Issues

and

Priorities

Warming Center

The first thing that must be said on this topic is that residents should not fear that it will return. So that everyone is clear: the county has chosen a location in Clearfield that will host the warming center henceforward. *See the update below for exact details

And it is important that there be a location where we prevent people from freezing to death on our streets.

Having said that, my view is that the Warming Center issue breaks down into 3 pieces:

1. The presence of homeless people themselves, and what ramifications it may have locally

2. The issue of non-transparency surrounding it's emergence last year, and

3. The tone of the "conversation" that we as neighbors engaged in about it.

Let's address each of these a succinctly as I can:

The homeless

Homelessness is unquestionably a complex and difficult problem for communities. Not all homeless people are addicts, but some are. Not all are mentally ill, but some are. Not all are dangerous, but some are. Some are elderly, some are teenagers, some are families, and some are alone. None should freeze to death among us.

Those who say the Mountain Road church was not an ideal location because of proximity to homes rather than services, have a point. Other locations are more appropriate and lower risk.

Could we have hosted the center for one season without issue if we had pulled together? I think we could have.

Was the Kaysville location--and now the Clearfield location--better and more appropriate? Yes, I believe so.

I do choose to credit Pastor Krafft with honorable Christian intentions in offering the church for such a purpose.

And if you, understandably, feel uneasy with a warming center in our city, but still want to offer help to those in need of it, then I encourage you to go and sign up to volunteer this winter to cover a shift or two.

That's what I did last winter, because I wanted to know firsthand what it was like, and how it was run--and I believe in not just complaining but in learning more, and being constructive if I can.

UPDATE: The County will hold an orientation for volunteers on Nov 3 at 6pm at 22 E 200 S Clearfield (the new warming center location). Anyone interested may attend--and they are hoping to add a large number of volunteers this year.

You can use this link to join the Code Blue Volunteer GroupMe:

https://groupme.com/join_group/104292050/Lyfuw4cY

The Transparency

Probably half the uproar on this issue had to do with the issue of non-transparency around it. This is fully understandable, since it is something that (especially) close-by neighborhoods would want and need to be aware of.

While it is true that the county had delayed and delayed and failed to find a location, that the deadline was then nearly down to the wire, and that the city council was not being asked to vote since it was the church's right to host a center--still, a clear communication to the community was called for, and would have prevented at least this part of the issue from adding to the first part.

Transparency (as I mention elsewhere) helps both sides.

The Tone

This is actually the part that bothered me the most.

We can put our heads and talents together to help the homeless.

We can legitimately expect better transparency, and should.

But if we continue to engage in an acidic and vitriolic tone such as happened last fall, demonizing those who hold the opposite opinion, then we are making a swamp of our beautiful mountainside, and how will we solve that problem?

We can do better, and we must.

We can't change the national stage, but we can change our local one.

We can commit to our moniker of "good neighbors", and bring our best selves to discussions.

We can engage calmly and respectfully, and even be open to accepting the valid points that the other side brings.

This is actually how the best solutions are reached: listening!

Those who didn't want a warming center here are not heartless, uncharitable people--they have real safety concerns.

And Mayor Pohlman and those who supported having it here are not devious or malicious--they truly desire to help the unfortunate among us.

My hope is to stand for good-faith exchange of ideas, not character attacks, and I call on all of us to do our best to keep the swamp of negativity off of our mountainside.

Financial Foresight

Avoid debt.
Needs come first.
Then we talk about wants.

Rising costs are an unfortunate fact of life. Good budget management means stretching the dollars and prioritizing -- just like you do in your family.

I support looking for grant money where possible, and keeping taxes as low as we can without sacrificing needed services. Fire and Police, road repairs and snow plowing, water and sewer lines and garbage pickup-- these are needs: the vital services that you depend on daily.

City government is doing its job well when you don't have to think about these things -- water flows when you turn on the tap, snow gets plowed, and the police are there when you call. These are and will always be the top priorities to keep running smoothly.

Then we talk about wants.

Transparency

This is one topic
that never gets old --

because it is perennially important that the people's business be done in view of the people. The fact is, this benefits all parties: as taxpayers we deserve to know what is being done, and as leaders we dispel any reason of suspicion. Simply put, I believe in the value of transparency, and promise to do all I can to uphold this principle.

FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY: I will work to make the city's finances easier to view and understand. This is done by most cities using a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) document. It shows city revenues and expenses at a glance, and summarizes the projects done and those planned. It is more public-friendly than the budget spreadsheets we currently have posted.

I believe tax dollar spending should be readily transparent to the tax payer.

More About Transparency

A Cemetery

The question of a Fruit Heights cemetery has been explored many times over many years. My opponent has been closely involved in those efforts, and is a well-known, committed proponent of the cemetery project. I respect her commitment, but this is one area where we differ.

While the land (the mountainside where the Fruit Loops bike trails are located) was given to the city at no cost, the cost of building and maintaining a cemetery nevertheless comes with an enormous price tag for residents.

Cost estimates just to build a first phase run to several million dollars--already more than our entire yearly budget. Add to that the cost of required insurance, perpetual maintenance, and overruns due to the difficulty of the rocky terrain, and the cost is simply beyond the means (and staffing) of our bedroom community.

Without a substantial commercial tax base, (or a donation of many millions of dollars), it is financially imprudent to embark on such a project, however desired it may be.

Cemeteries are always known to become a drain on city budgets; they do not "pay for themselves" from fees forever. Kaysville, Farmington, Ogden, West Haven, just to name a few, see their cemeteries impacting their General Fund tax dollars. Part of Kaysville's proposed tax increase this year would have been for its cemetery maintenance.

There may be better ways to accomplish this goal. I am willing to explore other options that are more fiscally feasible, and see whether those options are desired by residents.

However, any financial outlay for a cemetery in any form would still be substantial, and should therefore earn a clear mandate of support from residents, after all costs are known.

Cemetery Discussion

Term Limits

In principle, I have always believed two things regarding term limits:

1. The ballot box is the prescribed mechanism for voters to impose a limit on an office holder.

However,

2. Public office was never meant to be a lifelong career; Elected officials should self-limit, following the example set by our first President. Turnover is an intended and healthy part of representative government.

Ideally, we should not have to impose limits by statute.

Until last year, Fruit Heights did not have any rule or ordinance regarding term limits. Last year, the City Council voted 3-2 to impose limits: Two terms for mayor, 3 consecutive terms for Council; If an individual has served at least two terms on the Council, he/she may only serve one term as mayor.

The gist of the ordinance is to say that twelve years is an appropriate time frame for any one person to hold city office. I tend to agree with that sentiment, and would voluntarily self-limit, regardless of an imposed limit.

My opponent cast one of the two votes against that ordinance.

Public Input

I believe representative government should be just that: representative.

One of the hard things for an elected official can be discerning the difference between a vocal minority, and an actual majority, on any given issue.

As a Councilmember, I always wished there were a way to have polls done in the city -- I wanted a reliable way to know what the wider community felt, not just those who would come to the meeting to comment. Professionally done polling is expensive, however.

In recent years, I was glad to see some community surveys done -- the city made a good faith effort to solicit residents' feedback on three items:

the cemetery, the recycling, and the elections process issues.

The surveys were available on the city website and advertised in the newsletter and online as well as on signposts in the city.

(Survey results are here: https://www.fruitheights.gov/260/Community-Resources)

Of these surveys, two showed a decisive majority:

a desire for recycling (73-76%) and for a change in the elections system (70%).

My opponent voted for the former but not for the latter.

When people see a clear majority desire being disregarded by elected officials, they lose trust in the process.

As mayor, I would seek to utilize community surveys (and all other forms of feedback). A good survey presents clear information and context, avoids leading questions, and includes a comment section for further stating one's thoughts. The surveys we've had were well written, in my opinion.

If participation is high, a clear majority is revealed, and it is within our financial means to do so,

I would urge the Council to take the results seriously when deciding how to vote.

Final note: please participate! When the city does put out a survey, please respond and let your voice be heard! The more engaged residents are, the better governance we can achieve.

Elections System

Speaking of public surveys...

It's been said that surveys cannot be relied upon because of the low rate of participation.

That is a valid concern -- the greater the participation, the more representative the results.

Ironically, there is one thing we rely heavily on for representation that has an even lower turnout than any survey we've done:

city caucus meetings, where all our candidates for office are nominated.

The low participation at city caucus is concerning.

Caucus has its advantages and its disadvantages:

Pro: no cost for candidates; produces (ideally) a full slate

Con: you must be there in person to see who is running

A Primary system has its advantages and its disadvantages:

Pro: everyone votes on all the candidates, not a random half of them, and you don't have to be present on a certain night.

Con: candidates must make more effort to introduce themselves (cost of a flyer or website, for example); a possibility of someone running unopposed (this can happen, but is not the norm according to current data for cities of our size in Utah).

No system is perfect.

I am not necessarily pro-caucus or pro-primary, but pro-participation.

Fewer than about 100 people come out to caucus on average.

Would more than that number vote if we held a primary instead?

Probably.

Would enough people file to run as candidates?

Probably--

but that's up to us as residents. (If you have time and interest, I encourage you to throw your hat in next time!)

Changing to a Primary system requires a vote of the City Council. The Council voted to keep Caucus this year, 3-2. If you are interested in this topic or want to see it re-addressed in the future, reach out to your councilmembers: citycouncil@fruitheights.gov

(You can see the vote here, on page 3:

https://www.fruitheights.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04222025-497)

Parks and Trails

Like many of you, I would like to see pickleball courts in our city, and I'm sure they would be much enjoyed by many of us.
Keeping our parks, playgrounds, and trails well-maintained and enhanced, and vandalism diminished, benefits us all. Our parks and trails are beautiful assets to our city, places where our families go to gather and recreate. They add enormously to our Fruit Heights quality of life -- let's keep them safe, fun, and beautiful, for all of us.

When a new trail plan impacts homeowners, its creation should be a topic of open discussion and collaboration, with input from those most affected. Though our General Plan shows areas for future trails, private property rights should never be pushed aside. Before any action is taken--if it is to be taken--full provision should be made to address safety, privacy, and any other concerns. Open, transparent, and careful discussion is the right process to follow.

General Planning

There are often misunderstandings about this thing we call our General Plan, the process of how it came to be, why we have one, and what its implications are.

Let's run down some good basic info:

State law requires cities to adopt a General Plan, and that it address 1) Land Use, 2) Transportation, and 3) Moderate Income Housing

The law says the General Plan is "an advisory guide" for land use decisions. It should outline a vision for the long-range future, in the three categories mentioned above.

Having a Plan allows cities to plan for roads, parks, trails, and housing types that would be needed, desirable, or required in the future. If those things are not on the plan, the city may not be able to build them for residents when opportunity arises.

Something being on the plan does not mean that the city will be acting on it immediately. It simply acknowledges that over long periods of time, things and people change, and land changes hands eventually. Every road, park, trail and home in Utah sits on what was once someone's farmland generations ago.

Things change over time. Planning is a good thing for the long term so that changes get shaped in desirable ways rather than haphazardly.

Fruit Heights looks different now than it did in 1939 when it became a town, with 100 residents. And 100 years from now it will look different than it does today. The Plan provides vision to shape that change.

Example: Our beloved Gailey trail was once a trail line drawn on then-private property, in 2005.

When part of that property was sold to a developer, along with building Orchard Farms, the developer was required to help build the Gailey trail -- for the sole reason that it was on our Plan. The rest of the property the trail sits on was owned by another property owner, who decided to donate it to the city.

There was no eminent domain or taking.

Today we have a beautiful trail in the hollow, because it was first on the Plan, and could therefore be required when opportunity arose.

Mischief and vandalism in the hollow decreased as a result of the trail being built, and great value was added to our quality of life.

I believe that was a good thing for our city.

The current FH General Plan

Our General Plan got an update in 2023.

General Plans should be updated every 5-8 years or so, and it was time.

However, the state was also requiring that we show, on our plan, our efforts towards providing Moderate Income Housing (MIH) in specified ways. We needed to do that, or risk losing our state money for roads.

The city received a grant to pay for the planning process, which took place over most of a year starting in 2022.

It was presented at Planning Commission and Council Meetings as it took shape. Then public open houses were held, inviting public feedback on the concepts and maps being considered. You may have attended one of these.

The golf course map drew attention.

People assumed we were about to develop the course, which was not (and is not) the case.

The map shows a concept of an area where MIH (as mixed-sizes residential, similar to what we see in the lovely Orchard Farms area) could work--satisfying the state requirements.

It also contemplates a "small-town Main Street"-type area for the city: a potentially appropriate placing of light commercial (mostly along Main Street), civic, green space, and trails that connect people from nearby neighborhoods. It is intended as a broad brush guide.

The plan itself states specifically that the city does not intend to pursue land use change at the golf course.

In the meeting where the vote was taken, much emphasis was given to say the plan is a guiding tool, not a mandatory one in every detail. Having an idea on paper would allow us to steer the future, yet remain flexible also.

I support the General Plan, because I can see that it serves its designed purpose, and helps our city to avoid being penalized by the state.

I respect private property rights, and realize that the Plan does not supersede those rights. It just acknowledges that changes happen over time, and prepares for that, however long it may be.

Realities:

The golf course is not for sale, and is not about to be. There is NO desire on the part of the county to sell it.

Please do not entertain rumors to the contrary.

Trails on the plan that run on private land will not come to fruition until all those landowners have agreed to grant it. I don't expect that will be anytime soon, maybe generations from now--or maybe never. *The law does not allow eminent domain to be exercised for creating a recreational trail (Utah Code § 78B-6-501)

There is no evidence to suggest that property values are damaged by our General Plan. It is a common belief, but there is not much actual evidence to actually back it up. Property is appraised based on its current use, not on a potential long term possible use that may or may not happen.

Our General Plan is not hurting anyone's property values,

and is helping our city to comply with state laws,

while providing for long term future possible opportunities.

It is a living document. A future Planning Commission and Council may wish to make modifications, and public input will again be welcomed, using the same process. It is a product of many heads and much discussion, aiming for the good of the community as a whole.

I support that process.

A Leader who Listens

Seek first to understand...

I'm a believer in getting all sides. That old story about the 4 blind men and the elephant is too true -- we can all know a different angle, and the whole picture is seen when they are all put together.

I'm a great listener! I want to hear your ideas for our city. Call me, let's talk.

Donate now