Friends and Neighbors,
A number of you have indicated that you would be willing to support some sort of legal activity to stop this tax abuse we are being subjected too.
I have spoken with two attorneys. One in SLC who is still thinking about strategies how best to approach our unique situation. The other I just got off the phone with (Jack Helgesen-Layton Office 544-5306) has suggested we get together enough money to hire a para-legal or investigator to investigate what has transpired. He needs a legal basis to file an injunction.
The investigator would look into if and when "Truth in Taxation" meetings were held by the School District and the County Commissioners. How were any such meetings advertised and how were we notified if any? Where these meetings were held if any were in fact held? Were the State Tax Commission procedures and processes followed properly? Who actually did the assessments and how were they qualified and trained? How were the assessment results, submitted in May, quality controlled and checked and by whom? What is the Weber County Budget? Why the lopsided assessments? Why low on the East side and more than 100% on the West side for example.
These and more questions need answers. Jack suggests an investigator (unless there is someone among us who can get all this information ourselves) perhaps could gather all this information. His estimate of the cost is around $500 to collect the facts he would need in order to decide whether an injunction can be filed based upon something done illegally.
So there you have it. If I can have anyone willing to donate $100 or more to this effort please send a return email of intent. If I see there is enough I can collect come time to pay the bill I will give the go ahead to Jack to get started. Guess its put up time...
D-Bell
Friday, August 31, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Class Action Lawsuit
Huntsville Town and Ogden Valley Residents,
As I ponder our shared predicament and search for emergency help after the predictable failure of the Commissioners and Assessors to listen and act Wednesday night, I am thinking we should join hands and form a Class Action Lawsuit against the County Commissioners and Assessors. It would halt this preposterous tax robbery and give time for organizational opposition to continued tax abuse. It would give us all in this State the chance to demand Jarvis-Gaan, Proposition 13 type legislation to protect unwilling sellers from gross tax abuse and enable retired fixed income home owners to remain in their communities and live in the homes they have sacrificed so much for. A Class Action lawsuit would be only a temporary fix with the same crowd coming after us again next year as promised by Mr. Doug Larson in response to Max's question.
I have a couple of friends who live in the high and rarefied air of Elk Horn subdivision at Wolf Creek and another who lives in a townhouse at Moose Hollow.
Now get this...the Elk Horn couple, with a home taxable assessed at $355,465 this year, had only a 34% increase and when their tax rate is applied only a 22% property tax increase.
The widow living in a showcase Town house is only tax-ably assessed at $234,628 both for 2006 AND 2007!? That is a zero percent assessed value increase and a minus (-) nine (9) percent DECREASE in taxes when the two different year mil levy's are applied.
Now for the most significant point. For these two properties (generalized to all similar in that area) the Certified Tax Rate was .012271 in 2006 and actually LOWER as compared to Huntsville's .01328 tax rate (a difference of .001009). And this year the Elk Horn and Wolf Creek, a high activity sales area compared to Huntsville Town, again has a much lower assessed taxable market value increase rate (34% versus Huntsville's 100%) AND get this! AGAIN a lower certified tax rate (.011703 for Huntsville and .011147 for the Wolf Creek - Elk Horn subdivisions.
Commissioner Dearden said at Wednesday's "Informational Meeting" before almost one thousand (1,000) of us, "We already gave Huntsville a 43% rate reduction." This just might be the truth and the assessor computer just never had the correct tax rate (2006 .01328) properly decreased by 43% to .0075696 instead of the .011703 actually used throughout the entire postal address of 84317. Nothing was granted to Huntsville Town in-spite of all the services we already provide ourselves; water, security/police, fire protection, roads and maintenance, snow removal, etc. Huntsville Town proper was in fact double taxed when these factors are considered.
Now folks this all sounds like very small numbers. But when you consider that currently Huntsville Town residential parcels alone are being tax assessed at a minimum aggregate of $47,362,131 taxable assessments. Actual taxes, based upon the .011703 CTR come to a minimum of $554,279. We should be taxed at Commissioner Dearden's .0075696 CTR, or $358,512...well you can see it makes a significant difference. A $195,767 tax difference.
Let me put it in personal terms. A Huntsville widow, we'll call her "Shirley", has the following actual situation:
2006 taxably 2007 taxably 2006 tax 2007 tax
assessed assessed @.01328 mils @.011703 mils
$75,632 $164,725 (a 117.8% increase) $1004 $1,928 (a 91.9% increase)
Now if "Shirley" were taxed using Commissioner Dearden's 43% decrease in tax rate, as he said was "already given to Huntsville" in front of a thousand people (estimated), Shirley would see a Property Tax Notice saying she owed $164,725 X .0075696 mils or $1,252 instead of the $1,928 Property Tax bill. A savings of $676 or a grocery budget for a family for an entire month. A property tax increase of 24.7% is still too high but relatively speaking - not outrageous. And it is at least in-line with fair and equitable taxation policy mandated by State Law.
I'm sorry gentle folks, but this whole assessment picture is so perverted and upside down I have to think it is time for a class action lawsuit against the Weber County Commissioners and Tax Assessor's Office, unless they recant and back off to something reasonable and damn quick! Outrageous does not describe what we are seeing and hearing from these people. A Class Action lawsuit would put a halt on this whole situation and might even require the County to actually have to pay many a refund for 2006 when and if a fair and equatable tax rate structure and assessments are ever required by court order.
So what say you attorney's out there? McKay, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Goff what is your pro bono opinion on this? And don't send me a freak'in bill either as I have to save up for unexpected taxes!
Regards,
D-Bell
dkbell266@yahoo.com
As I ponder our shared predicament and search for emergency help after the predictable failure of the Commissioners and Assessors to listen and act Wednesday night, I am thinking we should join hands and form a Class Action Lawsuit against the County Commissioners and Assessors. It would halt this preposterous tax robbery and give time for organizational opposition to continued tax abuse. It would give us all in this State the chance to demand Jarvis-Gaan, Proposition 13 type legislation to protect unwilling sellers from gross tax abuse and enable retired fixed income home owners to remain in their communities and live in the homes they have sacrificed so much for. A Class Action lawsuit would be only a temporary fix with the same crowd coming after us again next year as promised by Mr. Doug Larson in response to Max's question.
I have a couple of friends who live in the high and rarefied air of Elk Horn subdivision at Wolf Creek and another who lives in a townhouse at Moose Hollow.
Now get this...the Elk Horn couple, with a home taxable assessed at $355,465 this year, had only a 34% increase and when their tax rate is applied only a 22% property tax increase.
The widow living in a showcase Town house is only tax-ably assessed at $234,628 both for 2006 AND 2007!? That is a zero percent assessed value increase and a minus (-) nine (9) percent DECREASE in taxes when the two different year mil levy's are applied.
Now for the most significant point. For these two properties (generalized to all similar in that area) the Certified Tax Rate was .012271 in 2006 and actually LOWER as compared to Huntsville's .01328 tax rate (a difference of .001009). And this year the Elk Horn and Wolf Creek, a high activity sales area compared to Huntsville Town, again has a much lower assessed taxable market value increase rate (34% versus Huntsville's 100%) AND get this! AGAIN a lower certified tax rate (.011703 for Huntsville and .011147 for the Wolf Creek - Elk Horn subdivisions.
Commissioner Dearden said at Wednesday's "Informational Meeting" before almost one thousand (1,000) of us, "We already gave Huntsville a 43% rate reduction." This just might be the truth and the assessor computer just never had the correct tax rate (2006 .01328) properly decreased by 43% to .0075696 instead of the .011703 actually used throughout the entire postal address of 84317. Nothing was granted to Huntsville Town in-spite of all the services we already provide ourselves; water, security/police, fire protection, roads and maintenance, snow removal, etc. Huntsville Town proper was in fact double taxed when these factors are considered.
Now folks this all sounds like very small numbers. But when you consider that currently Huntsville Town residential parcels alone are being tax assessed at a minimum aggregate of $47,362,131 taxable assessments. Actual taxes, based upon the .011703 CTR come to a minimum of $554,279. We should be taxed at Commissioner Dearden's .0075696 CTR, or $358,512...well you can see it makes a significant difference. A $195,767 tax difference.
Let me put it in personal terms. A Huntsville widow, we'll call her "Shirley", has the following actual situation:
2006 taxably 2007 taxably 2006 tax 2007 tax
assessed assessed @.01328 mils @.011703 mils
$75,632 $164,725 (a 117.8% increase) $1004 $1,928 (a 91.9% increase)
Now if "Shirley" were taxed using Commissioner Dearden's 43% decrease in tax rate, as he said was "already given to Huntsville" in front of a thousand people (estimated), Shirley would see a Property Tax Notice saying she owed $164,725 X .0075696 mils or $1,252 instead of the $1,928 Property Tax bill. A savings of $676 or a grocery budget for a family for an entire month. A property tax increase of 24.7% is still too high but relatively speaking - not outrageous. And it is at least in-line with fair and equitable taxation policy mandated by State Law.
I'm sorry gentle folks, but this whole assessment picture is so perverted and upside down I have to think it is time for a class action lawsuit against the Weber County Commissioners and Tax Assessor's Office, unless they recant and back off to something reasonable and damn quick! Outrageous does not describe what we are seeing and hearing from these people. A Class Action lawsuit would put a halt on this whole situation and might even require the County to actually have to pay many a refund for 2006 when and if a fair and equatable tax rate structure and assessments are ever required by court order.
So what say you attorney's out there? McKay, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Goff what is your pro bono opinion on this? And don't send me a freak'in bill either as I have to save up for unexpected taxes!
Regards,
D-Bell
dkbell266@yahoo.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
TAX REVOLT
Synopsis by D-Bell, Huntsville -- Complete article below
From 14 August, "Davis Clipper", "Tax Revolt", report by Melinda Williams,
Synopsis:
"Truth-in-taxation" meeting, Farmington, mostly senior citizens attended. One said perhaps because younger taxpayers were working overtime or second jobs to pay for their milk and taxes.
Dec., Davis County Commission passed a $7 million tax increase for its 07 budget of $87 million. D-Bell's comments in italics and bold font; (Why does Weber County have a 100+ million dollar budget?)
Many residents were adamant their houses couldn't sell for what the assessed valuation is.
"Some of those attending threatened to vote the commissioners out at the next election if they didn't do something about the spiraling tax hikes, and others said things will reach a point where taxpayers will form a grass roots movement to pass a Proposition 14-type initiative."
- Bountiful City council member Moss said it was unfair that residents saw a 40 percent increase in property tax, while the rest of the county saw a 20 percent increase, with no increase to commercial and industrial land.
Suggestion to commissioners - they roll back property values to last year's. Barring that he suggested property taxes in the other cities be brought up so the tax rate will do down.
(Bountiful saw a 40% increase...and they are upset. What about the Ogden Valley and Huntsville in particular? At more than 100%? After further review of Huntsville resident's property assessments, there are at minimum 59 out of 245 parcels looked at which are simply preposterous. Vacant lots claimed as a primary residence, 1.5 acre lot with a tumble down cider block shed as a primary residence, commercial properties as a primary residences and un-reassessed, many vacation and vacant homes all claimed as primary residences to get the 45% discount rate, creative land parceling to evade taxes, inappropriate claims of argi. FAA land on .3 acre parcels, GROSS assessment disparities between very similar homes, .75 acre lots with wild gyrations in assessed values, the list goes on and on. This has prompted several residents to ask if the assessor's have been drug tested...seriously. A thorough and competent audit and reassessment is definitely in order! And if Huntsville Town is a valid sample of the effectiveness with which the County Assessor did her job the entire County needs a redo. After State Tax Commission training and drug testing of course...) There are no doubt several within the assessor's office who are competent and honorable people...they just apparently did not work much on the Huntsville Town assessments apparently.
Throw out the baby and the bath water and start all over again this time doing it in the proper order and with the correct assumptions. Obviously no true valuations can be made out of thin air with no "comps" valid and no sufficient sales data for Huntsville Town. This clearly required. D-Bell
Article in its entirety
Tax revolt!
Melinda Williams
14.AUG.07FARMINGTON —
“Don’t burn Joan of Arc yet; we were elected to help find answers.” Saying tax collection is a painful thing, Davis County Commissioner Louenda Downs told an irate crowd at a truth-in-taxation hearing here Thursday night to reserve judgment. More than 300 people — mainly senior citizens — stayed well past the 8 p.m. ending time scheduled for that hearing, in an un-air conditioned Farmington Junior High, to rail against tax hikes which hit those on fixed incomes particularly hard.
Sherry Brophy of Layton told the commissioners that perhaps there were few younger taxpayers in attendance, because, “they are either working overtime or second jobs to pay for their milk and taxes.”
Most attending were upset about the recent revaluation of homes in Bountiful, which caused their taxes to skyrocket but people from Sunset to North Salt Lake joined to tell commissioners they can no longer make ends meet and pay a host of other taxes as well.
In December, the (Davis) county commission passed a $7 million tax increase for its 2007 budget of $87 million.
County officials explained where that $7 million went: $4 million for jail operation and maintenance, and another $3 million for flood prevention and senior services.
Those remarks prompted those attending to respond. One man who said his property taxes were rising at such a rate that perhaps the jail would be the only place he could afford to live, another commented about school district taxes (which the commissioners have no control over) building a Taj Mahal of a high school in Syracuse.
When Downs tried to explain that high property values were tied to the booming real estate market, she was contradicted by Centerville resident Gordon Tyler, who pointed out that recent news reports indicated mortgage companies are filing bankruptcies and sales are falling.
Many attendees were adamant their houses couldn't sell for what the assessed valuation says they are worth.
Kaysville resident Maynard Morris suggested the commissioners, who make $100,000 each yearly, cut their pay in half, He said, “It looks like we rent our home. We don’t own our home, we rent it (from the county).”
Some of those attending threatened to vote the commissioners out at the next election if they didn’t do something about the spiraling tax hikes, and others said things will reach a point where taxpayers will form a grass roots movement to pass a Proposition 13-type initiative. Proposition 13 was passed by California voters in 1978 and put a cap on the amount of property tax which could be levied.
Bountiful resident Chuck Swallow said he received a 3 percent raise increase at his job, but received a 28.5 increase in his property tax.
He accused the commissioners of paying lip service to angry taxpayers. “You folks have made up your minds on what you’re going to do. You just called this meeting to blow off steam.”
He told commissioners that the idea of a taxpayer revolt as in Proposition 13 is real. “You don’t want that. We don’t want that, but we will do it.”
Both Bountiful City council member Fred Moss and city manager Tom Hardy voiced their disapproval, representing residents of the city hit hardest by the tax hike.
Moss said it was unfair that Bountiful residents saw a 40 percent increase in property tax, while the rest of the county saw a 20 percent increase, with no increase to commercial and industrial land. “You’ve been asking us to pay more than our fair share for five years,” he said.
Indications were the majority of those in attendance were Bountiful residents, prompting Hardy to say, “I think this tells you where the problem is.”
He suggested the commissioners roll back property values to last year’s. Barring that he suggested property taxes in the other cities be brought up so the tax rate will go down.
Commissioners voted to wait two weeks before deciding what to do about taxes.
mwilliams@davisclipper.com
From 14 August, "Davis Clipper", "Tax Revolt", report by Melinda Williams,
Synopsis:
"Truth-in-taxation" meeting, Farmington, mostly senior citizens attended. One said perhaps because younger taxpayers were working overtime or second jobs to pay for their milk and taxes.
Dec., Davis County Commission passed a $7 million tax increase for its 07 budget of $87 million. D-Bell's comments in italics and bold font; (Why does Weber County have a 100+ million dollar budget?)
Many residents were adamant their houses couldn't sell for what the assessed valuation is.
"Some of those attending threatened to vote the commissioners out at the next election if they didn't do something about the spiraling tax hikes, and others said things will reach a point where taxpayers will form a grass roots movement to pass a Proposition 14-type initiative."
- Bountiful City council member Moss said it was unfair that residents saw a 40 percent increase in property tax, while the rest of the county saw a 20 percent increase, with no increase to commercial and industrial land.
Suggestion to commissioners - they roll back property values to last year's. Barring that he suggested property taxes in the other cities be brought up so the tax rate will do down.
(Bountiful saw a 40% increase...and they are upset. What about the Ogden Valley and Huntsville in particular? At more than 100%? After further review of Huntsville resident's property assessments, there are at minimum 59 out of 245 parcels looked at which are simply preposterous. Vacant lots claimed as a primary residence, 1.5 acre lot with a tumble down cider block shed as a primary residence, commercial properties as a primary residences and un-reassessed, many vacation and vacant homes all claimed as primary residences to get the 45% discount rate, creative land parceling to evade taxes, inappropriate claims of argi. FAA land on .3 acre parcels, GROSS assessment disparities between very similar homes, .75 acre lots with wild gyrations in assessed values, the list goes on and on. This has prompted several residents to ask if the assessor's have been drug tested...seriously. A thorough and competent audit and reassessment is definitely in order! And if Huntsville Town is a valid sample of the effectiveness with which the County Assessor did her job the entire County needs a redo. After State Tax Commission training and drug testing of course...) There are no doubt several within the assessor's office who are competent and honorable people...they just apparently did not work much on the Huntsville Town assessments apparently.
Throw out the baby and the bath water and start all over again this time doing it in the proper order and with the correct assumptions. Obviously no true valuations can be made out of thin air with no "comps" valid and no sufficient sales data for Huntsville Town. This clearly required. D-Bell
Article in its entirety
Tax revolt!
Melinda Williams
14.AUG.07FARMINGTON —
“Don’t burn Joan of Arc yet; we were elected to help find answers.” Saying tax collection is a painful thing, Davis County Commissioner Louenda Downs told an irate crowd at a truth-in-taxation hearing here Thursday night to reserve judgment. More than 300 people — mainly senior citizens — stayed well past the 8 p.m. ending time scheduled for that hearing, in an un-air conditioned Farmington Junior High, to rail against tax hikes which hit those on fixed incomes particularly hard.
Sherry Brophy of Layton told the commissioners that perhaps there were few younger taxpayers in attendance, because, “they are either working overtime or second jobs to pay for their milk and taxes.”
Most attending were upset about the recent revaluation of homes in Bountiful, which caused their taxes to skyrocket but people from Sunset to North Salt Lake joined to tell commissioners they can no longer make ends meet and pay a host of other taxes as well.
In December, the (Davis) county commission passed a $7 million tax increase for its 2007 budget of $87 million.
County officials explained where that $7 million went: $4 million for jail operation and maintenance, and another $3 million for flood prevention and senior services.
Those remarks prompted those attending to respond. One man who said his property taxes were rising at such a rate that perhaps the jail would be the only place he could afford to live, another commented about school district taxes (which the commissioners have no control over) building a Taj Mahal of a high school in Syracuse.
When Downs tried to explain that high property values were tied to the booming real estate market, she was contradicted by Centerville resident Gordon Tyler, who pointed out that recent news reports indicated mortgage companies are filing bankruptcies and sales are falling.
Many attendees were adamant their houses couldn't sell for what the assessed valuation says they are worth.
Kaysville resident Maynard Morris suggested the commissioners, who make $100,000 each yearly, cut their pay in half, He said, “It looks like we rent our home. We don’t own our home, we rent it (from the county).”
Some of those attending threatened to vote the commissioners out at the next election if they didn’t do something about the spiraling tax hikes, and others said things will reach a point where taxpayers will form a grass roots movement to pass a Proposition 13-type initiative. Proposition 13 was passed by California voters in 1978 and put a cap on the amount of property tax which could be levied.
Bountiful resident Chuck Swallow said he received a 3 percent raise increase at his job, but received a 28.5 increase in his property tax.
He accused the commissioners of paying lip service to angry taxpayers. “You folks have made up your minds on what you’re going to do. You just called this meeting to blow off steam.”
He told commissioners that the idea of a taxpayer revolt as in Proposition 13 is real. “You don’t want that. We don’t want that, but we will do it.”
Both Bountiful City council member Fred Moss and city manager Tom Hardy voiced their disapproval, representing residents of the city hit hardest by the tax hike.
Moss said it was unfair that Bountiful residents saw a 40 percent increase in property tax, while the rest of the county saw a 20 percent increase, with no increase to commercial and industrial land. “You’ve been asking us to pay more than our fair share for five years,” he said.
Indications were the majority of those in attendance were Bountiful residents, prompting Hardy to say, “I think this tells you where the problem is.”
He suggested the commissioners roll back property values to last year’s. Barring that he suggested property taxes in the other cities be brought up so the tax rate will go down.
Commissioners voted to wait two weeks before deciding what to do about taxes.
mwilliams@davisclipper.com
Friday, August 10, 2007
TAX facts and opinions to consider
Provided by D-Bell
Residents of Huntsville Town, I have gathered these facts and summarized them from area newspapers as referenced. Thanks go to Carl and Sharon Downing for providing the news copy to me. It is my belief that the better informed we all are the more we can glean the truth from the upcoming Taxation Meetings to be held at the Library (update Sat. 11 August. Because of the interest the meeting has been moved to the Junior High [Snow crest] bring your cushions for the bleachers…) between six and nine o’clock Wednesday evening. This meeting was arranged by Ruston McKay and Mayor McKay left a message saying he discussed the meeting with Commissioner Dearden and he will be in attendance.
In order to not allow a mere “Group Therapy Session” where they tell us basic information we already know and take questions from us so we will “feel better” having voiced our opinions; the following is a condensation of some facts we all should be aware of going into that meeting. And they may also be helpful when you (hopefully all in Town appeal your property tax assessments and taxes at the Board of Equalization, date and time TBA. The “opinions” are my own with which you may or may not agree.
I hope you all have signed both the Huntsville Town and the Ogden Valley the petition as well. And that you encourage your friends and neighbors to also sign it. We need to stand arm-in-arm and shoulder-to-shoulder against this tax abuse for yet a second year in a row. It is past time for a Town, Valley, County, and Statewide tax revolt and it just as soon start here in our beloved and proud little Town as any place else.
Scott Layton has an interesting story about Indianapolis having a stand-in around the Governor’s Mansion and a Tea Party which produced results. Mr. Goff has an interesting story about Oregon having a similar tax payer’s revolt, as have many other States. Oregon voters forced taxing authorities to retreat to 1996 property assessments. Using 1996 as a base; taxing agencies are only allowed a maximum of two and one-half (2.5%) percent increases per year.
We are in desperate need of such legislation. And only you and I can force it upon legislators that “go along to get along” or tax and spend liberals hiding out as “conservative” Republicans. Let us all make it clear to them in the many ways it apparently takes to get their attention. Otherwise we will be taxed out of this Valley and out of this State leaving nothing but vacation and resort homes in our wake. It is up to you and me to protect so many on retired incomes we love in our community that can no longer be up and about. They gave so much to us - let us return the favor.
Facts from Desert Morning News, page D14, July 23, 2007: “Utah home prices rise…but number of homes sold drops, notably in S.L. and Utah counties”
(Synopsis)
-Housing prices continued to rise in Utah in second quarter 2007. But number of homes sold dropped.
Salt Lake and Utah Counties 19% decrease in units sold compared to same 3-month period in 2006. (Report by SL Board of Realtors)
Davis saw a decrease of 16.1 % and Weber County 8.2% drop.
Median Salt Lake County home price $254K, a 15.5% increase over 2nd quarter of 2006.
Utah County median home value increased 19.9 % ($245K).
Weber County:
City Units Sold Median Price Percent Change
Roy 219 $167,000 14.0%
Eden 13 $400,000 (-5.9%)
Hooper 31 $259,500 18.5%
Huntsville (the Zip Code
NOT our Town) 8 $386,500 (-38.9%)
Marriott/Slaterville 166 $113,800 (-4.8%)
South Ogden 184 $135,000 1.9%
Farr West 317 $148,000 18.0%
Riverdale 98 $175,000 1.5%
North Ogden 123 $233,436 22.9%
The Salt Lake Tribune, page E-1, July 21, 2007: “Home-for Sale signs stack up”
Synopsis:
Same data as above. Except
For Zip Code 84317 :
Huntsville blank blank *
*Area had too few sales
“Weber County logged the smallest gain in selling prices, 12 % to $160,000”.
The Standard Examiner, Page 2A, August 7, 2007, “Utah’s increase in property values highest in nation.” Ogden-Clearfield area ranks at No. 5 nationally, by Loretta Park
Synopsis
Layton-Utah residents are dealing with the highest increase in property values nationally, according to a memo to Utah legislators.
With that increase, residents are also seeing unexpected increases in property taxes.
Utah has experienced a 17% increase in home values from the first quarter in 2006 to the first quarter in 2007, according to an Aug. 1 memo from the Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel.
That puts Utah in the No. 1 slot nationally for property value increases.
*(Huntsville Town assessed taxable property increased 116.45%, our Town property taxes increased by 90.74%, from D-Bell’s data collected from the Weber County Assessor Website, 9 August 07. http://otgweb.co.weber.ut.us/gis/2002/include/psearch/psearch.asp
Nationally, the average increase is a 4.3%, according to a report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
The counsel used the report to help explain to legislators why property taxes are increasing statewide, said Bryant Howe, assistant director of the Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel.
The report also listed the top 20 metropolitan areas with highest rate of house appreciation during that same period. It places the Ogden-Clearfield area a No. 5 nationally, with homes appreciating at 15.7 % in the past year.
*(Huntsville Town, 116.45 %!, from D-Bell’s analysis of Weber County Tax assessment data off their public Website.)
The Provo-Orem area was listed nationally at No 2, with homes increasing in value at 19.76 % and Salt Lake City listed at No.3 with homes increasing in value at 19.12 %.
(This is almost laughable if it weren’t true. Fellow Huntsvillians we have the highest rate of taxable assessed property and taxes in the Country according to Weber County’s own tax records.)
Appreciation rates:
States with the greatest rate of appreciation between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007:
Utah: 17%
Idaho; 12.3%
Montana: 11.7%
Wyoming: 11.7%
Washington: 11.6%
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
More Tax questions, facts, thoughts and opinions:
Why property assessments and taxes recently announced are bogus
(D-Bell’s thoughts. Add your own- help your neighbor)
-Get a CMA (Certified Market Analysis) from a Realtor. It is free and required for an appeal whether or not appropriate or accurate given our unique local situation. Call 801-476-4216 and ask for an agency which provides CMAs to potential customers. Hint: one with local Huntsville ties is able to help best.
-After your agent visits and gives you the information decide your basis for an Appeal (see listing on the “Request for Review of Real Property market Value” included with your tax notice.
-Checkmark the appropriate numbers and then add any written comments you might feel is the truth referencing the checked numerical basis’ for appeal.
-The Board of Equalization will very likely feel besieged by applications so less is more. Be succinct and brief. Use bullet format where possible. They will likely appreciate it and look more favorably at it for approval.
(I would provide more if I had ever done this before. If any of you have, please add your advice to help a neighbor.)
Thoughts/ideas:
-Commissioners pledged tax increases less than 20% for the lower valley and less than 30% for the Ogden Valley. Ninety-one percent (91%) aggregate for the Town is Draconian, (your individual % increase may well be significantly higher. Call me (745-1419) if you need help with this calculation).
-If asked what you think your property is worth say, “Last year’s increase topped the actual market value…or hit close, if you think that is correct. And then give a reasonable dollar amount. Have that number in your head.
-Assessors are supposed to: use comparable home sales within the past two years. Inside Huntsville Town this does not seem possible given the low sales recently as acknowledged by the Salt Lake Tribune article (above). Local properties in foreclosure or for sale which have not moved in ten months or more are an indication of a previous inflated market.
-Why “comps” from ZIP code 84317 (outside Huntsville Town limits) when property owners within Town already separately pay for these services and more?
-Snow removal
-Public street lighting
-Public Safety/security/Police
-Fire protection
-Road maintenance
-Basic infrastructure
*Services the County must provide to Valley and County residents
-We are already paying for all these services.
-Huntsville Town residents should be taxed far less rather than the same as or more than residences outside Town limits.
-Why are ski resorts exempt from taxes? Why when every time a UDOT snow plough goes up to Powder Mountain or Snow Basin it cost us residents at least $500 a trip? Why are we being dunned for others to use our “lovely little sand box”? Our mountains and snow?
- When everyone is taxed out of the Valley who are you going to hire to plough and maintain the roads…illegal aliens? What is your plan for that?
-Utah State Code Section 59-2-103 limits the 45% residential exemption to"No more than one acre of land per residential unit". However the minimum acreage allowed per residence in the Upper Ogden Valley is 3 acres.Case in point: If your primary residence sits on a parcel of 3 acres. Under USC59-2-103, you are allowed a 45% residential exemption on only 1 acre ofproperty and are, therefore, subjected to 100% taxation on the remainder.Weber County Ordinance prohibits the ability to subdivide the parcel.Hence, rational logic would conclude that the entire parcel is yourPrimary Residence. And, as such, should be allowed the same residentialexemption. The result of this inequity in taxation logic is that persons livingwithin areas that require zoning in excess of 1 acre are penalized bybeing taxed at 100% of the excess EVEN THOUGH the larger parcel size is
mandated by local ordinance. (This input came from Mr. Keith Smith and we all thank you sir for it. It is yet another inconsistency and inequity in current assessment wrong headedness.)
Questions without answers so far:
After a review of all Huntsville Town parcels; whereas most people are honest, some seem to consider tax avoidance/evasion a game to play at the expense of their neighbors. As K-Bell said, “I don’t mind paying my fair share as long as everyone else does”. I think she’s got something there.
-There are instances where people are claiming primary resident status when they do not actually live in Huntsville Town, thus getting the 55% “discounted taxable property assessments”.
-Instances of “creative parceling” of lots to avoid high tax assessments. These people become obvious when doing a competent analysis and assessment.
-Instances where parcels are claimed as agricultural land, with significant tax rate benefits and discounts taken. Again at the expense of their neighbors. A competent assessor surely can see these.
-Some parcels show the same tax assessment for both years (06 & 07) with no increase at all? Poor assessment and attention to detail costs us all.
-Commercial property is frozen and un-assessed - nor have taxes on most of them increased from 2006? Why would income earning property not be worth more than a permanent resident’s home? Why weren’t commercial properties assessed? Again Weber County tax assessor inconsistence.
-One commercial property is claimed as a primary residence - clearly wrong.
-Some .75 acre parcels are assessed at $11,250, where most standard .75 acre lots are taxable assessed at $100,000. ($45,000 last year.) Why is this?
-Of the $425,057+ we are asked to pay into the Weber County coffers only about $40,000, or less than 1% will be returned to our Town. Where does the rest go and why?
-Huntsville Town when treated as if it were one residential parcel was taxably assessed at $16,780,196 in 2006 and that represented a nominal 60 to 80% increase over the previous year.
-The Weber County Commissioners’ Tax Assessor Cheryl Madson, enabled a 2007 taxable assessed property aggregate of $36,320,373 (and that does not include any assessment of the largest new mansion in Town; on three (3) parcels). So stand-by for RAM! Why has this property not been assessed and included? What justification could possibly explain an aggregate Huntsville Town ninety-one percent (91%) property tax increase?
-Our Huntsville Town aggregate taxes in 2006 where $16,780,196 and as I said about $40,000 came back to Town coffers.
-This year those same Commissioners and Legislators treated us to a 2007, $425,057 property tax bill. And that does not include commercial property, just residential (and faux agricultural claims). Again only about $40,000 will return to our Town General Fund. Less than 1%.
-If someone offers you $500,000 for your property, does that mean your property assessment should be a half million dollars? No, because the fundamental precept of any assessor is that the “Market Value is determined by a willing seller and a willing buyer agreeing on a price”.
-Many if not fully 60% of Huntsville Town is composed of unwilling sellers – at any price. We just want to live out our lives in peace, contribute to our Community, County, State and Country. And many want to leave their property to their progeny. Communities are made of this stuff. But for two years these oppressive taxes are having the apparent effect of heavy handed interference with fundamental constitutional beliefs and rights.
-Many have become convinced that Weber County Commissioners consider Huntsville and the Upper Ogden Valley as nothing more than a “lovely sandbox”. This is untrue to most who live here. Again they need to read their own Resolution No. 16-2007, “Ethics Pledge”.
-If the permanent residents are displaced by exorbitant taxation, who in the lower Valley or of the vacationer set and resorts owners will care?
-There are many models of this over taxation changing the demographics of a community and none have ended pretty. Jackson, Ketchum, and Park City - Summit Co. come to mind.
Huntsville Town and most of the Ogden Valley will continue to fight these poorly thought through taxation policies at the ballot boxes and where ever else it is necessary to put a stop to this insanity and immoral displacement of the old and infirm or retirees on fixed incomes. And young couples with children and energy need to pitch in too. Pitch in even though you are already over taxed by school fees and a multitude of some thirty-eight (38) taxes/fees on just about everything.
I personally feel that the Commissioners and Tax assessors need to reread Resolution 16-2007, “The Ethics Pledge”. What they are attempting against Huntsville Town with this outrageous property tax increase is not only morally wrong it is Draconian.
In the past Utah has been clever enough (until now it seems) to never be put in a National spot light for over taxing any one single service or parcel. But the trick played on us all is the legislature has passed taxes and fees on virtually everything imaginable. Thus making Utah’s dirty little secret of being in the top 10% of States in the Country when it comes to total taxation. (Fees are taxes by the way. And there is no such thing as business or corporate taxes…they just pass them on to you and me as a cost of doing business.)
My Town Councilman reported his post office box rental increased by $30 a year to $96. The reason…its rent is based on property values. Like I said, “On just about everything.”
Finally, after spending several days and evenings until one in the morning one tends to look for a “winner” relative to outrageous taxable assessment increases. The prize goes to a good neighbor to the North. Finally, because they built a humble two car garage (without a door or electricity) his property taxes increased by 803%. They win “the most draconian tax award”. Hopefully, we will see you in the appeal line along with every citizen of Huntsville. I will drive or arrange transportation for those who can not drive any more. Several volunteers have stepped forward and we could use more. This promises to be a long a hard fought campaign to get Proposition 13 type protection law passed. Those we elected should know better. Shame on them.
Residents of Huntsville Town, I have gathered these facts and summarized them from area newspapers as referenced. Thanks go to Carl and Sharon Downing for providing the news copy to me. It is my belief that the better informed we all are the more we can glean the truth from the upcoming Taxation Meetings to be held at the Library (update Sat. 11 August. Because of the interest the meeting has been moved to the Junior High [Snow crest] bring your cushions for the bleachers…) between six and nine o’clock Wednesday evening. This meeting was arranged by Ruston McKay and Mayor McKay left a message saying he discussed the meeting with Commissioner Dearden and he will be in attendance.
In order to not allow a mere “Group Therapy Session” where they tell us basic information we already know and take questions from us so we will “feel better” having voiced our opinions; the following is a condensation of some facts we all should be aware of going into that meeting. And they may also be helpful when you (hopefully all in Town appeal your property tax assessments and taxes at the Board of Equalization, date and time TBA. The “opinions” are my own with which you may or may not agree.
I hope you all have signed both the Huntsville Town and the Ogden Valley the petition as well. And that you encourage your friends and neighbors to also sign it. We need to stand arm-in-arm and shoulder-to-shoulder against this tax abuse for yet a second year in a row. It is past time for a Town, Valley, County, and Statewide tax revolt and it just as soon start here in our beloved and proud little Town as any place else.
Scott Layton has an interesting story about Indianapolis having a stand-in around the Governor’s Mansion and a Tea Party which produced results. Mr. Goff has an interesting story about Oregon having a similar tax payer’s revolt, as have many other States. Oregon voters forced taxing authorities to retreat to 1996 property assessments. Using 1996 as a base; taxing agencies are only allowed a maximum of two and one-half (2.5%) percent increases per year.
We are in desperate need of such legislation. And only you and I can force it upon legislators that “go along to get along” or tax and spend liberals hiding out as “conservative” Republicans. Let us all make it clear to them in the many ways it apparently takes to get their attention. Otherwise we will be taxed out of this Valley and out of this State leaving nothing but vacation and resort homes in our wake. It is up to you and me to protect so many on retired incomes we love in our community that can no longer be up and about. They gave so much to us - let us return the favor.
Facts from Desert Morning News, page D14, July 23, 2007: “Utah home prices rise…but number of homes sold drops, notably in S.L. and Utah counties”
(Synopsis)
-Housing prices continued to rise in Utah in second quarter 2007. But number of homes sold dropped.
Salt Lake and Utah Counties 19% decrease in units sold compared to same 3-month period in 2006. (Report by SL Board of Realtors)
Davis saw a decrease of 16.1 % and Weber County 8.2% drop.
Median Salt Lake County home price $254K, a 15.5% increase over 2nd quarter of 2006.
Utah County median home value increased 19.9 % ($245K).
Weber County:
City Units Sold Median Price Percent Change
Roy 219 $167,000 14.0%
Eden 13 $400,000 (-5.9%)
Hooper 31 $259,500 18.5%
Huntsville (the Zip Code
NOT our Town) 8 $386,500 (-38.9%)
Marriott/Slaterville 166 $113,800 (-4.8%)
South Ogden 184 $135,000 1.9%
Farr West 317 $148,000 18.0%
Riverdale 98 $175,000 1.5%
North Ogden 123 $233,436 22.9%
The Salt Lake Tribune, page E-1, July 21, 2007: “Home-for Sale signs stack up”
Synopsis:
Same data as above. Except
For Zip Code 84317 :
Huntsville blank blank *
*Area had too few sales
“Weber County logged the smallest gain in selling prices, 12 % to $160,000”.
The Standard Examiner, Page 2A, August 7, 2007, “Utah’s increase in property values highest in nation.” Ogden-Clearfield area ranks at No. 5 nationally, by Loretta Park
Synopsis
Layton-Utah residents are dealing with the highest increase in property values nationally, according to a memo to Utah legislators.
With that increase, residents are also seeing unexpected increases in property taxes.
Utah has experienced a 17% increase in home values from the first quarter in 2006 to the first quarter in 2007, according to an Aug. 1 memo from the Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel.
That puts Utah in the No. 1 slot nationally for property value increases.
*(Huntsville Town assessed taxable property increased 116.45%, our Town property taxes increased by 90.74%, from D-Bell’s data collected from the Weber County Assessor Website, 9 August 07. http://otgweb.co.weber.ut.us/gis/2002/include/psearch/psearch.asp
Nationally, the average increase is a 4.3%, according to a report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
The counsel used the report to help explain to legislators why property taxes are increasing statewide, said Bryant Howe, assistant director of the Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel.
The report also listed the top 20 metropolitan areas with highest rate of house appreciation during that same period. It places the Ogden-Clearfield area a No. 5 nationally, with homes appreciating at 15.7 % in the past year.
*(Huntsville Town, 116.45 %!, from D-Bell’s analysis of Weber County Tax assessment data off their public Website.)
The Provo-Orem area was listed nationally at No 2, with homes increasing in value at 19.76 % and Salt Lake City listed at No.3 with homes increasing in value at 19.12 %.
(This is almost laughable if it weren’t true. Fellow Huntsvillians we have the highest rate of taxable assessed property and taxes in the Country according to Weber County’s own tax records.)
Appreciation rates:
States with the greatest rate of appreciation between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007:
Utah: 17%
Idaho; 12.3%
Montana: 11.7%
Wyoming: 11.7%
Washington: 11.6%
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
More Tax questions, facts, thoughts and opinions:
Why property assessments and taxes recently announced are bogus
(D-Bell’s thoughts. Add your own- help your neighbor)
-Get a CMA (Certified Market Analysis) from a Realtor. It is free and required for an appeal whether or not appropriate or accurate given our unique local situation. Call 801-476-4216 and ask for an agency which provides CMAs to potential customers. Hint: one with local Huntsville ties is able to help best.
-After your agent visits and gives you the information decide your basis for an Appeal (see listing on the “Request for Review of Real Property market Value” included with your tax notice.
-Checkmark the appropriate numbers and then add any written comments you might feel is the truth referencing the checked numerical basis’ for appeal.
-The Board of Equalization will very likely feel besieged by applications so less is more. Be succinct and brief. Use bullet format where possible. They will likely appreciate it and look more favorably at it for approval.
(I would provide more if I had ever done this before. If any of you have, please add your advice to help a neighbor.)
Thoughts/ideas:
-Commissioners pledged tax increases less than 20% for the lower valley and less than 30% for the Ogden Valley. Ninety-one percent (91%) aggregate for the Town is Draconian, (your individual % increase may well be significantly higher. Call me (745-1419) if you need help with this calculation).
-If asked what you think your property is worth say, “Last year’s increase topped the actual market value…or hit close, if you think that is correct. And then give a reasonable dollar amount. Have that number in your head.
-Assessors are supposed to: use comparable home sales within the past two years. Inside Huntsville Town this does not seem possible given the low sales recently as acknowledged by the Salt Lake Tribune article (above). Local properties in foreclosure or for sale which have not moved in ten months or more are an indication of a previous inflated market.
-Why “comps” from ZIP code 84317 (outside Huntsville Town limits) when property owners within Town already separately pay for these services and more?
-Snow removal
-Public street lighting
-Public Safety/security/Police
-Fire protection
-Road maintenance
-Basic infrastructure
*Services the County must provide to Valley and County residents
-We are already paying for all these services.
-Huntsville Town residents should be taxed far less rather than the same as or more than residences outside Town limits.
-Why are ski resorts exempt from taxes? Why when every time a UDOT snow plough goes up to Powder Mountain or Snow Basin it cost us residents at least $500 a trip? Why are we being dunned for others to use our “lovely little sand box”? Our mountains and snow?
- When everyone is taxed out of the Valley who are you going to hire to plough and maintain the roads…illegal aliens? What is your plan for that?
-Utah State Code Section 59-2-103 limits the 45% residential exemption to"No more than one acre of land per residential unit". However the minimum acreage allowed per residence in the Upper Ogden Valley is 3 acres.Case in point: If your primary residence sits on a parcel of 3 acres. Under USC59-2-103, you are allowed a 45% residential exemption on only 1 acre ofproperty and are, therefore, subjected to 100% taxation on the remainder.Weber County Ordinance prohibits the ability to subdivide the parcel.Hence, rational logic would conclude that the entire parcel is yourPrimary Residence. And, as such, should be allowed the same residentialexemption. The result of this inequity in taxation logic is that persons livingwithin areas that require zoning in excess of 1 acre are penalized bybeing taxed at 100% of the excess EVEN THOUGH the larger parcel size is
mandated by local ordinance. (This input came from Mr. Keith Smith and we all thank you sir for it. It is yet another inconsistency and inequity in current assessment wrong headedness.)
Questions without answers so far:
After a review of all Huntsville Town parcels; whereas most people are honest, some seem to consider tax avoidance/evasion a game to play at the expense of their neighbors. As K-Bell said, “I don’t mind paying my fair share as long as everyone else does”. I think she’s got something there.
-There are instances where people are claiming primary resident status when they do not actually live in Huntsville Town, thus getting the 55% “discounted taxable property assessments”.
-Instances of “creative parceling” of lots to avoid high tax assessments. These people become obvious when doing a competent analysis and assessment.
-Instances where parcels are claimed as agricultural land, with significant tax rate benefits and discounts taken. Again at the expense of their neighbors. A competent assessor surely can see these.
-Some parcels show the same tax assessment for both years (06 & 07) with no increase at all? Poor assessment and attention to detail costs us all.
-Commercial property is frozen and un-assessed - nor have taxes on most of them increased from 2006? Why would income earning property not be worth more than a permanent resident’s home? Why weren’t commercial properties assessed? Again Weber County tax assessor inconsistence.
-One commercial property is claimed as a primary residence - clearly wrong.
-Some .75 acre parcels are assessed at $11,250, where most standard .75 acre lots are taxable assessed at $100,000. ($45,000 last year.) Why is this?
-Of the $425,057+ we are asked to pay into the Weber County coffers only about $40,000, or less than 1% will be returned to our Town. Where does the rest go and why?
-Huntsville Town when treated as if it were one residential parcel was taxably assessed at $16,780,196 in 2006 and that represented a nominal 60 to 80% increase over the previous year.
-The Weber County Commissioners’ Tax Assessor Cheryl Madson, enabled a 2007 taxable assessed property aggregate of $36,320,373 (and that does not include any assessment of the largest new mansion in Town; on three (3) parcels). So stand-by for RAM! Why has this property not been assessed and included? What justification could possibly explain an aggregate Huntsville Town ninety-one percent (91%) property tax increase?
-Our Huntsville Town aggregate taxes in 2006 where $16,780,196 and as I said about $40,000 came back to Town coffers.
-This year those same Commissioners and Legislators treated us to a 2007, $425,057 property tax bill. And that does not include commercial property, just residential (and faux agricultural claims). Again only about $40,000 will return to our Town General Fund. Less than 1%.
-If someone offers you $500,000 for your property, does that mean your property assessment should be a half million dollars? No, because the fundamental precept of any assessor is that the “Market Value is determined by a willing seller and a willing buyer agreeing on a price”.
-Many if not fully 60% of Huntsville Town is composed of unwilling sellers – at any price. We just want to live out our lives in peace, contribute to our Community, County, State and Country. And many want to leave their property to their progeny. Communities are made of this stuff. But for two years these oppressive taxes are having the apparent effect of heavy handed interference with fundamental constitutional beliefs and rights.
-Many have become convinced that Weber County Commissioners consider Huntsville and the Upper Ogden Valley as nothing more than a “lovely sandbox”. This is untrue to most who live here. Again they need to read their own Resolution No. 16-2007, “Ethics Pledge”.
-If the permanent residents are displaced by exorbitant taxation, who in the lower Valley or of the vacationer set and resorts owners will care?
-There are many models of this over taxation changing the demographics of a community and none have ended pretty. Jackson, Ketchum, and Park City - Summit Co. come to mind.
Huntsville Town and most of the Ogden Valley will continue to fight these poorly thought through taxation policies at the ballot boxes and where ever else it is necessary to put a stop to this insanity and immoral displacement of the old and infirm or retirees on fixed incomes. And young couples with children and energy need to pitch in too. Pitch in even though you are already over taxed by school fees and a multitude of some thirty-eight (38) taxes/fees on just about everything.
I personally feel that the Commissioners and Tax assessors need to reread Resolution 16-2007, “The Ethics Pledge”. What they are attempting against Huntsville Town with this outrageous property tax increase is not only morally wrong it is Draconian.
In the past Utah has been clever enough (until now it seems) to never be put in a National spot light for over taxing any one single service or parcel. But the trick played on us all is the legislature has passed taxes and fees on virtually everything imaginable. Thus making Utah’s dirty little secret of being in the top 10% of States in the Country when it comes to total taxation. (Fees are taxes by the way. And there is no such thing as business or corporate taxes…they just pass them on to you and me as a cost of doing business.)
My Town Councilman reported his post office box rental increased by $30 a year to $96. The reason…its rent is based on property values. Like I said, “On just about everything.”
Finally, after spending several days and evenings until one in the morning one tends to look for a “winner” relative to outrageous taxable assessment increases. The prize goes to a good neighbor to the North. Finally, because they built a humble two car garage (without a door or electricity) his property taxes increased by 803%. They win “the most draconian tax award”. Hopefully, we will see you in the appeal line along with every citizen of Huntsville. I will drive or arrange transportation for those who can not drive any more. Several volunteers have stepped forward and we could use more. This promises to be a long a hard fought campaign to get Proposition 13 type protection law passed. Those we elected should know better. Shame on them.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Letter to Managing Editor of Standard Examiner
Subject: The Examiner Story on the Weber County Commission Meeting, Aug. 7,2007
Andy, I was disappointed in the story written by Jamie Lampros. I agree that citizens should not try to manage a story like this, but when there is an obvious lack of research and many basic facts are missing or in error in the story, it demonstrates that some reporters may do a questionable job.
The problem starts with the headline. It is obvious that this reporter did very little research into the issue, and did not research several major facts. If your reporter would have demonstrated the basic investigator's skills, these facts would have been in the story.
"Summers won't pursue approval for rock crushing" is inaccurate.
Mr. Summers petitioned for two issues. The first was to get a new ordinance for a MV-2 Heavy Industry ordinance in Ogden Valley for the rock crusher. There is no provision in the existing General Plan in Ogden Valley for such heavy industry. Mr. Summers was trying to change that. His effort to do so was denied previously by The Ogden Valley Planning Commission, 7-0. He then appealed this to the Weber County Commission. On Tuesday night the Weber County Commissioner's voted 3-0 to deny Mr. Summers appeal. The rock crusher issue cannot be appealed any further.
The Weber County Commission has the final word on this issue.
This was a major victory for the citizens of Ogden Valley. Passage of this MV-2 ordinance would have established an unwanted precedent for future heavy industry in Ogden Valley. The story as written mixes the two separate ordinances and it does not explain the heavy industry MV-2 ordinance implications clearly. The MV-1 ordinance was a conditional use change to the existing MV-1 ordinance. The MV-1 ordinance change was passed 2-1 to allow the small Cement Batch plant, but was secondary to the rock crusher issue, yet your reporter had it as the primary issue.
The reporter also chose to ignore that 335 citizens from Ogden Valley had signed a petition against the rock crusher and this petition was submitted to the Weber County Commission prior to the meeting. The petition was mentioned during the meeting and is on the public record, yet your reporter did not have any information about it in the story. The significance of the petition is that 335 people, many of them friends and neighbors of Mr. Summers, along with many others from all over the Ogden Valley, took a collective stand for the first time with those signatures against this MV-2 rock crusher issue. The petition is available on the blog: www.ogden-valley.blogspot.com.
Your reporter also chose not to report that Mr. Summers was provided a forum on the above named blog to state his case for a rock crusher in Ogden Valley. He did provide such a document for posting to the blog, which was posted last week, several days prior to the Commission meeting without comment, change, or editing. This information was read into the public record at the meeting on Tuesday night, yet ignored by your reporter.
Your reporter also provided Mr. Summers with a forum to appear magnanimous when it was reported that he may not pursue the MV-1 cement batch plant even though it was approved 2-1 by the Weber County Commission. If indeed he chooses that path, The VCRD (Valley Citizens for Responsible Development) and most Valley citizens will be pleased.
In summary, the Standard Examiner and the paper's reporters have been provided with previous access via the Ogden Valley Forum blog and contact information that clearly indicated the concerns of many citizens in Ogden Valley over this issue. You yourself said that it was a worthy news story, yet this reporter choose not to research the details of the zoning issues listed above or interview anyone that could have provided those facts.
Sincerely,
Larry Zini
Andy, I was disappointed in the story written by Jamie Lampros. I agree that citizens should not try to manage a story like this, but when there is an obvious lack of research and many basic facts are missing or in error in the story, it demonstrates that some reporters may do a questionable job.
The problem starts with the headline. It is obvious that this reporter did very little research into the issue, and did not research several major facts. If your reporter would have demonstrated the basic investigator's skills, these facts would have been in the story.
"Summers won't pursue approval for rock crushing" is inaccurate.
Mr. Summers petitioned for two issues. The first was to get a new ordinance for a MV-2 Heavy Industry ordinance in Ogden Valley for the rock crusher. There is no provision in the existing General Plan in Ogden Valley for such heavy industry. Mr. Summers was trying to change that. His effort to do so was denied previously by The Ogden Valley Planning Commission, 7-0. He then appealed this to the Weber County Commission. On Tuesday night the Weber County Commissioner's voted 3-0 to deny Mr. Summers appeal. The rock crusher issue cannot be appealed any further.
The Weber County Commission has the final word on this issue.
This was a major victory for the citizens of Ogden Valley. Passage of this MV-2 ordinance would have established an unwanted precedent for future heavy industry in Ogden Valley. The story as written mixes the two separate ordinances and it does not explain the heavy industry MV-2 ordinance implications clearly. The MV-1 ordinance was a conditional use change to the existing MV-1 ordinance. The MV-1 ordinance change was passed 2-1 to allow the small Cement Batch plant, but was secondary to the rock crusher issue, yet your reporter had it as the primary issue.
The reporter also chose to ignore that 335 citizens from Ogden Valley had signed a petition against the rock crusher and this petition was submitted to the Weber County Commission prior to the meeting. The petition was mentioned during the meeting and is on the public record, yet your reporter did not have any information about it in the story. The significance of the petition is that 335 people, many of them friends and neighbors of Mr. Summers, along with many others from all over the Ogden Valley, took a collective stand for the first time with those signatures against this MV-2 rock crusher issue. The petition is available on the blog: www.ogden-valley.blogspot.com.
Your reporter also chose not to report that Mr. Summers was provided a forum on the above named blog to state his case for a rock crusher in Ogden Valley. He did provide such a document for posting to the blog, which was posted last week, several days prior to the Commission meeting without comment, change, or editing. This information was read into the public record at the meeting on Tuesday night, yet ignored by your reporter.
Your reporter also provided Mr. Summers with a forum to appear magnanimous when it was reported that he may not pursue the MV-1 cement batch plant even though it was approved 2-1 by the Weber County Commission. If indeed he chooses that path, The VCRD (Valley Citizens for Responsible Development) and most Valley citizens will be pleased.
In summary, the Standard Examiner and the paper's reporters have been provided with previous access via the Ogden Valley Forum blog and contact information that clearly indicated the concerns of many citizens in Ogden Valley over this issue. You yourself said that it was a worthy news story, yet this reporter choose not to research the details of the zoning issues listed above or interview anyone that could have provided those facts.
Sincerely,
Larry Zini
Friday, August 3, 2007
Thom Summers Speaks about his Rock Crusher Business
To the Concerned Citizens of Ogden Valley:
Many rumors have been circulating the Valley about the PROPOSED rock crusher/cement plant. We would like correct the rumors and state the facts.
The rock crusher would be used to
recycle clean, non-contaminated dirt and rocks. This will NOT BE A GRAVEL PIT – NO MINING WILL BE DONE.
The crusher is not like the crusher that is seen at Rocky Point. Our crusher is small and portable. Our crusher can be loaded on a trailer and hauled off. Material would be hauled in and stockpiled. The crusher would be hauled in approximately every three months to process what has been stockpiled then it would be hauled off. Based on the size of the stockpiles it would take 2 to 4 weeks to process the material. The crusher would be used during the hours of 8 – 5, Monday through Friday.
We would recycle clean, non-reinforced cement, from driveways, curbs and gutters. This recycled material would be sold to the public by the yard. We would also take non-contaminated excess dirt and rocks that is scattered through out the valley and recycle it. This material could be used for clean, screened top soil. The rocks, based on size, would be used for landscaping. This material would also be sold to the public by the yard.
The cement plant is a very small U-Cart plant. This operation would be similar to Sandee’s Soil on 1900 West and Save-More products on Wall Avenue. There would be a couple of small towers, approximately 20 – 25 feet high. This would be a service to all citizens of Ogden Valley who need one to two yards of cement. This will NOT be a cement plant operation the size of Parsons or Granite Rock Products.
Also, a sound barrier, trees and a water system would be installed to help prevent noise and dust.
By recycling we are providing solutions for many concerned citizens. This will be a service to all Ogden Valley residents. This will help eliminate some, not all, trucks in Ogden Canyon. Provide quality product, i.e. crushed rock, landscape rocks, colorful rock, lava rock, top soil and a pour-a-yard which would be sold by the yard for a reasonable cost.
We are concerned citizens of the Valley as well. We are one of Ogden Valley’s largest employers with most of our employees living in the Valley. Doesn’t it make sense to have a local company provide this service and not a large company from outside the Valley? We are trying to help maintain the Valley’s beauty by providing this service.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact us at wedigourvalley@relia.net.
Sincerely,
Thom Summers
S & S Excavating, Inc.
Many rumors have been circulating the Valley about the PROPOSED rock crusher/cement plant. We would like correct the rumors and state the facts.
The rock crusher would be used to
recycle clean, non-contaminated dirt and rocks. This will NOT BE A GRAVEL PIT – NO MINING WILL BE DONE.
The crusher is not like the crusher that is seen at Rocky Point. Our crusher is small and portable. Our crusher can be loaded on a trailer and hauled off. Material would be hauled in and stockpiled. The crusher would be hauled in approximately every three months to process what has been stockpiled then it would be hauled off. Based on the size of the stockpiles it would take 2 to 4 weeks to process the material. The crusher would be used during the hours of 8 – 5, Monday through Friday.
We would recycle clean, non-reinforced cement, from driveways, curbs and gutters. This recycled material would be sold to the public by the yard. We would also take non-contaminated excess dirt and rocks that is scattered through out the valley and recycle it. This material could be used for clean, screened top soil. The rocks, based on size, would be used for landscaping. This material would also be sold to the public by the yard.
The cement plant is a very small U-Cart plant. This operation would be similar to Sandee’s Soil on 1900 West and Save-More products on Wall Avenue. There would be a couple of small towers, approximately 20 – 25 feet high. This would be a service to all citizens of Ogden Valley who need one to two yards of cement. This will NOT be a cement plant operation the size of Parsons or Granite Rock Products.
Also, a sound barrier, trees and a water system would be installed to help prevent noise and dust.
By recycling we are providing solutions for many concerned citizens. This will be a service to all Ogden Valley residents. This will help eliminate some, not all, trucks in Ogden Canyon. Provide quality product, i.e. crushed rock, landscape rocks, colorful rock, lava rock, top soil and a pour-a-yard which would be sold by the yard for a reasonable cost.
We are concerned citizens of the Valley as well. We are one of Ogden Valley’s largest employers with most of our employees living in the Valley. Doesn’t it make sense to have a local company provide this service and not a large company from outside the Valley? We are trying to help maintain the Valley’s beauty by providing this service.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact us at wedigourvalley@relia.net.
Sincerely,
Thom Summers
S & S Excavating, Inc.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-2 ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 22-B
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-2
22-1. Purpose and Intent
22-2. Permitted Uses
22-3. Conditional Uses
22-4. Site Development Standards
22-5. Sign Regulations
22-1. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the heavy manufacturing zone is to provide suitable areas that will accommodate the need for heavy intensity manufacturing, extractive and associated uses where the environmental impact upon community may be substantial and where public regulation may be necessary to preserve the general welfare of the community.
22-2. Permitted Uses.
1. Any permitted use in an MV-1 Zone
22-3. Conditional Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted only when authorized by a Conditional Use Permit as provided in Chapter 22-C of this Zoning Ordinance.
1. Any Conditional Use allowed in an MV-1 Zone
2. Public Utility Substations
3. Uses which follow, provided they are located at least 300 feet from any zone boundary, contain a minimum of ten acres in area, and have a 15 ft. landscape buffer planted with 6 ft. or larger evergreen trees around the area where the equipment and product are stored, or natural or geographic barrier provide that provide an adequate buffer. The trees shall be Canada Hemlock, Scotch Pines, Douglas Fir, or Blue Spruce. The trees shall be planted every 15 ft. on center. The evergreen shrubs shall be Junipers, Mugo Pines, or Spreading Yew. The shrubs shall be 36 inches high and there shall be 15 shrubs per 100 ft. There shall be five (5) canopy trees per 100 ft. These trees shall be, Maples, Linden, Quaking Aspens, Cottonless Cottonwood, Honey Locust, or Birch trees. These trees shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. This landscaping shall be planted when the property abuts agricultural or residential zones. Sound barrier walls shall be installed as part of any rock crushing or screening operation or similar uses. No more than two weeks of aggregate either to be crushed or finished product may be stock piled on site. A dust and noise mitigation plan needs to be submitted.
a. Recycling of material such as concrete, rocks, or dirt
b. Dirt and sand material screening
c. Rock crusher
d. Green waste that is used to make mulch
4. Dwelling unit for proprietor or employee, who also serves as night watchman, and their immediate family, provided that an additional 3,000 square feet of landscaped area is provided for the residential use. As a Conditional Use, the Township Planning Commission for the jurisdiction in which the application is made, shall have the discretion to approve either an attached or a detached dwelling, based upon the primary manufacturing use and architectural design to protect the noise levels and privacy of the residents.
22-4. Site Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot area None if connected to a public sewer, 20,000 sq. ft. otherwise.
2. Minimum lot width 100 feet
3. Minimum Yard Setbacks:
a. Front 30 ft. on streets of less than 80 ft. in width; 50 ft. on streets and highways of 80 ft. or more in width
b. Side none except 20 ft. where adjacent to a residential zone boundary and a side yard facing a street on a corner lot.
c. Rear none except 30 ft. where building rears on a residential zone
4. Building Height
a. Minimum one story
b. Maximum 35 feet
5. Lot coverage not to exceed 80 percent of the lot area buildings
Landscaping Per Chapter 18C, Architectural, Landscaping and Screening and item specific
22-5. Sign Regulations.
Per requirements of Chapter 32 B, Ogden Valley Signs.
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-2
22-1. Purpose and Intent
22-2. Permitted Uses
22-3. Conditional Uses
22-4. Site Development Standards
22-5. Sign Regulations
22-1. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the heavy manufacturing zone is to provide suitable areas that will accommodate the need for heavy intensity manufacturing, extractive and associated uses where the environmental impact upon community may be substantial and where public regulation may be necessary to preserve the general welfare of the community.
22-2. Permitted Uses.
1. Any permitted use in an MV-1 Zone
22-3. Conditional Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted only when authorized by a Conditional Use Permit as provided in Chapter 22-C of this Zoning Ordinance.
1. Any Conditional Use allowed in an MV-1 Zone
2. Public Utility Substations
3. Uses which follow, provided they are located at least 300 feet from any zone boundary, contain a minimum of ten acres in area, and have a 15 ft. landscape buffer planted with 6 ft. or larger evergreen trees around the area where the equipment and product are stored, or natural or geographic barrier provide that provide an adequate buffer. The trees shall be Canada Hemlock, Scotch Pines, Douglas Fir, or Blue Spruce. The trees shall be planted every 15 ft. on center. The evergreen shrubs shall be Junipers, Mugo Pines, or Spreading Yew. The shrubs shall be 36 inches high and there shall be 15 shrubs per 100 ft. There shall be five (5) canopy trees per 100 ft. These trees shall be, Maples, Linden, Quaking Aspens, Cottonless Cottonwood, Honey Locust, or Birch trees. These trees shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. This landscaping shall be planted when the property abuts agricultural or residential zones. Sound barrier walls shall be installed as part of any rock crushing or screening operation or similar uses. No more than two weeks of aggregate either to be crushed or finished product may be stock piled on site. A dust and noise mitigation plan needs to be submitted.
a. Recycling of material such as concrete, rocks, or dirt
b. Dirt and sand material screening
c. Rock crusher
d. Green waste that is used to make mulch
4. Dwelling unit for proprietor or employee, who also serves as night watchman, and their immediate family, provided that an additional 3,000 square feet of landscaped area is provided for the residential use. As a Conditional Use, the Township Planning Commission for the jurisdiction in which the application is made, shall have the discretion to approve either an attached or a detached dwelling, based upon the primary manufacturing use and architectural design to protect the noise levels and privacy of the residents.
22-4. Site Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot area None if connected to a public sewer, 20,000 sq. ft. otherwise.
2. Minimum lot width 100 feet
3. Minimum Yard Setbacks:
a. Front 30 ft. on streets of less than 80 ft. in width; 50 ft. on streets and highways of 80 ft. or more in width
b. Side none except 20 ft. where adjacent to a residential zone boundary and a side yard facing a street on a corner lot.
c. Rear none except 30 ft. where building rears on a residential zone
4. Building Height
a. Minimum one story
b. Maximum 35 feet
5. Lot coverage not to exceed 80 percent of the lot area buildings
Landscaping Per Chapter 18C, Architectural, Landscaping and Screening and item specific
22-5. Sign Regulations.
Per requirements of Chapter 32 B, Ogden Valley Signs.
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-1 ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 21-B
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-1
21B-1. Purpose and Intent
21B-2. Permitted Uses in an MV-1 Zone
21B-3. Conditional Uses in an MV-1 Zone
21B-4. Site Development Standards
21B-5. Sign Regulations
21B-1. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the MV-1, Ogden Valley light manufacturing zone is to provide suitable areas that will accommodate the need for light intensity type manufacturing and its associated accessory uses, some of which may have an environmental impact requiring public review and regulation.
21B-2. Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily incidental to a permitted use.
Agricultural Implement repair
Animal hospitals
4. Carpenter shop, cabinet shop
Contractor’s Equipment storage yard, maintenance and repair
7. Printing, including engraving and photo engraving, blueprinting, photostating and duplication
Public and quasi-public uses
Warehouse, including storage units
21B-3. Conditional Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted only when authorized by a Conditional Use Permit as provided in Chapter 22C of this Zoning Ordinance.
Automobile repair, auto body and fender work, if conducted within an enclosed building
Cement batch plants with the following conditions:
The cement silo mixer shall not be larger than 200 barrel.
There shall be a 15 ft. landscape buffer with 6 ft. high earth berm planted with 6 ft. or larger evergreen trees. The trees shall be Canada Hemlock, Scotch Pines, Douglas Fir, or Blue Spruce. The trees shall be planted every 15 ft. on center. The evergreen shrubs shall be Junipers, Mugo Pines, or Spreading Yew. The shrubs shall be 36 inches high and there shall be 15 shrubs per 100 ft. There shall be 5 canopy trees per 100 ft. These trees shall be, Maples, Linden, Quaking Aspens, Cottonless Cottonwood, Honey Locust, or Birch trees. These trees shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. This landscaping shall be planted on the crest of the 6 ft. berm when the property abuts agricultural or residential zones.
There shall be no more than eight (8), trailers with up to 2 cubic yard capacity.
There shall be no more than forty (40) yards of sand and gravel mix stored on this site. The sand and gravel mix shall be stored in a three-wall bin and covered when not in use.
All cement product on site shall be stored within the silo.
At least 15,000 sq. ft. of the lot shall be dedicated for this use.
A detailed plan for the trailer washout area is required
3. Machine Shop
4. Public Utility Substations
5. Sign Painting Shop
6. Site leveling and preparation for future development.
7. Water storage reservoir developed by a public agency and meeting the requirements of Chapter 26 of this Zoning Ordinance
8. Wastewater treatment or disposal facilities meeting the requirements of the Utah State Division of Health, Code of Waste Disposal Regulations.
9. Welding Shop
10. Dwelling unit for proprietor or employee, who also serves as night watchman, and his/her immediate family, provided that an additional 3,000 square feet of landscaped area is provided for the residential use. As a Conditional Use, the Township Planning Commission, for the jurisdiction in which the application is made, shall have the discretion to approve either an attached or a detached dwelling, based upon the primary manufacturing use and architectural design to protect the noise levels and privacy of the residents. 2001-27
21B-4. Site Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot area None if connected to a public sewer, 20,000 sq. ft. otherwise.
2. Minimum lot width 100 feet of frontage on a dedicated road.
3. Minimum yard setbacks:
a. Front 30 ft. on streets of less than 80 ft. in width; 50 ft. on streets and highways of 80 ft. or more in width
b. Side none except 20 ft. where adjacent to a residential or agricultural zone boundary and a side yard facing a street on a corner lot.
c. Rear none except 30 ft. where building rears on a residential or agricultural use or zone .
4. Building Height
a. Minimum one story
b. Maximum 25 feet
Conditional Use Permit required if over 25 feet
5. Lot coverage 8,000 square feet or by Conditional Use Permit if proposal exceeds 8,000 square feet.
Landscaping Per Chapter 18C, Architectural, Landscaping and Screening and item specific
21B-5. Sign Regulations.
Per requirements of Chapter 32 B, Ogden Valley Signs.
OGDEN VALLEY MANUFACTURING ZONE MV-1
21B-1. Purpose and Intent
21B-2. Permitted Uses in an MV-1 Zone
21B-3. Conditional Uses in an MV-1 Zone
21B-4. Site Development Standards
21B-5. Sign Regulations
21B-1. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the MV-1, Ogden Valley light manufacturing zone is to provide suitable areas that will accommodate the need for light intensity type manufacturing and its associated accessory uses, some of which may have an environmental impact requiring public review and regulation.
21B-2. Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily incidental to a permitted use.
Agricultural Implement repair
Animal hospitals
4. Carpenter shop, cabinet shop
Contractor’s Equipment storage yard, maintenance and repair
7. Printing, including engraving and photo engraving, blueprinting, photostating and duplication
Public and quasi-public uses
Warehouse, including storage units
21B-3. Conditional Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted only when authorized by a Conditional Use Permit as provided in Chapter 22C of this Zoning Ordinance.
Automobile repair, auto body and fender work, if conducted within an enclosed building
Cement batch plants with the following conditions:
The cement silo mixer shall not be larger than 200 barrel.
There shall be a 15 ft. landscape buffer with 6 ft. high earth berm planted with 6 ft. or larger evergreen trees. The trees shall be Canada Hemlock, Scotch Pines, Douglas Fir, or Blue Spruce. The trees shall be planted every 15 ft. on center. The evergreen shrubs shall be Junipers, Mugo Pines, or Spreading Yew. The shrubs shall be 36 inches high and there shall be 15 shrubs per 100 ft. There shall be 5 canopy trees per 100 ft. These trees shall be, Maples, Linden, Quaking Aspens, Cottonless Cottonwood, Honey Locust, or Birch trees. These trees shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. This landscaping shall be planted on the crest of the 6 ft. berm when the property abuts agricultural or residential zones.
There shall be no more than eight (8), trailers with up to 2 cubic yard capacity.
There shall be no more than forty (40) yards of sand and gravel mix stored on this site. The sand and gravel mix shall be stored in a three-wall bin and covered when not in use.
All cement product on site shall be stored within the silo.
At least 15,000 sq. ft. of the lot shall be dedicated for this use.
A detailed plan for the trailer washout area is required
3. Machine Shop
4. Public Utility Substations
5. Sign Painting Shop
6. Site leveling and preparation for future development.
7. Water storage reservoir developed by a public agency and meeting the requirements of Chapter 26 of this Zoning Ordinance
8. Wastewater treatment or disposal facilities meeting the requirements of the Utah State Division of Health, Code of Waste Disposal Regulations.
9. Welding Shop
10. Dwelling unit for proprietor or employee, who also serves as night watchman, and his/her immediate family, provided that an additional 3,000 square feet of landscaped area is provided for the residential use. As a Conditional Use, the Township Planning Commission, for the jurisdiction in which the application is made, shall have the discretion to approve either an attached or a detached dwelling, based upon the primary manufacturing use and architectural design to protect the noise levels and privacy of the residents. 2001-27
21B-4. Site Development Standards.
1. Minimum lot area None if connected to a public sewer, 20,000 sq. ft. otherwise.
2. Minimum lot width 100 feet of frontage on a dedicated road.
3. Minimum yard setbacks:
a. Front 30 ft. on streets of less than 80 ft. in width; 50 ft. on streets and highways of 80 ft. or more in width
b. Side none except 20 ft. where adjacent to a residential or agricultural zone boundary and a side yard facing a street on a corner lot.
c. Rear none except 30 ft. where building rears on a residential or agricultural use or zone .
4. Building Height
a. Minimum one story
b. Maximum 25 feet
Conditional Use Permit required if over 25 feet
5. Lot coverage 8,000 square feet or by Conditional Use Permit if proposal exceeds 8,000 square feet.
Landscaping Per Chapter 18C, Architectural, Landscaping and Screening and item specific
21B-5. Sign Regulations.
Per requirements of Chapter 32 B, Ogden Valley Signs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)