Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Let Them Leave Me Alone Until I Die

City Council and RDA Notes 11.14.06 Part One

By Dian Woodhouse

Tonight's meeting dealt with so many issues that any one of them would provide a day of discussion material. Furthermore, the format of the meeting involved the Council switching back and forth from Council business to RDA business and also one closed executive session. The Peterson issue is important, I agree. But some of these other issues will have equally far-reaching effects on Ogden City. Too many issues that deserve time and coverage have been put on the back burner in order to discuss the Peterson project, and these things need coverage too.

Therefore, the first item of interest was the West 12th Street Economic Development Project Area. We have discussed this complex situation before. Fresenius is expanding, and the idea is to sell them the property which is currently used to park and maintain the school buses. A new bus facility will be built (by us,) and the school bus facility will be moved to it. We will then sell the property to Fresenius, which has been very good to us, the presentation said, in the way of investing in the area and providing jobs.

In order to make the Fresenius expansion happen, the Project Area Budget had to be amended and the Project Area itself reconfigured, which was the subject of proposed RDA Resolution 2006-16. It was stated in Dave Harmer's superior power point presentation that the state had been approached for money to help with this, which it had granted, and also that Fresenius had been talking with North Carolina about locating there. Here's where it gets tricky.

This issue required Council action authorizing the RDA to issue and sell up to $6,750,000 in tax increment revenue bonds and to allow it to purchase property. As these things required Council action, they happened in a different part of the evening's events. They all passed, by the way. What came next chronologically after the presentation was public comment.

No one from Fresenius was present.

The first speaker, a Mr. Aaron(?) stated that "What's happening is great for Utah, great for Ogden, great for everybody except those who live on Gibson Avenue." He went on to state that the residents had received a letter that informed them that their properties would undergo increased valuation, and that there was no reason at all to raise the property taxes in that area because of this Fresenius expansion. "These taxes will go up and we want to know why," he said. "We said in the Pledge of Allegiance that there will be justice. There is no justice. Will someone please explain why they are raising my taxes?"

Virginia Hernandez then spoke regarding Hispanic families in the area, and stated that "These people should be informed properly" so that they could voice their opinions.

The next speaker had lived in the area 34 years and owns two acres. She had already undergone a large tax hike, was on a fixed income, and did not want to sell her property. "I raised my children there. I like it there." Stating that she was a member of the Nature Center, she said that her property also provided habitat for birds. "I want to save that little sanctuary," she said. "(They will) mow everything down--the green is gone--Let them leave me alone until I die."

Here Mr. Harmer stated soothingly that their property taxes shouldn't be affected, that the County Assessor valued property, and that actions regarding Fresenius had nothing to do with it. Councilwoman Jeske suggested that perhaps the increase they had already seen was from another source, the School District, for instance. "The tax increase is not from us," she stated.

The public hearing closed, and there was more discussion. Councilman Stephens said that, "We need to be conscious of these individuals who are on a fixed income." and it was reiterated by Mr. Harmer that "We're not doing anything to change the tax rate."

At this point, a portion of the letter the residents had received from the city was quoted by one of the speakers. It said:

"...resulting from an increase in valuation of property within the proposed project area."

"That's us," he said.

Mr. Harmer agreed that the wording of this led one to believe that those taxes would go up because of this project, but implied that this would not be the case. Proposed Resolution #2006-16 passed. The residents and Mr. Harmer continued discussion in the hall.

A copy of the Resolution was not available. If the wording from the letter is present in the Resolution, it would follow that those residents will indeed experience an increase in their taxes as a result of this project, even though they were verbally assured that this increase would not be a result of the project.

Stay tuned.

Ed. Note: We append hereto Scott Schwebke's Standard-Examiner story of this morning, which briefly reports on last night's combined Council/RDA meeting.

We have also uploaded a digital version of last night's tabled resolution, which is available for our gentle readers' viewing via this link.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dian:

Thanks for the coverage of the non-Peterson matters. Nice to know that Mr. Peterson has not, in his silence and absence, as yet commandered the entire Council agenda.

You quote Mr. Harmer saying "We're not doing anything to change the tax rate" in response to Council conerns that the Fresenius property purchase/swap might price existing residents out of their homes via increased taxes. I don't want to split hairs here, but Mr. Harmer may have been absolutely right... they are not increasing the tax rate... and yet residents may end up paying a great deal more, because the assessed value of their property will rise [though the tax rate remains unchanged.]

Anonymous said...

You know, Curmudgeon, I think there are ways to protect these people. What comes immediately to mind is to write an exclusion in to exclude their properties from the project area. Since they received a letter that property within that area would be subject to an increased valuation, that might work. I don't know. But I don't like it when I hear things like this. It seems that these projects and decisions are constantly rolling over one person or another and in my view, that does not have to happen.

Have sent parts 2 & 3 of report to Blogmeister.

Anonymous said...

I think its real good that the council tabled the resolution. Maybe their common sense instincts somehow kicked in last nite.

The overly-eager lumps in Ogden City Government who are scurrying around like a bunch of cretin lab-rats looking for "the Big Score" should realize the THE FRUMP (Peterson) hasn't laid anything at all on the table. I emphasize "at all."

Here we have these city bureaucRATS scurrying around, proposing plans upon plans and devoting serious money to "independant studies" for proposals that have never even been submitted.

Too weird.

Take a lesson from the local real estate community which universally says:

"Make me an offer; then we'll discuss it."

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'm just a wee bit confused -- the neighbors were complaining because the value of the property is going up? I could use a little more of that action on my bank account which seems to abide by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But the slight confusion aside about why you wouldn't in general want to see your property appreciate (as opposed to stagnate or deginerate), a little clarification is in order.

Weber County assesses and collects real property tax. The value of the property is based on the assessed value by the county, which is ostensibly based on fair market value. Title 59, Section 2 of the Utah Code has all the legal goodies. The appropriate response is to dispute any new values with the County's Board of Equalization.

Anonymous said...

Upon looking at the Salt Lake Tribune, I see that yet another step has been taken regarding a harmonious relationship between the Ogden City Council and the Administration.

Council Chairman Jesse Garcia appealed this week to the multicounty Wasatch Front Regional Council to keep the route on its long-range transportation plan.
Garcia sent the letter Monday to counter what he believes Godfrey told the regional council - that the gondola will take care of transit needs between downtown and WSU.
"We don't know if this thing [gondola] is going to be a go," he said. "We don't even have a proposal on it yet..."

..."This just underscores they [council members] don't know how the process works," Godfrey said Tuesday. "It isn't a matter of wishing for a project to be on or off."
Sam Klemm, spokesman for the regional council, said that Godfrey scratched out the route and wrote the words "gondola can serve" on a map during a meeting this fall in which recommendations were being sought.
Godfrey said his words were not necessarily meant to convey his preference, but only point to an alternative that residents should consider as they look at future transportation options...


Ogden council worries gondola fever could divert long-range plans
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune

Anonymous said...

I applaud Council Chairman Jesse Garcia for protecting our options and our funding of those options should a real mass transit system be built between the Frontrunner train station and Weber State University.

I have heard our mayor acknowledge that the gondola system is NOT a mass transit system but rather he’s called it a marketing tool when trying to justify its cost and viability and then flip on this issue when pressed on the redundancy that this system would create if operated in conjunction with a mass transit system. This is why he’s come up with a new route and non-specific destinations for his suggested mass transit corridor. A new route that doesn’t compete with his gondola system to WSU (and not the hospital). He knows that both system can’t co-exist and he expect us to accept a marketing gimmick rather than a real solution. Utah Transit Authority, UTA, whom I think knows a lot more about mass transit than our mayor, has indicated that the best initial corridor for mass transit in Ogden is from the Frontrunner station to WSU and they’ll financially participate in a real system (and not in the gondola system).

I personally am not opposed to a different routing from the one that has been suggested but the origination point and the destination should be the same, the hospital and WSU.

The mayor argues that the rest of Weber County will not support a tax increase for mass transit if it’s only located within Ogden. I wonder if the mayor has ever stopped to think of how many students from cities, other than Ogden within Weber County, attend WSU or how many new student would attend the university if they could commute to and from on a real mass transit system. If I were a parent in a surrounding Weber County community that had a college bound student, I would find this a real plus.

People realize that mass transit is a good thing for their communities and for the future of their communities. People also realize that the first system has to start somewhere even if it’s not going to initially serve them directly. People realize that the establishment of an initial system will lead to a more extensive system in the future that will provide service to their areas down the road.

People will support additional mass transit taxes knowing that it’s just the start. Just look at what SLC taxpayers did with TRAX. I can assure you that there are a lot and I mean a lot more people not served by TRAX at this time in SLC than those that are served and yet SLC was able to get the peoples to support the additional tax. That’s because people are smarter than our mayor give us or the rest of Weber County residents credit for.

We need a mayor with vision not blinders.

I want to thank Council Chairman Garcia again for having the tenacity to represent the best interests of the residents of Ogden.

Anonymous said...

I've gone back thru several threads and can't find the time for the Mount Ogden Neighborhood Meeting tomorrow. Anyone know the time? Thanx.

Superb job of reporting, Dian!

Anonymous said...

Sharon:

Seven PM.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Curm.

Anonymous said...

People, Chairman Garcia represents the Council. As Chair, it is his signature that is on everything, but he has NO AUTHORITY to act on his own. Let's give credit where credit is due: other Council members were aware of the Mayor's request to the Wasatch Front Council. I saw and talked to Councilwoman Jeske at the open house held by the WFC. I am always so relieved to see her at so many of the meetings that have an impact on our community. She told me that she had called Bill Cook and asked that the Council discuss a letter to the WFC. Mr. Cook told her that Mr. Garcia had also made such a request. We are lucky to have such conscientious Council members representing us.

Anonymous said...

Amen and Amen!!

Anonymous said...

It ain't just Ogden, folks....

From today's LA Times: [Friday 17 Nov]:

$2-billion downtown overhaul in the red
Developers say they need tax aid before starting the Grand Avenue project.
By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
November 17, 2006

The ambitious effort to remake downtown's Grand Avenue into a $2-billion cultural and retail hub designed by Frank Gehry is over budget and behind schedule, with the developers saying the project "is not economically feasible" without tax breaks from the city, according to documents obtained Thursday.

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved