(Updated 20 Feb 2014, after the 94th signature - your email may be used to organize against the passage of this bond election.)
Whereas, there is currently a movement promoting the construction of an “Aquatic Center” combined with additional recreation fields,
Whereas, the cost of the project was estimated to be $25 to $30 million, to property tax payers of Wasatch County,
Whereas, this would amount to an averagecost of $1,000 for everyman, woman and child in the county, for construction andanadditional $370 in INTEREST
Whereas,the annual cost of bond payments is shown to be about $100 per year,($100 per year increase in property tax)for the average priced primary residence;
Whereas, an ADDITIONAL annual operating cost deficit of $400,000 to $800,000 is suggested, and that cost will be ADDITIONAL annual property tax of $25 to $50 per year,
Whereas, local commercial property taxes will increase by twice the residential payer amount,
Whereas, a commercial (or second home) property assessed at $800,000 would have an increase in property tax of $500 per year– solely for the construction and operation of the center.
Whereas, the projected use of the Aquatic Center would only be 10 to 20%of the county residents,
Whereas, there are currently several pools available in Wasatch County,
Whereas, there is an excellent aquatic facility available 20 min away in Kamas,
Whereas, there was an informal petition being circulating supporting this pool movement,
Whereas, on Feb 20, 2014, the proposal has been officially placed on the November 2014 ballot by the Wasatch County Council.
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved that We, the undersigned residents, and taxpayers, of Wasatch County, hereby strongly urge other County voters to oppose the proposal and vote NO in November.
There are a lot of things in Wasatch County that we don't need: Parks, libraries, football, basketball, baseball or any other sports park or amenity, senior center, "pony palace", fair grounds, etc., etc. We could eliminate everything that was not essential and we would then have a community that no one would want to belong. What the discussion should be about is not what is NEEDED, but what is BEST for the community at large. There are many in the community that love horses and get a lot of use of the "pony palace". I'm not one of them, but I have no objection to it's existence because it adds to the flavor of the whole area and promotes a lot of what makes up the Heber Valley. I see where there is a great need for the center and would be used by a greater number of people than the "pony palace". I am not a swimmer, but I do have grandchildren where the center would be a great attraction when they come to visit (rather than taking them to Kamas, which is generally what we do when they come).
I do not feel that this project is being developed out of a real, public desire or need for a pool. To me, it seems to be being driven by the Parks & Rec staff, who want to grow their "kingdom" and their budget. I do not believe that sufficient study has been undertaken of surrounding community's pools and their usage. We also need to know what assumptions of usage and ongoing maintenance costs have been made. These have not been made public as yet, so there is a distinct lack of transparency in the cost assumptions.
I say we need to identify our needs vs. our wants. A pool is not a need. We will soon be so over crowded in our schools that we will have to bond to build more schools. Do we want to pit our schools against a rec center?
pamela stevenson1 month ago
John Zachary2 months ago
Scott HorowitzUnited States7 months ago
- On Feb 20, 2014, the same County Council voted 6 to 1 to place the "Aquatics Center' on the 2014 ballot.
- While maintaining that this was the 'people's idea,on "August 21, 2013 the Wasatch County Council voted on Resolution 13-15 establishing a Special Bond Election to be held November 5, 2013 for a new aquatic center and outdoor recreational facilities. The results of that vote were 4 to 3 (57%) in favor of the resolution. Utah State Law requires a Special Election be approved by a 2/3 majority vote (66%). Therefore, the resolution failed to pass.