Summit Assessment Bond Town Hall Meeting reminder and updates

UPDATED@ 11:30 am with a guest post from Steve Clarke

In preparation for tonight's Town hall meeting sponsored by the Summit Group, we will include some clean up items along with a couple of guest submissions.

But first, here are the details of the meeting.

Tonight, March 25, 2013 @ 7:00 PM
Pineview Lodge @ Wolf Creek (Behind Harley & Bucks)

We will also include a letter to Commissioner Zogmaister that was forwarded to us with some sage advice, we think:

Commissioner Jan Zogmaister : I am a part-time resident in Ogden Valley for over 15 years and own a condominium and townhouse in Moose Hollow which is a part of Wolf Creek Resort. As such I pay over $10,000 a year in property taxes.

When the Summit Series people arrived on the scene approximately a year ago to evaluate and ultimately purchase Powder Mountain, they were favorably viewed particularly in light of the previous developer (Powder Town). It is an understatement to say that Powder Town was not favorably viewed by the residents of Ogden Valley.

Fast-forward a year and the residents of Wolf Creek while still hopeful that the Summit Series people will be good citizens and custodians of the treasure of Powder Mountain, some of us are getting concerned and skeptical about Summit Series and what appears to be elitist behavior. Some people are concerned that after a year or two the Summit Series will turn Powder Mountain into a private club similar to the debacle at Wolf Creek which led to its bankruptcy.

Since this proposed $17 million bond whether revenue or otherwise, is being issued under the umbrella of the Weber County government unit, it would make sense to insure a public benefit in the form of a covenant that Summit Series agrees to keep Powder Mountain (or at least the currently existing ski mountain) both public and affordable. Affordable would be defined as not raising ticket prices more than the cost of living etc. along with no additional fees to the public.

I hope you will give serious consideration to my proposal to insure that there is a public benefit in exchange for this bond and that Powder Mountain continues to be available to all of us.

Joe Buchanan

We will finish up with some pertinent links from the last couple of days regarding the proposed bond.

Click here to review the Weber County Planning Commission packet for the proposed development.

  

UPDATED: Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group

From the Weber County Forum: Ogden Valley Forum: Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group - Updated

Summit to host Town Hall meeting Monday regarding the proposed special assessment bond.

 We have applauded the Summit Group in the past for their apparent openness and outreach to the community, but were disappointed to hear that the county has chosen to present this and potentially act on a $17 Million decision with little or no input from the residents of the county.  We hope the Summit Group will have an open discussion this evening and we urge them to stick around until every question from residents and neighbors has been fielded. 

 What say ye Ogden Valley faithful? 

 Update @ 11:30 am on March 25, 2013:  

We just received this guest post from Steve Clarke

Be informed on the Summit Bond question

The $17M bond for roads, water, and sewer at Summit Eden are a hot topic.  Why no public hearing, why no news coverage, what does it mean to me as a taxpayer?

We all assume the worst when we don’t know better, so let’s make sure we have the facts before exhausting our energy.

The applicable law is Utah Code Title 11 Section 42, the Assessment Area Act.  Here’s the link: http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/section.jsp?code=11-42 .  Once you’ve waded through the pages of definitions we see a state law written to enable the “local entity” (in our case the County) to work with developers to install public utilities (which will eventually become property of the County) using a bond which is paid for by the property owners within the area being served. 

There are several ways the public is protected in case the developer goes bankrupt.  For example: The County holds a lien on the property that supersedes even the 1^st mortgage of a residence built on the property, the bond is set up in phases, a reserve fund can be established, etc.  Our State legislature has thought long and hard about protecting our interests as taxpayers.

The law provides for property owners within the area being assessed to file a written protest.  It requires public notices and a public hearing for those property owners.  In the case (like Summit) where there is a single owner the public notice and hearing can be waived.

Folks, if we have a concern about this process let’s get our input to our State legislators.  Our Commissioners and the petitioner (Summit) are following the law to the “T” in this case. 

The bigger issue for us is how we protect the rural atmosphere and other values of our General Plan in the face of “big money” and developers of every persuasion coming to the Valley, as they surely will.  The answer is to get land use ordinances in place which help manage the growth without stepping too heavily on the property rights of each and every one of us, especially our larger land owners.  Having been involved in this process for the last 10 years I can tell you we are not there yet!  Ask the Commissioners and our Planning Commission for action.  They know what the next steps are, but those steps require a consulting budget and public process which will demand their commitment.  With folks like Summit at their desks almost every day asking for their support our County officials need to know we care and wish planning to take a higher priority.

Respectfully, Steve Clarke

  

UPDATED: Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group

Guest post by Shanna Francis

Weber County Commissioner Jan Zogmaister confirmed during a phone interview on March 22 that the county is considering floating a $17 million bond to help pay for infrastructure—water and roads—for the Summit Group’s proposed development at Powder Mountain.  In the interview, Zogmaister confirmed that Summit and the county have been discussing the matter for several months now, and are working on the details for the bond, such as how the bond would be repaid if Summit defaulted on payments, which Summit say they will make to cover the cost of the bond.  Zogmaister said the county and Summit are close to completing the details of an agreement, and, in a closed meeting planned for later in the day (at 1:30 p.m., March 22), the two groups and their attorneys (Weber County and Summit’s) were meeting.  When asked if members of the public could attend, she stated “no, it wasn’t for the public.”  When asked if, legally, the public could be kept from attending, she stated she didn’t know.

At the Weber County Commissioner’s meeting on Tuesday, March 26, Zogmaister said that passage of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding issue would be on their agenda. The meeting begins at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission Chambers in Ogden.

When Zogmaister was asked about input from the community—Weber County tax payers—regarding the Commissioner’s decision to carry the public debt for a private developer,Zogmaister explained that there are many types of bonds, and, in this case, the county can take on the bond debt without a public hearing or public input on the issue.

The county is also working on the details of carrying a bond for the Weber County Library system for updates and renovations.  For the library bonds, the county has to go through the public hearing process. 

Weber County taxpayers can express their approval or concern and disapproval at such county action by contacting the Commissioners at 801-399-8402.

Update March 24, 2013 @ 8am:

Our friends at the Weber County Forum provide more insight and the legalities behind the proposed secret Welfare bond here: 

• Ogden Valley Forum: Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group

Weber County Commissioners Consider Action on Rezone Request at Powder Mountain November 13

Guest Post by Shanna Francis

The Weber county Commission will consider action on a rezone request at Powder Mountain on Tuesday, November 13 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission Chambers located in the Weber Center, 2380 Washington Blvd. in Ogden. 

The rezone petition is being requested by Steven H. Nielsen II (Pronaia Capital) representing Western America Holding, LLC, which is requesting a rezone to approximately 4,297 acres located at Powder Mountain Resort from Forest Residential-3 (FR-3), Forest Valley-3 (FV-3), Commercial Valley Resort Recreation-1 (CVR-1), and Forest-40 (F-40) to FV-3, CVR-1, and F-40.  In addition, they will consider a Zoning Development Agreement between Weber County and Western America Holding, LLC as part of Zoning Petition 2006-18

A staff report on the Weber County web site, found at https://miradi.co.weber.ut.us/projects/view/511_Powder provides a brief background to the petition and states the following:

“On June 1, 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Weber County and Western America Holding, LLC was approved as a precursor to a formal Zoning Development Agreement between the parties regarding development at Powder Mountain Resort.  The MOU promoted the creation of a Development Agreement that would establish the basic development parameters for Powder Mountain and cause the withdrawal of the Powder Mountain Town Incorporation Petition and litigation associated therewith.  Negotiations on the Development Agreement began soon after the MOU was approved and have continued until the parties recently reached an agreement.  The agreement has been patterned after the County’s development agreement with Snowbasin Resort.

“One of the main reasons that the Development Agreement has taken so long to finalize is that Western America Holding, LLC Began negotiating the sale of Powder Mountain Resort during the Development negotiations.  The potential buyers needed additional time to review the agreement and the negotiation process slowed down to accommodate this.  The Planning Division, County legal counsel, and Western America Holding, LLC have now agreed in principle to the October 29 draft of the Development Agreement.

“Each section of the MOU is addressed in the development agreement as are many of the principles that make up the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s 19 conditions recommended in 2007.  The County worked hard to incorporate these principles into the Development Agreement and the only conditions not addressed in some form are the number of limitations on hotel and commercial development, and the commencement of development with a multi-family/commercial village. . . a public hearing is not required to take action on this Development Agreement.

“If the Agreement is signed by both parties, all pending litigation will be dismissed, and Western America Holding, LLC shall immediately withdraw the Powder Mountain Town Incorporation Petition that had been stalled.  The county will then rezone the property as described in the application request (visit Weber County’s web site to read a copy).  This Agreement will then supersede the MOU.  If any amendments are sought by either party, they must go before the Planning Commission for a public hearing.”

The approval of a request to rezone the resort to a Destination and Recreation Resort Zone (DDR-1) would require the approval of a new Development Agreement where the developer would need to show that the resort can meet the rezone application requirements.

The Weber County Planning Commission is recommending approval of the Zoning Development Agreement.  The Agreement is based on the provisions of the MOU and takes into account most of the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s earlier mandated 19 conditions.

Pow Mow wants to join the United Nations

Submitted by Greg Anderson

There's a new YouTube video in which someone supposedly representing Powder
Mountain is angry that "PowMow" will not be admitted into the United
Nations. It's all played for laughs but, after the recent "Powder Mountain
Town" events around here, I'm not sure that Ogden Valley residents will find
it very funny. You be the judge.

Zogmaister abandoned the citizens of Ogden Valley

An important comment promoted to the front page

By Laura

When you hear Zogmaister bragging about bringing growth to Ogden Valley, think of the financial collapse of Wolf Creek.

During the tour of Powder Mountain properties early in the game, all voters should have heard the shrill voice of Zogmaister telling everyone what a plus this "Mega Resort" was going to be. You can be sure that if the single access road went past her home, she would have had a different response.

Zogmaister abandoned the citizens of Ogden Valley when push came to shove on the Powder Mountain question. When asked why she did not vote against the incorporation of the town when some of her constituents would lose their civil rights, she refused to answer.

Powder Mountain (aka Powderville) Update; Let's Talk Extortion!

By Ima Believer

LET’S TALK EXTORTION

Just my opinion, but I think what happened at the WC Commission meeting last night may have been the commission caving in to a well-orchestrated plan of extortion. I’m not a Utah lawyer; fact, I’m not even a lawyer, but I know a little about extortion, and I think we may well have seen it here. Here’s some random stuff from the net (in no particular order):

Answers.com

n, 2. Illegal use of one’s official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority (emphasis added here and elsewhere)

Columbia Encyclopedia

In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear….

Law Encyclopedia

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened…fear, or under color of official right.

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion.

American Lawyer.com

n, Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim’s property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of right….

Criminal.findlaw.com

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1)violence, 2)property damage, 3)harm to reputation, or 4)unfavorable government action.

Utah Code Ann. 76-6-406 Theft by Extortion

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercise control over the property of another by extortion and with a purpose to deprive him thereof.

(2) As used in this section, extortion occurs when a person threatens to:

(b)Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint;….

Utah Code Ann. 76-8-104 Threats to influence official or political action.

(1)A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he threatens any harm to a public servant,…with a purpose of influencing his action, decision, opinion, recommendation, nomination, vote, or other exercise of discretion.

(2) As used in this section:

(a)”Harm” means any disadvantage or injury, pecuniary or otherwise, including disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare the public servant…is interested.

So here’s the deal: it appears that the essence of extortion is a threat to do something, even something the extortionist may otherwise have a perfect right to do, for the purpose of obtaining something the extortionist has no right to have (in this case, zoning density well beyond what’s on the property when it was bought, if the Pronaia boys or their predecessors had taken the time and trouble to look.)

In fact, in some other states, extortion can occur when that threat is made even if the extortionist has a right to the property sought and the right to take the action that is threatened! Remember, it’s the threat that’s bad. Here’s how that works. Let’s say A writes B a bad check. B has an obvious right to the money, and can sue A for it, civilly. B also has the right to go to the prosecutor and file bad check charges against A. What he does NOT have the right to do is to threaten A that he will go to the prosecutor unless A pays the money. That’s extortion.

If, having gone to the prosecutor, B receives an offer from A to pay the money, or even if B receives payment and drops the criminal case, no problem. But if B says to A “I’ll only drop the charges if you agree to pay me twice what you owe me,” that’s extortion. Isn’t this fun?

Are we getting the picture, here? Now, once again, that may not be the way things work here in Utah, where the law isn’t quite as well developed as in other states, but then again, it may be. Either way, it sure leaves a bad taste when it happens, doesn’t it? And when the Pronaia boys threatened to continue their campaign to establish their town and hold the citizens captive, without a vote, unless the county commissioners gave them more than twice the density to which they were entitled, the commissioners didn’t say: “Hey, that sounds like extortion!” They said: “That sure sounds reasonable to us.”

Wonder what they’ll demand next?

Predictable Outcome for Ogden Valley

Last night at the Weber County Commission public hearing on Powder Mountain it was no surprise when the Weber County Commissioners voted to accept the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) submitted by the Powder Mountain developers with a unanimous vote. The County Commissioners stated this was just a beginning, with much more work

to be done.

Despite the numerous Ogden Valley residents who spoke sincerely of their opposition to the MOU, citing the General Plan and fairness issues, it was clear in the end, that their well documented and logical points had negligible influence with the Weber County Commissioners.

To be sure, there were supporters of the MOU at the meeting and they spoke of their reasons for support. Most said they were affected homeowners who want to be free of the incorporation threat. They feel caught in a vise between the developers and Weber County. They must have forgot who put them there in the first place.

Commissioner Dearden spoke at length about the poorly written bill (HB466) that was passed in the state legislature and how these things happen. What he failed to address was the fact that when the bad bill was replaced a year later by a revised bill on incorporation, the specific section that generated this entire anti-incorporation uproar was left in place in an intentional and calculated move by the legislature.

Of interest was the presentation of Mr. Pierce of Pronaia when he said that in his investigation of the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) around the country, TDRs have not been found to be successful. Not so much as a whimper was heard from the three Weber County Commissioners despite the fact that these same Commissioners have directed the GEM Committee and others to evaluate the use of TDRs for implementation in Ogden Valley, involving many hundreds if not thousands of hours of study and reports in recent years. Yet the Commissioners had no reaction when Mr. Pierce questioned the value of TDRs. This does not bode well for open land preservation in the future for Ogden Valley.

In addition, it was obvious that the Commissioners are dismissive on the issue of consistency regarding the 3 acre restriction that other developers and land owners have followed in Ogden Valley for the last twelve years.

Mr. Pierce also did his best to lay the blame for problems on the initial Powder Mountain developers (WAH) due to their approach and strategy. While he may have a point, Pronaia’s hands are tarnished as well for continuing to use the threat of incorporation to achieve their goals.

Mr. Pierce may feel this is somewhat unfair. Accordingly, The Ogden Valley Forum challenges Mr. Pierce and Pronaia to drop the incorporation with no strings attached to demonstrate good faith, and to continue this process using the offices of the Weber County Commission and the Weber County Planning Department to work out a non leveraged and equitable deal on the development at Powder Mountain.

Memorandum of Understanding Between Powder Mountain and Weber County Passes Unanimously

Late Breaking News

More will follow, but this evening Weber County Commissioners unanimously approved the Memorandum of Understanding between the Powder Mountain Developers and Weber County.  After deliberation on the issue with Commissioner Bischoff speaking in favor of the MOU, Commissioner Zogmaister made the motion to approve and Commissioner Dearden seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Thanks to Dan S. who provided live play by play blogging during the meeting in the comments section of the Weber County Forum.

UPDATE June 2, 2010 @ 4:00 AM:

The Standard offers an overview this morning in the Di Lewis article:

Residents, developers pack public hearing; lawsuits to be stayed regarding proposed Powder Mountain Town
 Be sure to watch the video on the right sidebar while you are there.  Near the end of the recording, County commission candidate Drew Johnson offers a heartfelt plea to the developers urging them to drop the plans for a town.

On the beautiful and calm Memorial Day before storm tomorrow evening at the Weber County Commission chambers, we will direct our humble readers to this morning's Di Lewis article:

Divided opinions on plans for Powder Mountain

Many Valley-ites are quoted with the majority of those quoted being opposed to the Memorandum of Understanding that will be before our humble group of all-star commissioners Tuesday evening at 6:PM (of course, get there early to get a seat).


From today's Di Lewis article:

Valley residents worry that increased traffic and the development of 2,800 units at the resort will turn their home into a polluted suburb.

"It goes far beyond the community this time," said Eden resident Sharon Holmstrom. "This time, they have the homeowners in a vise from which they cannot escape.
"If a development agreement is not reached, then homeowners are stuck with the incorporation and expense and horror of that. But if they go along with that agreement, then they undermine the general plan for the rest of the valley."
Eden resident Kirk Langford is concerned that allowing higher than normal density at the resort in order to reach a resolution will open the door for future developers to demand density variances.

Langford and Holmstrom, along with many other landowners, lost two-thirds of their development rights in the down-zoning of the valley in 1998.
Now they are worried the move the landowners hoped would preserve the valley will be pointless if the resort is allowed to have more than its allotted development rights for the amount of land.

"I'm for Powder Mountain being developed," Langford said. "I think they should get every single entitlement that they had on the land when they bought it. ...
"But I've watched people go to build one house up here, and if they're a quarter acre short, too bad, they can't build. So why should they (the resort) be able to get 1,600 more (units)?"

It's about fairness, said Eden resident Steve Clarke.
"The thing I focus on right now is the fairness issue that people who own a considerable amount of property surrendered property rights and went from 1-acre zoning to 3-acre zoning," he said.

"I feel like it's unfair for the county to give density to a resort that other people gave up willingly years ago. It's important for the county commission to acknowledge the contribution of these landowners."

But some residents believe the memorandum, with recent changes, might be the best plan they can get to end the problems in the valley, said Darla Van Zeben, an Eden resident within the incorporation boundaries and one of the residents involved in the lawsuit against the county.

The revised memorandum, now available on the county website http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php, limits the resort to one golf course, creates a 1.5 percent fee for improvements and removes the developers' ability to withdraw from the agreement after action is taken on a neighboring development with common ownership.
Van Zeben said those were the issues creating the most worry among homeowners.
Most potential town residents don't think it's a perfect solution, she said, but it's one they can live with.

"There are parts of this deal that are tough to accept, but we're all in a tough situation and this new MOU might just be the best deal the Ogden Valley is going to get," Van Zeben said.

She said they are worried that if the incorporation is ultimately approved, it would allow unbridled development across more than 20,000 acres, rather than controlled development over 4,200 acres.

Because the incorporation petition was possible through a short-lived law, Van Zeben said she doesn't think other developers would be able to demand higher density.

 As a bonus today, we will include several letters to the editor of the June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News.  It is posted below this article so be sure to scroll down.

As an enhanced bonus, we will link to this morning's Weber County Forum Post on the subject:

Standard-Examiner: Divided Opinions on Plans for Powder Mountain

In true Rudi-esque Fashion, he has created a "cribsheet" of various articles that have appeared on the subject in recent weeks.

Before we run off to 'Vegas Baby' to roll the dice on tomorrow's outcome, we will give all a chance to join in our straw poll that is located near the top of the right side bar.

As Ron Burgandy would say during signoff, "Stay Classy Ogden Valley."

Letters To The Editor of The Ogden Valley News regarding the Powderville Hostage Crisis

The June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News was stuffed with letters from residents concerned over the outcome Powderville.


We have scanned all of the letters and will include them below in no particular order.  We will, however, post the "Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley" first, as it is signed by several of the Powderville hostages.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley
By Dan VanZeben,
Darla Longhurst-VanZeben
Taylor Satterthwaite
Jim Halay
Deja Mitchell
Kathy Dowell
Suzanne Amann
Eden

Community Being Asked to Weigh in on Controversial County Decision on Powder Mountain Development  (note:  this is not a letter to the editor but a cover story written by one of the editors of the Ogden Valley News)

By Shanna Francis

A Bad Deal For Ogden Valley
By Kimbal Wheatley
Huntsville

What Is To Happen To Our Valley
By Larry Zini
Huntsville

Courage Needed To Face Powder Mountain Developer
By Frank Cumberland
Huntsville

A Community Worth Saving
By Laura Warburton
Huntsville

Powdervillains Hold Hostages
By Sharon Holmstrom
Eden

Valley Citizens Should Not Drink the Cool-Aid Offered by Powder Mountain Developers
By Richard C. Webb
Liberty

Unlink Eden Heights development from Powder Mountain MOU
By Steve Clarke
Eden


Don't Sell the Utah Supreme Court Short!
By Sharon Zini
Huntsville

Please Attend County Commission Hearing to Indicate Support Against Powder Mountain Proposal
By Edward A. Adair
Eden

Attend Public Hearing on June 1 - Democracy works best when people participate
By Kirk Langford
Eden

After perusing the twelve letters (probably the most letters the OVN has ever printed in one issue on a particular subject), we were able to break them down into three categories:

• In Favor of the MOU         1
• Against the MOU              10
• Neutral (come together)    1

Comments on Powder Mountain Draft MOU

Submitted by Dan Schroeder, Conservation Chair, Ogden Sierra Club

May 28, 2010

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the draft “Binding Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) between Weber County and the owners of Powder Mountain (WAH). These comments are submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club and our more than 300 members who live in Weber County.

Before getting into the MOU itself, I would like to express our gratitude for your courageous position on the matter of appointing the Powder Mountain Town Council. It is a fundamental American principle that our leaders should be chosen by the people, not merely appointed by a particular commercial interest or by those who own the most land. This principle is enshrined in the Utah Constitution and is supported by the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ogden Valley residents of all political persuasions have now rallied behind this principle, and we have every reason to expect that the courts will agree. Weber County is therefore engaging in the present negotiations from a position of strength

With this in mind, here are the Sierra Club’s concerns with the draft MOU:

1. The MOU fails to protect the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area.

First among the Sierra Club’s concerns is that there is no language in the draft MOU to provide any protection whatsoever to the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area (WMA). As you know, the WMA borders the Powder Mountain property on three sides, and provides critical habitat for elk and many other wildlife species. Earlier proposals from the Powder Mountain owners have vividly shown their intent to place private home sites along much of the WMA boundary. This would threaten the WMA by enabling unauthorized entry, trail construction, motor vehicle use, and poaching. These problems already occur in other remote areas of northern Utah where private residential properties adjoin public lands. The Powder Mountain boundary is similarly remote, making law enforcement impractical.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to prevent these problems. The development plan should include a buffer zone that separates private lots from the WMA, with a trail along the entire boundary that would give law enforcement personnel access to this critical area. The trail might also be used for public recreation, to whatever extent is consistent with the overriding goal of protecting wildlife habitat.

I therefore request that if you go forward with the MOU, you add a provision for a buffer zone and other necessary protections for the WMA. It would be prudent to consult with the Forest Service and the Division of Wildlife Resources regarding the details of these provisions.

2. The traffic safety/impact study should not be delayed.

The draft MOU inappropriately postpones the initiation of the traffic/impact study until many years in the future, after nearly 1500 units have already been constructed on Powder Mountain. This delay would create long-term uncertainty over the ultimate impact of the development on the rest of Ogden Valley, including the question of whether a second access road would ever be built. It is unfair for the residents of Ogden Valley to have to live with this uncertainty for so long. Instead, the traffic/impact study should be completed before any MOU or development agreement is finalized.

3. The MOU would allow Phase 2 to proceed before safety recommendations are met.

Although Section 2.3 of the MOU requires WAH to pay for the traffic safety/impact study and to “begin implementation” of the study’s recommendations before proceeding with Phase 2, it does not actually require that the safety recommendations be fully (or even mostly) implemented. If this loophole is not closed, it will almost certainly lead to unsafe conditions and/or additional litigation.

4. The MOU is an invitation for future litigation.

WAH has already demonstrated its eagerness to go to court to get what it wants. Entering into a “binding” memorandum of understanding would give WAH additional grounds for future litigation, tying the County’s hands whenever it might seek to impose additional requirements that are not explicitly included in the MOU.

Conclusion:

While an informal MOU might serve as a useful guide for future negotiations, I am not convinced that a binding MOU would be in the best interest of the County under any circumstances. Instead, I would urge you to bring forward an actual development agreement that spells out the County’s requirements in much more detail.

Should you nevertheless choose to go ahead with this binding MOU, I urge you to amend it to address the concerns described above.

Sincerely,

Dan Schroeder

Details of the great Ogden Valley Sellout available on Weber County's web site

The staff report for the upcoming Public hearing (aka, the Great Sellout of Ogden Valley) is available on the Weber County web site.

Click here to study this 26 page masterpiece

In it, you will find a time line of the events related to Powderville and some really cool maps.

To remind us all of the date, we have included this handy countdown clock.



Maybe the commissioners need to move the meeting over to the Dee Events Center.

Let's pack 'em in next Tuesday!

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

Updated with Questions posed from an Eden resident with answers from the Weber County Planning Director.  Scroll Down to view...

We will take the easy way out this morning and leave the commentary up to the folks at the Weber County Forum.

Don't miss Rudi's rundown:


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

Be sure to read Rudi's commentary carefully, especially near the end of item 1 where he states:

Whether the developer kicked up its demands during the litigation phase of negotiations we don't know; but based on the original proposed numbers, it would appear to us that the only compromising that's occurring with respect to the original "density" proposal would be on the Weber County Commission's part.

Jan Zogmeister says she wants citizen comments, so give her your comments:

I really am at a wait-and-see point," said Weber County Commissioner Jan Zogmaister.  "I've watched the whole thing progress for a couple years, so I am willing to hear it, but I also really would like to hear the input from the citizens who will be directly affected by this. ...   The whole thing has been to represent the citizens in this agreement."

 Contact Ms. Zogmaister and her friends at:

CommissionerJan Zogmaister
Commissioner Craig Dearden
Commissioner Ken Bischof

Shelly Halacy, Administrative Assistant to the Weber County Commission

(801)399-8401

Weber County Commission
2380 Washington Blvd. Suite 240
Ogden, UT 84401

UPDATE:  May 25, 2010 @ 10 PM

One of our humble Eden residents asked Weber County for answers to a few questions.  Here is the response:

Original Message-----
From: Scott, Robert
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 5:55 PM
To:
Cc: Pierce, Nate; Bischoff, Kenneth A.; Dearden, Craig; Zogmaister, Jan M.
Subject: RE: Powder Mountain Rezone

xxxx,

Here is the information you requested regarding the Powder Mountain Rezone.

1.    Was the “draft MOU” prepared by the applicant or Weber County?

The initial draft was prepared by the applicant.

2.    Was the “draft MOU” prepared with any input from Weber County staff or Commission?

Negotiations were conducted with the County Commission with staff input.

3.    Will the Planning office please provide the citizens of Weber County a simple chart showing density differences between the current zoning and that which is being proposed by the MOU.

A staff report is being prepared that will have some comparative information.

     Robert O. Scott, AICP

     Weber County Planning Director

    

Powder Mountain Memo of Understanding available - UPDATED

The Powder Mountain Memo of Understanding is now available for downloading at:

http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php

While we have not had a chance to dissect or digest it completely,  we wanted to make sure our expert readers have a chance to analyze the MOU.  Our preliminary analysis indicates they are asking for substantially more than double the current zoning (housing units).

We will highlight three important sections:

2.1 Phase 1: 

1,477 units, meaning single-family dwelling units with hotel
rooms being counted as the equivalent of one-third 1/3 of a single family
dwelling unit. In other words, a 100 unit hotel would count as 33 units.
Commercial development is not included in the density number.
Recreational and commercial uses shall be developed as needed to
support the resort (ski lifts, lodges). Phase 1 may proceed in
accordance with this Memorandum and adoption of the DA, which shall
not otherwise impair, burden or delay implementation of Phase 1 as long
as the development complies substantially with the approved concept
plan.

2.3 Phase 2 Density. 

Upon meeting the requirements specified in 2.2 above
and the conditions and benchmarks to be specified in the DA, WAH shall
be entitled to proceed with Phase 2, an additional 1323 units, which
shall include SDUs, MDUs, and hotel rooms. Hotels, commercial and
recreation uses shall count as described in 2.1 above.


7. Eden Heights and Additional Powder Mountain Zoning. Eden Heights
consists of approximately 1,500 acres, as more specifically described in Exhibit
B to this MOU. Eden Heights is adjacent to Powder Mountain and has certain
common ownership with Powder Mountain. The Parties anticipate that Eden
Heights will be filing an application for rezoning with Weber County in the near
future.

In 1998, Ogden Valley residents forfeited 2/3's of their development rights when Weber County changed minimum zoning from 1 acre to 3 acres.

Snowbasin is using the Resort zone to preserve open space on the valley floor while gaining extra density at the resort.

Powder Mountain is agreeing to release the "Powderville hostages" in exchange substantial increases in density.

Two things appear obvious:

1. Powder Mountain doesn't really want to force incorporate a small group of hostages who don't want to be forced into a company town.
2. Powder Mountain is wary of the outcome of the Supreme court case.

The June 1 public hearing is likely just a formality of a deal done long ago, but if ever there was a time for our ELECTED officials to draw a line in the snow, the time is now!

What say ye, Ogden Valley?

UPDATE:  5/21/10 @ 8 am

The Weber County Forum  has some interesting posts and comments about the contentious Powder Mountain issue.

We suggest that you check it out in preparation for the June 1st meeting in the
Commission chambers. 

Be sure to read the analysis by Frankc.
• Frank C. comments 5/20/10

Public Hearing on June 1st about Powder Mountain --- UPDATED

On June 1st, 2010 at 6 PM, a public hearing regarding the Powder Mountain rezone and development will be held in the Weber County Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd. in Ogden.

We submit that it is important that all concerned Northern Utah and Ogden Valley residents attend this hearing in substantial numbers to be heard and to demonstrate to the County Commissioners that a reasonable and fair resolution is an important issue to all of us.

We know that recent negotiations between Commissioner Dearden and the Powder Mountain owners/developers were encouraged by a minority of the Utah State Legislative leaders who, for some unfathomable reason, would not undo the egregious civil rights damage of HB466 passed in 2007.

Ogden Valley residents are concerned about any “deal” between the County Commissioners and the developers that would exchange the town incorporation for increased density (dwellings) numbers for Powder Mountain that would destroy the Ogden Valley General Plan‘s density numbers produced in 1998.

We are also concerned that such a deal will ignore the need for a second road access and the 17 other conditions regarding the development and rezone outlined by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission during the initial petition process.

Click here to read the call for involvement from Kirk Langford, longtime Valley resident and activist


UPDATE:  May 17, 2010 @ 5 PM

Be sure to read today's Weber County Forum where Rudi encourages his humble readers to attend the meeting.

Is the ACLU relevant in Utah?

Whilst sitting down this morning to post a  story about this morning's Standard Guest commentary by Larry Zini, we realized that Rudi had gotten up a bit earlier this morning and penned this most excellent rant.

Standard-Examiner Guest Commentary: Is the ACLU Relevant in Utah?

Where the hell has the Utah ACLU been during the entire several year pendency of the Powder Mountain matter?

We can't say it any better than that; however, Zini makes many good points and we will highlight just a couple:

In many other areas of the United States this would be just the kind of issue the ACLU would be ready to actively support, but despite repeated attempts to get them involved on the side of the affected Powder Mountain homeowners, the ACLU has made no effort to investigate or help.

There could be reasons that the ACLU has ignored the plight of the Powder Mountain homeowners. First, the affected homeowners are not minorities, but simply citizens who have been denied equal protection under a flawed law passed in the Utah State Legislature.

It is also possible that the ACLU is intimidated by the power structure in the State of Utah and is reluctant to get involved in a high profile case that may embarrass some state politicians. Either scenario is unacceptable.

 We note that the ACLU has jumped right in on the high profile Arizona immigration issue.

What say ye Ogden Valley-ites - Is the ACLU relevant in Utah?