"The commission will also hold a public hearing during its regular April 9 meeting regarding a conditional-use permit for" [the related] "Summit at Powder Mountain Phase 1, which consists of a 154-unit residential development," the Standard-Examiner story also inexplicably reports, possibly in part to placate any irate Weber County citizens who might still feel miffed about being cut out of the discussion on the bonding matter.
As a whole however, the S-E's Jesus Lopez, Jr. hits all the major points and provides his S-E readership with an efficient, informative and reassuring writeup, which also dovetails nicely with our own earlier WCF Nutshell Summary, wethinks.
We remain unhappy with the Commission's troubling lapses regarding a troubling lack of pre-vote public information and comment, which launched some Weber County citizens off in a tizzy over the past few days. Nevertheless, as we've previously said, we regard this bond measure as benign to Weber County taxpayer interests. So at this late date we'll somewhat begrudgingly resolve to "chalk it all up," by invoking the old, tried-and-true sports axiom: "No harm; no foul," we suppose.
Having said that of course, we're still hoping that the Commissioners will yield to the highest principles of open government from this point on, and invite the lumpencitizens of Weber County into the information loop, well prior to putting its next multi-million dollar bonding deal on the table.
Hopefully Commissioners Bell, Gibson and Zogmaister will "write this latter advice down so they don't forget it," in the interest of avoiding any similar future bouts of painful Weber County taxpayer heartburn, if you know what we mean; and we think you do....
And what say YOU about all this, folks?
7 comments:
Weber county taxpayers are partners in the $22.5M bond to finace projects at Powder Mountain. Will Weber County have a representative to speak out for the taxpayers in making financial decisions involving the bond?
That task will joint responsibility of the the Weber County Assessor, Clerk-Auditor and Treasurer , BR.
Pray for snow! Twenty years of it.....
At the meeting with PM people on Monday night, managing partner Greg Mauro clearly stated that it would be a $17.5MM bond issue. After one Commission meeting it increased by over 28% to $22.5MM. But there was nothing in the SE or WCF write ups about the increase. Can we get some input on this?
According to information I received Monday Morning from County Assessor
John Bond, who's been working behind the scenes on this project,
the parties were still working on details, including the final loan amount, so it's reasonable to assume, I believe, that the final figure reflects last-minute calculations.
One more interesting twist: Although County officials are issuing this bond for a 20-year amortization, they actually anticipate that the assessment which they're charging to the Summit Group property owners (and assigns) will be sufficient to retire the bond in 15 years.
In that case, pray for snow. Fifteen years of it.
And be sure to direct those prayers to ULLR, Nordic snow-god, Bob:
Urban Dictionary: ULLR
;-)
Post a Comment