Powder Mountain Update: The Standard Examiner Sez "Compromise Appears Close"

A cursory examination of the three chief provisions of the preliminary "MOU compromise agreement," with a few offhand editorial observations of our own

We'll direct our readers' attention this morning to an informative Di Lewis writeup in this morning's Standard-Examiner, which delves into the intricacies of the Powder Mountain Memorandum of Understanding which is set for public discussion before the Weber County Commission on June 1. (We do hope you've all marked your calenders, folks.)

Ms. Lewis identifies what we consider to be the three chief provisions of this preliminary "compromise agreement," which we'll examine one by one, while spicing it up with a few offhand editorial observations of our own:

1) "The memorandum allows for 2,800 dwelling units, 1,600 more than the planning commission recommended."

According to Commissioner Dearden, the number "is down significantly from what developers wanted two years ago." Unfortunately we can't confirm the accuracy of Commissioner Dearden's statement. Our own examination of the December 10, 2007 Planning Staff Report reveals that the Powder Mountain developer (Western America Holding, LLC [WAH]) proposal initially called for the approval of "2405 dwelling units, plus 385 hotel sleeping rooms, plus 60 rooms located within 5 corporate retreats/community clubs." Whether the developer kicked up its demands during the litigation phase of negotiations we don't know; but based on the original proposed numbers, it would appear to us that the only compromising that's occurring with respect to the original "density" proposal would be on the Weber County Commission's part.

2) "To develop to full build-out, the owners would have to donate $1.35 million to the county for open land preservation."

This provision is pretty straightforward, we believe. Under terms of the Memo of Understanding (MOU), this $1.35 million "donation" would be accomplished in three phases:

I) upon completion of the 1st unit, WAH or its nominee shall donate $100,000; ii) completion of the 1000th unit, WAH or its nominee shall donate $250,000; ii) upon completion of the 2000th unit, WAH or its nominee shall donate $500,000; and iii) upon completion of the 2800th unit, WAH or its nominee shall donate $500,000.

What's obvious here is that this provision is intended as a "compromise" on the developer's part to mitigate the increased resort density, beyond the 1218 Planning Commission dwelling unit recommendation set forth in item #1 above. In a nutshell, WAH wants to do a little "horse-trading," and proposes to swap high density up-mountain for open space in the down-mountain Ogden Valley. Whether $1.35 million in compensation will be sufficient for this, we don't know. But inasmuch as the Commission is reportedly vowing to keep their ears open to lumpencitizen concerns, we're pretty sure we'll find out, on or about June 1.

3) A 1.5 percent real estate transfer fee, to be applied toward open land purchase and road improvements

As to this provision, which would impose a 1.5% fee on all real estate and condo transfers into perpetuity, and plow these funds back into roadway improvements and open space purchases, the negotiators have already run into a probable legal log-jam, as Ms. Lewis duly notes. Last legislative session the legislature passed SB 161, which for the most part banned real estate transfer fees, except in instances where the proceeds from such fees would flow directly back into the projects from which they originated.

Concerning this issue, we'll agree with Deputy County Attorney Dave Wilson: The argument that the MOU transfer fee provision falls within the permissive provisions of the new statute is pretty thin. Accordingly we have to wonder whether the legislature, which over the course of the past four years has wilfully failed to lift a finger to resolve the Powder Mountain Mess (a mess of the legislature's own creation), would deign to enact the necessary amendments to solve the problem once and for all. And failing that, would the legal impossibility of enforcing this provision be a deal breaker all its own? Keep in mind, gentle readers, that the "transfer tax provision" should be regarded as another negotiated "compromise" from WAH's point of view, inasmuch as the existence of this provision reduces the marketability of the properties within the developer's proposed project.

That's it for now gentle readers. And yes, we understand there remains a plethora of other issues, other than the three we've singled out above.

Have at it, gentle ones. Let's use Ms. Lewis's morning article to launch a further reader discussion of these issues.

Please don't forget the public hearing on June 1; and remember what Commissioner Zogmaister says:

Although Weber commissioners are hopeful a compromise can be reached between county and developers, they say public input will weigh heavily on their decision."I really am at a wait-and-see point," said Weber County Commissioner Jan Zogmaister."I've watched the whole thing progress for a couple years, so I am willing to hear it, but I also really would like to hear the input from the citizens who will be directly affected by this. ... The whole thing has been to represent the citizens in this agreement."

That's "code" folks, which means the Commission is challenging the lumpencitizens to pack the house.

Snoozers will be losers.

See's ya all in the Commission Chambers on the 1st of June. If you can't be there, please bring along an excuse here on Weber County Forum from either from your Doctor, Your Mom or Your Mortician.