Utah is one of the few states that has not required developers and developments
to automatically be annexed into the nearest municipality. That would've
solved the problem from the start. Counties are not meant to be in the urban
business. They are meant to serve rural areas. Require places like Millcreek
to annex into the nearest municipality.
I agree with Lilljemalm in the sense that SL County should not be in the
"urban" business. Personally, I think they are getting out of the
municipality business anyway. However, I respectfully disagree with Lilljemalm
about requiring Millcreek to annex. This would not be appropriate; when
Millcreek incorporates, it will be the 10th largest city (by population) in the
state of Utah. That's saying something when there are over 200 cities.
Incorporating was found to be (economically) feasible by two independent studies
that were paid for by SL County and a Millcreek community organization. The
second study was a fiscal analysis that found Millcreek will have a budget
surplus.Millcreek should incorporate because it's residents are
exporting tax dollars to other areas of SL County. As a resident of Millcreek,
I'm disgusted by the idea that money I spend here in my community is NOT
always used to benefit MY community. This is fiscally irresponsible. Also,
Millcreek resident's don't have a voice; one from Millcreek
represented is on the SL County council. Our interests are not represented as
well as they could be if Millcreek had it's own city council.
I must say, as a resident of unincorporated Salt Lake County (down in the Sandy
area), what a pleasure it is to have one less bureaucracy to answer to than my
Sandy City neighbors. Something tells me that Millcreek, due to apathy, will
allow the power hungry, job seeking bureaucrats in their own neighborhood to
take over through incorporation. Oh well, I'm not a resident so what do I
care. As long as it doesn't happen down in my neck of the woods.