So the pro-incorporaters can get the best of all worlds, a legal Feasibility
Study that doesn't exceed the 105% requirement and a second
'controlled' (in that if the numbers didn't go your way you never
have to reveal it) fiscal analysis of a couple of quarters gains after coming
off the bottom of a recessive period (even though the levels don't come
close to the pre-recessive period). Also you can jumble all the cumulative
numbers of high growth areas (like Riverton and West Jordon) of the whole County
and make a beautiful conclusion. It is never a time to experiment in
government and completely unnecessary too. Funny thing how when the
incorporaters could have received a paid legal updated analysis they choose the
controlled method. Yes it might have delayed a vote until another election, but
that too is an issue, whenever someone says you have this "limited time
offer" on anything I know it is likely a scam. Gary thanks for bringing this
Completely agree, Gary. I'm simply do not have any faith in the projected
numbers the pro-incorp group has used. Consistently they have incorrectly
analyzed the tax burden, even to the point of a public reprimand by Mayor
Corroon and council member Jani Iwamoto that it wasn't an "apples to
apples" comparison.I am also very concerned about the $7M they
will need to complete the 2300 East Improvement project. What will be the source
of this money? Currently this is a county project. But if Millcreek
incorporates, the burden shifts to the new city as the new owner of the project.
The new city would be "responsible for the construction phase, including
securing local match funds for this federally funded project and right-of-way
acquisition process. If the new city chooses not to proceed, the project funds
spent on the design will need to be reimbursed to the federal government."
[See 2300eaststudy dotcom] $7M is the amount in federal funds, and $2M in state
funds. [Jan 2012 Fact Sheet]
why create more government when we have already seen the poor results of other
"cities that have made this same mistake.
Incorporation laws have changed over the years. 105% is the latest best effort
by the Legislature. Taylorsville incorporated with 116% or more, prior to the
latest law. Fesibility studies are a best guess (or not). The whole
purpose of the 105% rule was to prevent left over parts of unicorporated county
from being significantly impacted by the tax void left when areas incorporated
and then kept their tax dollars home.Millcreek is the last plumb on
the tree. Currently Millcreek is the last viable area to become its own city.
The Mayor and Iwamoto wanted you to believe that the County's tax rate -
without UFA or UPD included, would be a more appropriate "apple to
apple" comparison. What a bait and switch. Fire and Police are municipal
services and must be included to be an apple to apple comparison.Using tax rates and fees imposed by neighboring cities vs "County"
services shows that Millcreek is charged $4,000,000 more than what the other
cities property tax rates and fees would charge. Obviously the county
doesn't want the last plumb to fall from the tree, but the citizens of
Millcreek should receive services equal to their burden.
Mr. Blake -- your comments and position is clear and concise, thank you for
presenting this fact. Now that we know the pro-group waived a right to have a
county-paid independent update is a significant error of judgement on their
part. It speaks to their lack of integrity -- a liitle to fast with numbers.
Skyline77, I believe you have it backwards-- the misleading "blue-card"
did not include the police and fire costs; read the fine print on your false and
mis-leading ad. Citizens, especially those on 2300 East as stated by slamar
should really understand what is at risk--I see no reason to expirement and risk
our community--losing funding for this project is a disaster; how much will this
new city have to pay-back to the county, state and federal government?
Look at the property tax bill or cost for a property in Millcreek and an equal
property in Cottonwood Heights, comparing the municipal charges between the two
would give you strange results as the Unincorporated County is way down this
year due to the legislature requiring the UPD Service districts as separate line
items on the tax assessment. Say you have a home that has an assessed value of
$396,700 for the 2012 tax year, the County Municipal charges would be $15.87 and
in Cottonwood Heights $579.18, really doesn't compare fairly. Now take the
holistic approach of the total tax assessment. The $396,700 property in
Cottonwood Heights would be $3582.60 and in Millcreek $3407.65. Bottom line in
spite of the changes in UPD fees, it is, in total less expensive property tax
wise to live in UNINCORPORATED MILLCREEK for the same assessed value than in
Cottonwood Heights. All other cities do charge franchise taxes and while
Cottonwood Heights hasn’t so far they have lived off numerous government
grants, read more taxpayers money, so more hidden costs. Cities with higher
retail tax base (Murray) or lesser services (Holladay) are lower.
Momma always told me that if it looked like a rat and smelled like a rat it
probably was!Well... This whole incorporation nonsense
stinks! No matter how these pro-incorporation folks spin, buy off,
describe incorporation it always ends up stinking!Just vote NO.
For the last 100 years Salt Lake County was the only county in the state that
allowed significant urban development outside of city boundaries.In the
1970's; an effort to consolidate Salt Lake City and County, in order to
reduce government size, was rejected in favor of the idea of wall-to-wall
cities.Other cities in salt Lake County have incorporated to that end.Millcreek, Kearns and Magna are the final holdouts.If Millcreek
does not incorporate - they should annex to Holladay, Salt Lake or South Salt
LakeThe dysfunctional collection of special service areas should not
continue and the rest of Salt Lake county is being shortchanges by being forced
to be Millcreek's local government instead of the regional government it is
supposed to be.
So is the point of this letter to complain that a new City of Millcreek would
have too much revenue? WOW! I think I better rethink the issue. I never
really considered it from the stand-point that my property taxes as a resident
of Millcreek would go down! I wonder if there is any truth, then, to the
claims that the Millcreek tax base supports other unincorporated areas. I heard
one of the SL County Mayoral candidates (don't recall which) talk about the
conjecture that the county's citizens would have to step up to 'assist
the other unincorporated areas while they decide their futures' if
Millcreek incorporation is successful. As a resident of Millcreek, that sounds
more reasonable than my area being the sole line of support. Seems to me
that a government of my neighbors would serve my area well. At least as well as
what no local representation has been able to afford. And now, if the tax cost
turns out to be in the residents favor, as this author argues, I think a
'yes' vote should be carefully considered as the best option for all
who reside in Millcreek Township.
Farmingtown analysis of property taxes is not fair or accurate. Looking at a
total property tax billing includes many various levels of governmental
entities. Different services charge for different things. School Districts are
different, Cottonwood Rec center was created in 1968 to provide recreational
facilities that the county would not provide. This was long before Cottonwood
Heights became a city 8 years ago. If you look at just municipal services,
including police and fire etc, Cottonwood Heights is only paying 64% of what the
unicorporated county is paying for the same (apples to apples) services. I hope
the rest of my neighbors in Millcreek have a better understanding of the facts.
Voting for Millcreek City is the right choice if you want lower taxes. Many
opponents don't really understand the facts and are selling themselfs down
the river to higher taxes and less responsive government. I vote YES.