smith (2nd right) presents a letter and a petition with 2,112 signatures to Gina Peterson, the City Recorder for Highland, on Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Highland residents petition to stop road bond proposal
Caleb Warnock - DAILY HERALD
HIGHLAND -- Highland residents took a major step on Tuesday toward defying City Council members over a hotly contested road bond proposal. Looking to stop Highland from issuing up to $5 million in controversial road bonds, residents on Tuesday handed over a petition signed by 2,112 registered voters, an effort weeks in the making, organized by dozens of volunteers who walked the city.
Scott Smith headed up the petition drive, aided by more than 50 supporters who combed the city asking for signatures. County election officials verified to the Daily Herald that petition supporters handed the official copy of the petition to the county at about 1 p.m. on Tuesday. Supporters then presented a copy to Highland officials at about 5 p.m.
"We have knocked on a lot of doors," Smith said.
Scott Hogensen, chief deputy clerk auditor for Utah County, said the county will now spend several days verifying the signatures on the petition against voter registration data. To force Highland to put the bond measure on the ballot, one-fifth of active registered voters in the city must have signed the petition.
Smith said he felt that those circulating the petition had gathered about 600 more signatures than they needed, as a safety net.
After verifying the signatures, the county will report its findings to Highland, and city officials will then have to decide whether the petition meets state requirements, forcing the issue onto the ballot, or not. If the issue does go to a vote of the public, that would likely happen in November, according to Hogensen.
Smith said things need to change in Highland, and the petition is manifestation of the public's displeasure toward elected officials.
"I've lived here for 20 years, and I have not been really pleased with the way the city government functions," Smith said.
This unhappiness came into sharp focus when Smith and neighbors learned the city was looking to purchase homes in their neighborhood in order to build a road. Smith said as he began looking into that, he found it difficult to get information from the city.
And the more he learned about the city's finances, the more alarmed he became.
"This city, in the past four years, has gone from $5 million in debt to $18 million, and with the road bond it would have gone to $21 million or $22 million," he said. "If you ask them how they are going to pay all that back, they won't tell you. There is an attitude that they know better than the rest of us, and I thought, 'Well, we'll see what the people think.' "
Smith said it has been difficult to get any information from the City Council about how much they want to borrow for roads, or specifically where and how the money would be used. In recent meetings, council members and city officials have agreed to back off the road plan, agreeing there was not enough information.
"We would like the city to be more transparent and open," Smith said.
Sharleen Shields helped gather signatures for the petition.
"They can't, won't tell you anything," she said, noting that she was frustrated after trying to get information about roads and road construction, especially after discovering the city may be planning a road near her home.
The city had a transportation committee that was not utilized well before the road bond controversy erupted, and since putting that committee back to work in February, "they have rehashed everything over and over and over, and haven't accomplished anything," Shields said.
Linda Robbins, who also helped gather signatures, said she and her husband have worked hard to get out of debt and became alarmed when they learned the city's per-resident debt total was ballooning.
Robbins also said she was frustrated after trying to learn information about road plans from city officials.
Cathy Smith, Scott Smith's wife, said she personally knocked on more than 200 doors to circulate the petition.
"In the cold, and in the snow, and in the wind," she said with a laugh. "I would say 19 out of 20 people felt some sense of anger that they didn't have access to information. The city is not giving any out [about roads] and when they do, it changes from day to day."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Much ado about -- what?
Highland news from the Lone Peak Press and the Daily Herald.
Highland council doesn't 'have the facts' for roads bond
Posted by: Our Towns Moderator on March 18, 2009 at 2:00AM EST
In Highland on Tuesday there was much ado about -- what? More than 100 residents gathered to speak out about the city potentially floating a bond for roads. Although the city has held a handful of meetings on the issue, once again no one was able to tell residents how much the city might want to borrow, what it would be used for, and why.
City officials said no decision on the matter is expected for months.
"This is not an easy decision because we just don't have the facts," said Councilman Brian Braithwaite after listening to more than an hour and a half of public comment.
Council members have already voted preliminary approval to borrow up to $5 million for roads. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm warned that the consequences could be stark, and that the city might already be in a "precarious" financial position.
The majority of those who spoke on Tuesday did not take well to the lack of information, alternately pleading for and demanding transparency from the city. Other residents said the city should go forward with the undefined bond, saying it was supported by "the silent majority."
The public hearing began with a reversal. The first resident asked the mayor to please first explain "exactly the bond issue, the money available, and why you are considering it... I think there is a lot of confusion out there."
Mayor Jay Franson struggled to define "exactly the bond issue," saying the city would like to use a portion of $500,000 a year in state road money to repay the bond. When asked about using the money to build a controversial east-west corridor, Franson said only that there are "no specific strings tied to what this would be used for."
Because it was unclear what any potential debt might be used for, at times the hearing deteriorated into a debate over whether there should be an east-west corridor built in the city. Mayor Franson has said he would like the city to use some of the borrowed money for such a corridor, though no one in the city has proposed that or any other plan for the controversial bond.
Even late in the meeting, confusion reigned. Councilman Larry Mendenhall scolded the public, saying "the public perception has been that $5 million is on the table, but that has never been the case."
Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm then read an agenda from a recent meeting at which the Council voted to give preliminary approval for a bond "up to $5 million."
Schramm said she was deeply concerned over the state of the city's finances, and that her research showed the city may now be obligated to pay $1 million a month on its debt, but the sales tax and impact fees needed to make those payments are shrinking.
"I have to feel we are kind of in a precarious way," she said, detailing existing city debt that "I don't know how we are going to repay ... I'm really concerned."
In recent months the city has already obligated itself for large road projects that Schramm said she did not think were necessary, and would compete for the same money the city now proposes to use to repay any proposed bond.
To add to the confusion, the city appeared to confirm that the whole effort to gather public opinion will have to be redone months from now when the city does make some decisions about how any borrowed money for roads would be used.
Highland council doesn't 'have the facts' for roads bond
Posted by: Our Towns Moderator on March 18, 2009 at 2:00AM EST
In Highland on Tuesday there was much ado about -- what? More than 100 residents gathered to speak out about the city potentially floating a bond for roads. Although the city has held a handful of meetings on the issue, once again no one was able to tell residents how much the city might want to borrow, what it would be used for, and why.
City officials said no decision on the matter is expected for months.
"This is not an easy decision because we just don't have the facts," said Councilman Brian Braithwaite after listening to more than an hour and a half of public comment.
Council members have already voted preliminary approval to borrow up to $5 million for roads. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm warned that the consequences could be stark, and that the city might already be in a "precarious" financial position.
The majority of those who spoke on Tuesday did not take well to the lack of information, alternately pleading for and demanding transparency from the city. Other residents said the city should go forward with the undefined bond, saying it was supported by "the silent majority."
The public hearing began with a reversal. The first resident asked the mayor to please first explain "exactly the bond issue, the money available, and why you are considering it... I think there is a lot of confusion out there."
Mayor Jay Franson struggled to define "exactly the bond issue," saying the city would like to use a portion of $500,000 a year in state road money to repay the bond. When asked about using the money to build a controversial east-west corridor, Franson said only that there are "no specific strings tied to what this would be used for."
Because it was unclear what any potential debt might be used for, at times the hearing deteriorated into a debate over whether there should be an east-west corridor built in the city. Mayor Franson has said he would like the city to use some of the borrowed money for such a corridor, though no one in the city has proposed that or any other plan for the controversial bond.
Even late in the meeting, confusion reigned. Councilman Larry Mendenhall scolded the public, saying "the public perception has been that $5 million is on the table, but that has never been the case."
Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm then read an agenda from a recent meeting at which the Council voted to give preliminary approval for a bond "up to $5 million."
Schramm said she was deeply concerned over the state of the city's finances, and that her research showed the city may now be obligated to pay $1 million a month on its debt, but the sales tax and impact fees needed to make those payments are shrinking.
"I have to feel we are kind of in a precarious way," she said, detailing existing city debt that "I don't know how we are going to repay ... I'm really concerned."
In recent months the city has already obligated itself for large road projects that Schramm said she did not think were necessary, and would compete for the same money the city now proposes to use to repay any proposed bond.
To add to the confusion, the city appeared to confirm that the whole effort to gather public opinion will have to be redone months from now when the city does make some decisions about how any borrowed money for roads would be used.
Monday, March 9, 2009
From the Daily Herald Online
Pressurized irrigation bonds refinanced
Posted by: Our Towns Moderator on March 5, 2009 at 8:59PM EST
To avoid a substantial pressurized irrigation rate increase, Highland City Council voted on Tuesday to authorize the issuance of $4,300,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.This action will decrease the interest paid on the existing bond, due to lower interest rates and the city’s improved credit rating. Debt payments will decrease by almost $500,000 in the current fiscal year and by approximately $155,000 in each of the next eight years.The bond’s repayment period will also be increased by five years, which concerned some City Council members.“I really struggle to see that extending our debt five more years, even with the savings, is worth mortgaging five more years of our future,” said Councilman Brian Brunson.The original bond would have matured June 15, 2017; the bond will now mature on June 15, 2022.Without the refinancing, pressurized irrigation rates would have increased as much as 21 percent to cover additional costs of CUP water, Jordan Aqueduct (used in case of drought), and power for pumping.
Pressurized irrigation bonds refinanced
Posted by: Our Towns Moderator on March 5, 2009 at 8:59PM EST
To avoid a substantial pressurized irrigation rate increase, Highland City Council voted on Tuesday to authorize the issuance of $4,300,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.This action will decrease the interest paid on the existing bond, due to lower interest rates and the city’s improved credit rating. Debt payments will decrease by almost $500,000 in the current fiscal year and by approximately $155,000 in each of the next eight years.The bond’s repayment period will also be increased by five years, which concerned some City Council members.“I really struggle to see that extending our debt five more years, even with the savings, is worth mortgaging five more years of our future,” said Councilman Brian Brunson.The original bond would have matured June 15, 2017; the bond will now mature on June 15, 2022.Without the refinancing, pressurized irrigation rates would have increased as much as 21 percent to cover additional costs of CUP water, Jordan Aqueduct (used in case of drought), and power for pumping.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
After Protest, Highland to Hold Three More Road Meetings
Daily Herald: Our Towns Moderator
February 28, 2009 at 2:00AM EST
HIGHLAND -- After a flood of complaints about a proposed road bond, Highland is redoing a public hearing and has scheduled two more, hoping to encourage public input. On Feb. 17, about 100 residents filled City Council chambers here to voice their opposition to a proposed road bond. When one resident opened public comment by declaring the meeting illegal because the city had not met public notice requirements, city officials didn't disagree. Instead they said they would hold the meeting again.
Now council members are making good on that promise, and announcing two more road meetings besides.
Council members and planning commissioners will hold public meetings or hearings on March 11 at 7 p.m., March 17 at 7 p.m. -- at which time the city may make its final vote on the controversial road bonds -- and a third time on March 24 at 7 p.m.
It might be overkill. Or perhaps the city is trying to send a clear message to residents who accused them in recent public meetings of trying to leave the public out. In scheduling the meetings, city staff have said they want to make it absolutely clear that public input is desired.
Meanwhile, the city has asked a committee of residents to begin putting together a list of road priorities for the city. Earlier this week, that committee spent 45 minutes deciding that the city's No. 1 transportation priority should be public safety.
In considering where to spend money on roads, the committee said the city's second priority should be traffic volume, followed by "public acceptance," cost and, finally, congestion and travel delay.
"What we need to do is somehow set a priority for roads," said city staffer Matt Shipp to the committee. "There are only so many dollars to spend, obviously."
He encouraged committee members to be objective instead of subjective, but city manager Barry Edwards later argued that trying to measure and compare the public safety and public acceptance of one project over another could only be subjective.
The committee's suggested priorities could change after the public gets a chance to weigh in on them, committee members said.
"My proposal is that we be flexible and do a sanity test at the end" of determining priority projects, said committee member Kevin Pace.
Highland public meetings on road issues. All meetings will be held at City Hall, 400 W. Civic Center Drive.
• City Council Public Meeting/Work Session -- Wednesday, March 11 at 7 p.m.
• City Council Road Bond Hearing --¬ Tuesday, March 17 at 7 p.m.
• Planning Commission Public Hearing -- Tuesday, March 24 at 7 p.m.
February 28, 2009 at 2:00AM EST
HIGHLAND -- After a flood of complaints about a proposed road bond, Highland is redoing a public hearing and has scheduled two more, hoping to encourage public input. On Feb. 17, about 100 residents filled City Council chambers here to voice their opposition to a proposed road bond. When one resident opened public comment by declaring the meeting illegal because the city had not met public notice requirements, city officials didn't disagree. Instead they said they would hold the meeting again.
Now council members are making good on that promise, and announcing two more road meetings besides.
Council members and planning commissioners will hold public meetings or hearings on March 11 at 7 p.m., March 17 at 7 p.m. -- at which time the city may make its final vote on the controversial road bonds -- and a third time on March 24 at 7 p.m.
It might be overkill. Or perhaps the city is trying to send a clear message to residents who accused them in recent public meetings of trying to leave the public out. In scheduling the meetings, city staff have said they want to make it absolutely clear that public input is desired.
Meanwhile, the city has asked a committee of residents to begin putting together a list of road priorities for the city. Earlier this week, that committee spent 45 minutes deciding that the city's No. 1 transportation priority should be public safety.
In considering where to spend money on roads, the committee said the city's second priority should be traffic volume, followed by "public acceptance," cost and, finally, congestion and travel delay.
"What we need to do is somehow set a priority for roads," said city staffer Matt Shipp to the committee. "There are only so many dollars to spend, obviously."
He encouraged committee members to be objective instead of subjective, but city manager Barry Edwards later argued that trying to measure and compare the public safety and public acceptance of one project over another could only be subjective.
The committee's suggested priorities could change after the public gets a chance to weigh in on them, committee members said.
"My proposal is that we be flexible and do a sanity test at the end" of determining priority projects, said committee member Kevin Pace.
Highland public meetings on road issues. All meetings will be held at City Hall, 400 W. Civic Center Drive.
• City Council Public Meeting/Work Session -- Wednesday, March 11 at 7 p.m.
• City Council Road Bond Hearing --¬ Tuesday, March 17 at 7 p.m.
• Planning Commission Public Hearing -- Tuesday, March 24 at 7 p.m.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Highland Residents Protest Road Bond
Caleb Warnock - DAILY HERALD
Highland City Council members got an earful on Tuesday night from residents unhappy about a proposed road bond. Confusing, conflicting and clear as mud is what residents called the city's plans. City staffers said the council should borrow money because construction costs are falling.
About 100 people gathered for a public hearing, with 13 speaking against the proposed bond, and some of them speaking twice. No one spoke in favor. Protesters outside the meeting held banners reading, "No bond equals no debt."
No vote was taken on Tuesday. Mayor Jay Franson said it could be a month or more before the council votes on the issue.
The council was taken to task by residents for clear-as-mud double-speak about even the simplest information -- how much the council would like to borrow, and exactly what it would be used for.
"It makes us feel like you are not being honest or open," said one resident. Another said the city had hoodwinked residents.
"I could get into a long dialogue there but I am not going to tonight," responded Mayor Franson.
Franson parlayed with residents one by one and took the brunt of residents' displeasure. At one point Franson gestured to the council, protesting that he as mayor will not even get to vote on the proposal and that council members are the ones who need to hear residents' opinions.
Residents said the city's logic for going into debt during an economic crisis did not hold up, and that the country was in the financial mess it's in because "people have been living on credit. We have forgotten how to save."
Not only should the city wait, and avoid going into debt now, but any large debt for roads should be put to a public vote, residents said repeatedly. In addition, the roads the city proposes to spend money on would actually lead to Wal-Mart in Cedar Hills and Smith's in Lehi, further draining sales tax from Highland.
When pressed by residents about why the city doesn't simply put the matter to a vote of residents, the mayor said a vote would cost money. That response brought audible laughter from the audience. Someone asked if it would cost $1 million, a reference to city staff saying that borrowing $3.3 million for roads would cost Highland almost $900,000 in interest alone over a decade.
During the course of Tuesday's meeting, Mayor Franson added confusion to the issue by using a variety of sums. The council has already voted to begin the process of borrowing up to $5 million. If the city were to make those debt payments using just state road funds, the city would only be able to borrow $3.3 million. Franson then told residents that council members could opt to borrow $1.2 million to pay for maintenance only, and then later he said if residents forced a vote, the city could put $16 million on the ballot because that is the total amount of work currently needed in the city on roads.
Residents also said Tuesday's explanation of where the money would be spent was different from an explanation written by the mayor in a recent city newsletter. Franson responded by saying that what he wrote in the newsletter was simply "options."
Franson later apologized for the confusion, though he was pointed in saying he did not know if the confusion was the city's fault.
"We did not purposefully try to create the misconfusion, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen," he said.
After more than an hour of public comment, Councilman Brian Braithwaite said it had become clear to him that residents were not happy because the city was not being clear about how much the city wants to borrow or what it would be used on.
The city should release a list of road priorities, he said. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm agreed.
Franson said the city would communicate road priorities and costs to residents in upcoming weeks, possibly in the city newsletter.
Highland City Council members got an earful on Tuesday night from residents unhappy about a proposed road bond. Confusing, conflicting and clear as mud is what residents called the city's plans. City staffers said the council should borrow money because construction costs are falling.
About 100 people gathered for a public hearing, with 13 speaking against the proposed bond, and some of them speaking twice. No one spoke in favor. Protesters outside the meeting held banners reading, "No bond equals no debt."
No vote was taken on Tuesday. Mayor Jay Franson said it could be a month or more before the council votes on the issue.
The council was taken to task by residents for clear-as-mud double-speak about even the simplest information -- how much the council would like to borrow, and exactly what it would be used for.
"It makes us feel like you are not being honest or open," said one resident. Another said the city had hoodwinked residents.
"I could get into a long dialogue there but I am not going to tonight," responded Mayor Franson.
Franson parlayed with residents one by one and took the brunt of residents' displeasure. At one point Franson gestured to the council, protesting that he as mayor will not even get to vote on the proposal and that council members are the ones who need to hear residents' opinions.
Residents said the city's logic for going into debt during an economic crisis did not hold up, and that the country was in the financial mess it's in because "people have been living on credit. We have forgotten how to save."
Not only should the city wait, and avoid going into debt now, but any large debt for roads should be put to a public vote, residents said repeatedly. In addition, the roads the city proposes to spend money on would actually lead to Wal-Mart in Cedar Hills and Smith's in Lehi, further draining sales tax from Highland.
When pressed by residents about why the city doesn't simply put the matter to a vote of residents, the mayor said a vote would cost money. That response brought audible laughter from the audience. Someone asked if it would cost $1 million, a reference to city staff saying that borrowing $3.3 million for roads would cost Highland almost $900,000 in interest alone over a decade.
During the course of Tuesday's meeting, Mayor Franson added confusion to the issue by using a variety of sums. The council has already voted to begin the process of borrowing up to $5 million. If the city were to make those debt payments using just state road funds, the city would only be able to borrow $3.3 million. Franson then told residents that council members could opt to borrow $1.2 million to pay for maintenance only, and then later he said if residents forced a vote, the city could put $16 million on the ballot because that is the total amount of work currently needed in the city on roads.
Residents also said Tuesday's explanation of where the money would be spent was different from an explanation written by the mayor in a recent city newsletter. Franson responded by saying that what he wrote in the newsletter was simply "options."
Franson later apologized for the confusion, though he was pointed in saying he did not know if the confusion was the city's fault.
"We did not purposefully try to create the misconfusion, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen," he said.
After more than an hour of public comment, Councilman Brian Braithwaite said it had become clear to him that residents were not happy because the city was not being clear about how much the city wants to borrow or what it would be used on.
The city should release a list of road priorities, he said. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm agreed.
Franson said the city would communicate road priorities and costs to residents in upcoming weeks, possibly in the city newsletter.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Mayor Hopes for Enough $ to Finish Road
At the "illegal public hearing" held on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, Janet Wadsworth asked and received answers to two questions.
1. In his February 2009 "Highland Insider" message, Mayor Franson explained that "the revenue source that will be used to pay for this borrowed money (road bonds)" will be money the "city receives from the State of Utah known as B&C Road funds." Included in his explanation was this statement: "This is a stable revenue source that sees very little annual fluctuation."
Janet Wadsworth asked how stable the amount of this revenue source really is and whether the amount could actually go down due to economic slumps.
In response, Barry Edwards explained the formula the State uses to allocate the funds to cities. He acknowledged that the allocation was in fact down from the previous one, which means Highland will receive less money this year. He also acknowledged that it is possible that these B&C Road funds could shrink further.
2. Janet said that it is her understanding that the $4 million that Utah County has committed to Highland is specifically for building the "Murdock Connector" as a part of the widening of 4800 West, a corridor of regional significance.
She asked whether that $4 million would still be given to Highland if Highland fails to come up with the remaining dollars needed to build this connector between the Alpine Highway and 4800 West.
Mayor Franson acknowledged that the $4 million was offered only for the Murdock Connector road and could not be used for other Highland City road improvements. He also acknowledged that, if Highland City does not have enough money (when combined with the money from Utah County) to construct this road, the County's $4 million would not necessarily still be available to Highland.
1. In his February 2009 "Highland Insider" message, Mayor Franson explained that "the revenue source that will be used to pay for this borrowed money (road bonds)" will be money the "city receives from the State of Utah known as B&C Road funds." Included in his explanation was this statement: "This is a stable revenue source that sees very little annual fluctuation."
Janet Wadsworth asked how stable the amount of this revenue source really is and whether the amount could actually go down due to economic slumps.
In response, Barry Edwards explained the formula the State uses to allocate the funds to cities. He acknowledged that the allocation was in fact down from the previous one, which means Highland will receive less money this year. He also acknowledged that it is possible that these B&C Road funds could shrink further.
2. Janet said that it is her understanding that the $4 million that Utah County has committed to Highland is specifically for building the "Murdock Connector" as a part of the widening of 4800 West, a corridor of regional significance.
She asked whether that $4 million would still be given to Highland if Highland fails to come up with the remaining dollars needed to build this connector between the Alpine Highway and 4800 West.
Mayor Franson acknowledged that the $4 million was offered only for the Murdock Connector road and could not be used for other Highland City road improvements. He also acknowledged that, if Highland City does not have enough money (when combined with the money from Utah County) to construct this road, the County's $4 million would not necessarily still be available to Highland.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Franson: "No Decision Yet" But Actions Contradict
At the Highland City Council meeting held on February 17, 2009, Mayor Jay Franson was very careful to inform the attendees that a decision regarding the creation of a proposed bond of $5 million to fund repair of existing roads and the potential construction of new roads had not yet been made by our elected officials. During the comments that were made during the public appearances, there was a lot of comment regarding the inadvisability of entering into further debt at this time.
I heard no favorable comments regarding further indebtedness. Toward the end of the public appearances I made the following comments amplified somewhat by the reasoning behind them:
1) In spite of the assurances that no formal decisions on the bond had been made, we were aware of public statements regarding the creation of an east-west connector road to be referred to as the Murdock Connector which would be funded by the proposed fund.
2)That my particular neighborhood had felt "hoodwinked" as two homeowners in our subdivision had been approached by the mayor and informed that their homes and properties were to be acquired by the city in an eminent domain action to make way for this connection through the southern portion of our subdivision and that acquisition would also entail encroachment on a park owned by our homeowners association.
3) That an east-west connector road had previously been proposed approximately five years ago and had then been dismissed as unnecessary secondary to the poor development of 4800 West as a collector route. Additionally, the residents of the western portions of Highland no longer needed access to Lone Peak High School on the east, they having been diverted to American Fork High School on the south.
4) Referring to an earlier comment that sales tax revenues had suffered with the building of the Smith's Marketplace to our west, creating a direct access to the new Walmart currently being constructed in Cedar Hills might add the final nail in the coffin to Kohler's potential future non-viability and lead to further loss of city revenues.
5) That Central Park in the middle of Manhattan represented one example of a decision to allow an "inconvenience" in traffic access to trump the needs of a quick commute in favor of attractive green space.
6) That prior to inviting further debt for new road construction, the citizens of Highland and its elected officials should once again revisit the need for an east-west connector that seems to offer nothing to the citizens of Highland either now or in the future, but perhaps a great convenience at our expense to our neighboring cities who will not be traveling anywhere near our designated commercial developments as they add further wear and tear to roads we will build and have to maintain perhaps without their participation.
Inasmuch as the city council has not yet made a decision and that further input will be solicited by a meeting to be properly announced and scheduled in about a month, I would encourage the citizens of our fair city to truly ponder the need for the Murdock Connector. Let's maintain the roads we have where a clear need has been established and forgo debt where no need exists.
I heard no favorable comments regarding further indebtedness. Toward the end of the public appearances I made the following comments amplified somewhat by the reasoning behind them:
1) In spite of the assurances that no formal decisions on the bond had been made, we were aware of public statements regarding the creation of an east-west connector road to be referred to as the Murdock Connector which would be funded by the proposed fund.
2)That my particular neighborhood had felt "hoodwinked" as two homeowners in our subdivision had been approached by the mayor and informed that their homes and properties were to be acquired by the city in an eminent domain action to make way for this connection through the southern portion of our subdivision and that acquisition would also entail encroachment on a park owned by our homeowners association.
3) That an east-west connector road had previously been proposed approximately five years ago and had then been dismissed as unnecessary secondary to the poor development of 4800 West as a collector route. Additionally, the residents of the western portions of Highland no longer needed access to Lone Peak High School on the east, they having been diverted to American Fork High School on the south.
4) Referring to an earlier comment that sales tax revenues had suffered with the building of the Smith's Marketplace to our west, creating a direct access to the new Walmart currently being constructed in Cedar Hills might add the final nail in the coffin to Kohler's potential future non-viability and lead to further loss of city revenues.
5) That Central Park in the middle of Manhattan represented one example of a decision to allow an "inconvenience" in traffic access to trump the needs of a quick commute in favor of attractive green space.
6) That prior to inviting further debt for new road construction, the citizens of Highland and its elected officials should once again revisit the need for an east-west connector that seems to offer nothing to the citizens of Highland either now or in the future, but perhaps a great convenience at our expense to our neighboring cities who will not be traveling anywhere near our designated commercial developments as they add further wear and tear to roads we will build and have to maintain perhaps without their participation.
Inasmuch as the city council has not yet made a decision and that further input will be solicited by a meeting to be properly announced and scheduled in about a month, I would encourage the citizens of our fair city to truly ponder the need for the Murdock Connector. Let's maintain the roads we have where a clear need has been established and forgo debt where no need exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)