Don't Blame the Caucus For Non Voters

According to the Census Bureau, there are 22,914 people in Eagle Mountain. Of those, 12,053 are adults. Of those adults, 8,179 are registered to vote, which makes for a slightly respectible 67.9%. However, in the recent election only 2,991 of registered Eagle Mountain residents actually voted. That breaks out to a 36.6% registerd voter turnout, but in reality only 24.8% of adults in Eagle Mountain bothered to vote. Which is pretty average for Utah, and for Utah County.

Utah's generally paltry voter turnout is a cause for concern. Many point to our caucus system for the low numbers. But I don't buy it. What's being missed is that there are non-caucus related issues on the ballot. Issues which directly affect every person living in a community.

As I wrote about earlier, Eagle Mountain voted on a bond to build an aquatic center. It was a hotly contested issue which caused turnout to town hall meetings and city council meetings over the last at least two years. It directly affects everyone living in the city limits, and hits the pocket book of every single property owner. It is completely outside of the caucus system, and is direct democracy in action. If the caucus haters are correct, it would bring voters to the polling location in droves.

Not only did the issue not bring out more voters, three hundred fewer people voted in the bond election than voted for the other caucus tainted offices.

Alpine School Board Elections

A few members of the Alpine School Board are up for reelection, including my representative, Donna Barnes. I will not be voting for Mrs. Barnes, and am deeply disappointed in the entire board. I feel they have grown to epitomize the "we know better than you, now sit down" attitude elected officials often adopt.

One experience I have had with them highlights this point. Recently a new elementary school was built in Eagle Mountain a little over a mile from my home. Prior to its construction my children attended a school which is literally across the street from our neighborhood. The kids walked to school together every day in big groups. Many parents volunteered in large part because it was so close. So when the new lines were drawn up and my neighborhood was being sent to the school over a mile away many of us protested. Parents attended meetings for months, came up with a viable alternative and presented our plan to the Board and its committee.

Eventually it came down to a final presentation at a Board meeting. Our group came in large numbers and had an impressive presentation complete with statistics and even traffic studies. It was one of the most impressive displays of grassroots involvement I've ever seen. Perhaps most impressive was that the presentation was based on sound argumentation and was devoid of needless anger or emotion. Which is an important point because of what happened next. Our position was far too commonsensical to be adopted, and we were voted down almost unanimously. One member even abstained from voting because it was just too hard of a decision.

That night I went home and penned an email which I sent to every member of the Board. Again, it was not a "Crazy Parent Being Senselessly Angry" email. Quite the contrary. But I did express my frustration at feeling like the decision was made months previous and all the work my neighbors had done to lobby their representatives on the School Board was pointless, that all of the information that had been gathered had been too easily dismissed. I received an email response from the Board president, who I assume was speaking for the Board as a whole, since it was the only response I got. And it was akin to being a kid who's parent tells them "because I said so, now go away." It in no way addressed anything from the presentation or from my email. I wanted some insight as to the decision making process, as nothing that was said at the Board meeting did so. Instead, I was told that if I was less emotional I would agree with the Board, that the decision makers are all professionals who have done this many times and if I weren't so blinded by emotion I would see it their way.

In effect, after a presentation full of data and checkable facts, I requested more detail as to what specifically overrode those arguments. And I was told I was much too emotional for that. Huh? Now I feel like the Board gave us a collective pat on the head and sent us on our way. What's ironic is that in their fear (I assume that's the explanation for their behavior) of dealing with angry parents, they have created angry parents.

This is not how elected officials should behave. Therefore, they should no longer be elected officials.

Eagle Mountain Aquatic Center Bond

Next week Eagle Mountain City will have a $7 million bond on the ballot to build an aquatic center. The center will have a lap pool, a lazy river, concessions, party room and more. It will cost a $200k home an additional $70 a year in property tax. Commercial property of the same value will pay an additional $125.

The center has been a few years in the making, and has actually been pared down from a larger multipurpose recreation facility. Proponents argue that because we have so many children, our city needs a rec center like this one. They say it will attract business to the community as these unnamed business leaders won't take us seriously unless we have additional amenities to offer. What they don't explain is how higher business taxes will be enticing as well.

I am not in favor of this bond for a few reasons. One is the previously mentioned increase of business taxes. Another is the increase is personal taxes. Particularly at a time when housing values are falling yet our property tax bills are not. I will be voting no if for no other reason than that watching my neighbors struggle with job losses, decreasing pay and hours, and some even losing their homes trumps my desire for a cool lazy river to take the kids to in the summertime.

But another reason has lately reinforced my opinion that this bond is a bad idea. Eagle Mounatin is in the Alpine School district. Alpine passed a $300 million bond in 2006 which built and remodeled schools all over the district, including $65 million for a new high school and $32 million for a middle school, both of which Eagle Mountain students now attend. The $300 million has been spent, and the district is planning on putting another bond on the ballot next year. Included in the district's future spending plans are more schools in Eagle Mountain, specifically our own High School and Middle School. So I ask, when our city has $90 million worth of new schools to build (and this doesn't count additional elementary schools), is it wise to be throwing money at an outdoor pool? For me, this was the final nail in the coffin for the aquatic center. How on earth can anyone rationalize spending millions of dollars on a lazy river and lap pools when we have literally a hundred million dollars to spend in the next 18 months? I for one cannot.

Should Cities Fund Rec Centers?

I live in Eagle Mountain, which has about 20,000 residents. Last year around this time city officials started circulating a plan to build a rec center. The closest center to Eagle Mountain is in Lehi, about a 20 minute drive away. Having our own center has been a strong desire of many residents, and many elected officials, for some time. However, when the city's plan to finance one was made known last year, there was strong opposition based on economic issues. So strong, in fact, that the city put all plans on hold. I'm sure that it being an election year had nothing to do with that decision.

I attended some of last year's meetings regarding the proposed rec center. It was stated that no private enterprise would build a facility like those that cities build. The closest thing we would have would be a Gold's Gym type workout center. But anything with swimming facilities and climbing walls and senior citizen areas etc. would never be built without public funding. There is just no money to be made in that area, we were told.

Since then our pro-rec center mayor was reelected and we added a strong proponent of the center to the city council, so it comes as no surprise that the idea is anything but dead. However, what strikes me about this issue is that the economic concerns voiced by the public last year have not really gone away, and even if they had for most people, there will always be some who have economic problems. If it's unjust to impose higher taxes when everyone is feeling threatened by the economy, then isn't it unjust if even one homeowner feels threatened?

So it would seem that raising taxes to pay for a rec center hinges on the question of whether a rec center is necessary for the common good. In this vein, I've heard it compared to city parks. Parks are paid for and maintained by public funds - everyone is taxed for them and they consistently need public funding to remain solvent. No one seems to have any problem with city parks which are clearly recreational facilities, so why would there be opposition to an indoor recreation facility?

While that argument seems logical, I'm not sold. Racquetball courts and family swimming centers would be great. My family would certainly love it. But I remain unconvinced that it is something that falls within an acceptable use of tax revenue.

Substance Abuse Group Home Approved in Eagle Mountain

The city council met Tuesday night, and despite deep reservations, approved the Ark of Eagle Mountain.

Read Councilman David Lifferth's views here.

Group Home Applicant to Sue if Eagle Mountain Doesn't Grant Approval April 7

As discussed here, Eagle Mountain is considering an application for a group home for substance abuse rehabilitation. The application was tabled at the last city council meeting, and is now scheduled to be reviewed again at the meeting on April 7th. In a Daily Herald news article, Gloria Boberg, executive director of The Ark of Eagle Mountain, threatened to sue the city if the application is not approved on that date.

I find the threat quite distasteful. I understand Ms. Boberg's frustration at the delay, particularly since this is not the first city to put numerous obstacles in the way of one of her homes. However, I think our city council is doing a great job of due diligence to ensure that the home will be everything it says it will be, and that any negative impact on the community will be mitigated.

Threats of legal action ahead of the council meeting do nothing to endear Ms. Boberg and her group home to the community. It simply will ensure that more angry residents will be at the April 7th meeting ready to speak out against the home.

Should Eagle Mountain Allow A Substance Abuse Treatment Home In Its City?

I went to my city council meeting last week to hear the debate surrounding whether or not to allow a substance abuse group home in Eagle Mountain. The home would be called Ark of Eagle Mountain and would house up to eight people undergoing substance abuse rehabilitation programs in a residential neighborhood of EM. The original application was filed with the city last fall, and this meeting was to hear public comment and put the group home application to a final vote.

The public comment period was filled with neighbors who vehemently oppose the home. There were a few common themes running through their comments, namely:

*The home would devalue property
*EM is not the right place for a home ie. they'd be better off in a city
*Security concerns
*Questions as to motivation - supposedly the homeowners were stuck in an unsellable spec home and this is how they're getting out of it.

After the public comment period ended, the executive director of the home addressed the concerns expressed:

*Residents of the home have chosen rehab - they aren't forced there by drug court etc
*Residents will be professionals - doctors, lawyers, dentists, and some will be war veterans
*There is 24/7 supervision, including cameras, alarms, lockdowns at night
*A similar home they operate in Sandy has never had any security problems - no complaints filed, and the neighbors love them
*It's wrong to fear that the home will bring addicts to EM - they're already here. The only difference is that these addicts have chosen rehabilitation.
*Complaints against this home are just example of NIMBY

Following the Ark's response, the city council members commented, as well as asked questions of the Ark and of the city's legal counsel. None of the council are in favor of allowing the home, but are apparently resigned to the fact that federal law prevents them from disallowing it. Some expressed anger at being in this position, feeling as though the home is being forced on the community by threat of lawsuit.

During this time a representative from the county sheriff's office presented his research that the Ark's home in Sandy has not had any security calls to the home, and a home in EM would not increase our policing costs.

In the end, the council voted to postpone the vote until April 7. They want a landscaping plan submitted, as well as a more thorough report on public safety concerns. The Ark's representatives left visibly irritated at another delay, and after leaving there was a small argument between them and one of the citizens who spoke against the home.

I am actually quite conflicted on this issue. After hearing the public comments, I too thought they sounded like little more than NIMBY. However, when one of the council members remarked that if you polled 100 people none of them would want this home next door to them, I found myself nodding in agreement. However, I feel that the home's operators have answered every question, complied with every request, and, perhaps most significantly, they have a sufficient track record of safety to allay any security concerns the community may have. For these reasons I don't believe the council should stand in the way of the home any longer.

Ark of Sandy
Daily Herald Editorial
Councilman David Lifferth's notes from the meeting
SL Tribune
Daily Herald
Deseret News

Eagle Mountain City Councilman on UTA Express Line to Provo

A UTA express bus line is coming to Eagle Mountain this Spring. I discussed the line here and here. I had questions concerning the cost and subsidy the bus line required, particularly since the cost to ride the bus remains pretty high.

Well, on my city councilman's website, someone asked when we were going to get an express line to Provo/Orem. Here is his reply:

The biggest factor will be the number of bus riders on the upcoming express bus route to Salt Lake City from Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain. If that route has a significant number of dailly riders and that bus route comes close to breaking even financially, then more bus routes will be considered. If those 2 express bus routes are not at or near capacity, then it will take a longer time for additional routes to be considered by UTA.

The second factor is funding. This new bus route was jump started with a $200k federal grant to expand bus services. If there is more transporation grant money avialable, then that would increase the likelyhood of expanded bus routes.

The third factor is the sales tax revenue. Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs residents voted to pay a quarter of a percnet more sales tax to subsidize the bus services to our area. If the sales taxes generated from our 2 cities makes up any shortfall that the 2 express bus routes, then we help our chances in getting additional routes.

The 4th is a bit of an unknown. There are efforts available to put all of Utah County into the UTA transportation district. There is legal wrangling about this and I don't know how much support there is county wide to join the transportation district. If we, as a county, join the UTA do join there will be expanded bus routes county-wide and that will also increase our chances of additional bus lines.

The bottom line is that we are in the in a trial/test/pilot/evaluation period to see the success of what we already have. It if works out as a positive thing and capacity and percentage of ridership his high, then we probably get more options. We will have to wait and see.

So after hundreds of thousands of federal dollars, tens of thousands of city tax dollars, plus $160 a month per person to ride the bus, there are concerns that UTA won't break even by driving two buses to Salt Lake City and back five days a week? I don't get it.

Coming Soon: UTA to Eagle Mountain

Eagle Mountain's Proposition One, of which I wrote about here, to bring EM and Saratoga Springs into the UTA taxing district, passed by healthy margins. 76.5% of EM and 66.8% of SS voters voted in favor of annexation.

I emailed a councilman and the mayor of Eagle Mountain before the election to express some concerns and questions I had about the proposition, but I did not receive a response. The week before the election, EM hosted a "meet the candidates" night, and as part of that meeting the mayor subbed for a UTA official to speak in support of the proposition. After all the candidates had given their 3 minute speech, each went to their assigned spot and met one on one with voters. I was able to talk to the mayor for a few minutes, and ask her the questions I had emailed before.

The mayor's view was that EM desperately needs mass transit, this is a great opportunity to get federal funding for it, and it won't mean a huge increase in local taxes. I asked her why these bus lines would cost so much money, and she didn't know. I asked her if there were any other alternatives to UTA for an express bus service, and she didn't know.

The city councilman I emailed posted his view on his website. It reads much the same as the mayor's view. Transportation is something that falls under government jurisdiction, EM really needs a bus service, and if we join now we can get $600,000 in federal grant money.

I had a few problems with this proposition.

First, I felt really uncomfortable with the fact that I seemed to be the only one asking the question, "is this the best we can do?", and perhaps even more uncomfortable with the fact that no one seemed able to answer it.

Second, I didn't like that one of its major selling points was that it came with "free" federal grant money.

Third, both the city councilman and the mayor dismissed the sales tax increase as minimal because Eagle Mountain currently doesn't have much in the way of retail sales establishments - meaning most residents shop in communities that already have the UTA tax. However, a quickly growing city of 25k+ residents will have shopping at some point. So it will cost taxpayers money.

Fourth, the bus fare is expected to be $160 a month. At a gas price peak of $4, it cost me about that much to drive my own car. With rapidly falling prices, it costs me substantially less. With a single car pool partner, my commute cost is cut in half. And I don't drive a special, expensive, gas saving vehicle - I drive a 2003 Toyota Corolla. It simply does not make financial sense to subsidize a bus system that costs me more to use than it does to simply drive myself.

It very well may be that that final point encapsulates my hesitation at this new UTA bus line. My personal commuting situation, coupled with a rise in gas prices, caused me to make changes in what I drove and how I drove. They were not drastic measures. They were simple actions taken to better manage my personal economy.

This UTA line would basically remove those incentives to change. And it costs substantially more - particularly to those not interested in riding a bus. Perhaps this thought line can be summed up best by an excerpt from a comment I received on my previous UTA post. The comment comes from Frank Staheli, a former city councilman whose city faced this same decision during his term:

Others could cut costs in similar manners, but most people don't look for alternative solutions, because government solutions make sluggards of nearly all of us.

That's the rub. This bus line was sold as a "something for nothing" proposition. We'll get $600k in federal money, pay next to nothing in sales tax ourselves, and Poof! we'll have a bus line. No one has to take personal responsibility for change, no one has to find alternative solutions of their own.

Does Eagle Mountain Need UTA?

Eagle Mountain is about 45 miles from Salt Lake City. It is very much a bedroom community, with most people living in EM and commuting to work in either SLC or the Provo area to the southeast. It is such a new area that roads are often overcrowded, as supply has not kept up with demand.

So in comes the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to provide express bus services to Eagle Mountain and its neighbor, Saratoga Springs. It will cost an additional quarter-cent in sales tax as well as a $200,000 a year federal grant for the first three years of the new route. After that 3 year period is up, UTA says FrontRunner will be at Thanksgiving Point, "boosting the service". At that point, the route would likely change from going to Salt Lake to just going to the FrontRunner stop.

UTA claims that the bus service would get 25% of commuter traffic, reducing congestion. Lehi, which has seen its city streets explode with traffic as EM and SS grew, would see a 15% drop in traffic, according to the UTA. However, some have expressed deep skepticism in those numbers, citing historical data showing traffic capture of only 1-2%. The heavy commuting nature of Eagle Mountain would likely mean higher commuter-transit usage than other areas, but wouldn't push the numbers quite that significantly.

Cost for this bus line includes:

-$600,000 in federal money
-sales tax money, which the city estimates would have been $10,000 in'07-'08
-the regular $4 per ride, $160 a month bus fare.

Once the two cities approve the bus lines and are annexed into the UTA taxing district, they are guaranteed to pay the tax, but are not guaranteed the bus service. That is up to the UTA commissioners to decide, though it's very unlikely that the service would be removed.

My question is, is UTA necessary? Currently it costs me $160 a month to drive to work in Salt Lake City, and it takes me about an hour. With my carpool partner, the cost is cut in half to $80 a month, and driving in the carpool lane saves time. Now, that doesn't include the cost of buying or maintaining the car. But I would own it even if I didn't commute to work. Maintenance costs obviously are increased because of the increased mileage, but I do it myself and it isn't substantial. With even one more carpool partner, the effective maintenance costs would be decreased further.

Is there a more targeted, more efficient way to provide for mass transit than UTA? I know and understand the benefits of mass transit. What I don't understand is how two passengers in a vehicle costs less than a bus full of people. Also, in addition to my own monthly fare cost, plus the increased sales tax, why must people in Arkansas or South Dakota foot the $600,000 bill to subsidize my commute?

Eagle Mountain residents will vote on the issue in November, and the question I'd like answered by then is, is there an alternative to UTA-directed mass transit?


Sources used:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700264432,00.html
http://ssutah.blogspot.com/2008/08/express-bus-plan-short-on-time.html
http://www.davidlifferth.com/site/content_info.php?content_id=2016
http://www.davidlifferth.com/site/content_info.php?content_id=2027