A-22 The Park Record Meetings and agendas Sat/Sun/Mon/Tues, August 18-21, 2018 More dogs on Main By Tom Clyde TO PUBLISH YOUR PUBLIC NOTICES AND AGENDAS, PLEASE EMAIL CLASSIFIEDS@PARKRECORD.COM Alternative trash disposal Notice is hereby given that The Summit County Board of Adjustment will meet in regular session Thursday, August 23, 2018 Location: Summit County Courthouse, Council Chambers, 60 North Main Street, Coalville, UT 84017 AGENDA Agenda items may or may not be discussed in the order listed. 6:30 p.m. Regular Session Staff Items Adjourn 1. Public input for items not on the agenda or pending applications. 2. Public hearing and possible action regarding variance to decrease the front setback from 15 feet to 0 feet for construction of a single family residence; 125 Crestview Ln; Parcel SU-H-54; Jacob Sisco, applicant. – Amir Caus, County Planner To view staff reports available after Friday, August 17, 2018 please visit: http://www.summitcounty.org Individuals needing special accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding this meeting may contact Melissa Hardy, Summit County Community Development Department, at (435) 3363157 Board Items BASIN OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BOSAC) MEETING NOTICE Public notice is hereby given that the Snyderville Basin Open Space Advisory Committee will meet in a regularly scheduled meeting at the time and location specificed below: DATE: Thursday, August 23, 2018 TIME: 8:30 AM LOCATION: BASIN RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 5715 TRAILSIDE DRIVE, PARK CITY, UT 84098 AGENDA 8:30 AM EXECUTIVE SESSION: Property acquisition 10:00 AM Basin Recreation report to BOSAC 9:30 AM Move to open session 10:15 AM Adjourn 9:35 AM Public comment Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should notify Jessica Kirby (435) 649-1564 ext. 26 prior to the meeting. 9:45 AM Approval of June 28, 2018 meeting minutes 9:50 AM Chair’s comments SNYDERVILLE BASIN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING AGENDA August 20, 2018 ** District Office** 5:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER 0.84; SCWRF 0; Total 16.84 II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2017 VI. DISTRICT MANAGER A. Action Items – Revisions to District’s Line Extension Agreement and Improvement Completion Agreement due to changes to Utah Code. B. Escrow Fund Reduction Approval Colony Lot 68 – Retain 8 percent C. Final Project Approval Colony Lot 68 III. B. 1. 2. Information Item Financial Statement Impact Fee Report VII. A. B. C. D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Projects Operations Finance Governmental Matters PUBLIC INPUT IV. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES – Bills in the Amount of $2,435,380.14 Including SCWRF Project Pay Request #28 for $1,137,304.11 V. SUBDIVISION PROJECTS A. Moonshadow – 16 REs B. Park City Golf Maintenance Facility – 0.84 REs C. SR 248 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access – 0 REs Estimated LEA REs Year to Date: Above Splitter 0; ECWRF 351.79; SCWRF 285.17; Total 636.96 Proposed this Meeting: Above Splitter 16; ECWRF VIII. ADJOURN If you are planning to attend this public meeting and, due to a disability, require reasonable accommodation in understanding, participating in or attending the meeting, please notify the District twenty-four or more hours in advance of the meeting, and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Board members may appear telephonically. Trial moved for man accused in Brian Head fire Associated Press ST. GEORGE – A Utah man charged with accidentally starting a massive wildfire last year won’t go on trial in a southern Utah county torched by the blaze. The Spectrum newspaper reports a judge decided Tuesday that 62-year-old Robert Lyman couldn’t get a fair trial in Iron County due to extensive media coverage and online rumors about the fire near Brian Head. Prosecutors agree with a defense request to move the case. The Taylorsville man could face up to a year in jail if convicted on a reckless burning count and six months on a burning without a permit charge. The fire destroyed 13 homes and cost nearly $40 million to fight. Authorities have said fire was started by weed burning at a cabin in a popular getaway for Las Vegas residents. The defense has disputed that. I got my bill for garbage pick up service a while ago. It was followed by a letter enclosed with the property tax notice that tried to explain it. It’s the same deal as last year. Summit County imposed a charge of $36 a year for trash pick up, or as they put it, “solid waste services.” Calling it “solid waste services” makes it sound more impressive than “garbage” and the elegance of the name makes $36 seem like a bargain. Who wouldn’t want to pay extra for solid waste services? Summit County used to cover all of the garbage costs through the general fund — property tax and sales tax. As collection and disposal costs have gone up, they made the decision to impose the $36 fee. They could have raised property taxes a little bit instead, but chose to get the additional money through a fee that gets billed by the contractor so the County’s fingerprints are hard to see. A property tax increase would have landed hardest on commercial properties, who pay for their trash pick up through dumpster service. That lets the homeowners who are producing the garbage, and where the collection process is most expensive, off the hook. But $36 seems so ridiculously modest that I wonder if it is even worth the cost of processing the payment. They — meaning Republic Services — have to print and send out the bills, then deal with the collection process. There’s a lot of bookkeeping involved here. The County, while hiding behind their contractor so we don’t get mad at the elected officials for the backdoor tax, then has to send out the coaxing letter. I have no idea what percentage of the $36 actually gets consumed by overhead, and what really makes it into the cost of operating the dump, but it’s significant. And then there is the irony of how much addi- tional paper lands in the system to bill and collect the $36. I guess it could be worse. Pleasant Grove and several other cities have imposed user fees on their streets. In Pleasant Grove, the fee is $8.45 per month, charged to property owners for the privilege of using their public streets. The fee would raise about $100 a year from every property owner, and the money, less the cost of billing and collection, would go to road maintenance work. There is litigation over whether the fee is legal or not. But I have no idea what percentage of the $36 actually gets consumed by overhead, and what really makes it into the cost of operating the dump, but it’s significant.” it seems like something a tax increase would have covered with a lot less controversy. The fee isn’t correlated in any way to the amount of driving an individual property owner does. So a family with 5 cars and several kids chasing to activities would pay the same as the elderly shut-in who hasn’t driven in years. Park City has sort gotten into the fee business with its storm drainage utility fee. They’ve tied it to the hard-surface area on each property, so it more or less matches up with the impact on the overall drainage system. Storm drainage is a major source of water pollution, and needs to be dealt with. I’m not sure that’s the best way to do it. The solid waste service fee always generates a lot of confusion in my neighborhood. Most of the houses are seasonal cabins. The owners pack their garbage home with them and dispose of it at their primary residence. They don’t have a Summit County bin, aren’t here on garbage day to put one out if they had one, and the neighborhood doesn’t have dumpster service. So they wonder what they are getting for their $36 a year. The County’s letter about the fee was quite emphatic that everybody should pay for the service whether they use or not. It’s like people without children paying school taxes (but we don’t have to pay student activity fees). The punishment for non-payment is that the County will quit picking up the garbage they aren’t picking up already. So there. There isn’t garbage piling up in the yards, so it’s going somewhere. Summit County should be happy for every bag that gets dragged back to Salt Lake for disposal there. Our recycling program doesn’t divert much from the landfill, but by refusing to provide the service to people who aren’t here on garbage day to put their can out, they divert 100 percent of their trash from the Summit County landfill. Now that’s success. Summit County should pay my neighbors $36 a year to not use the County’s service, rather trying to shake them down for the cash, or encouraging them to start putting their trash out here. Meanwhile, this week presented an alternative form of trash disposal. There was a pile of fresh bear poop in the front yard this morning. Having a bear take care of the trash is cheap, effective, and just a little bit scary. Tom Clyde practiced law in Park City for many years. He lives on a working ranch in Woodland and has been writing this column since 1986. Writers on the range By Ken Ilgunas Fight back against the landlords Woody Guthrie’s most famous song contains a stirring sentiment in its refrain — “This land was made for you and me.” Unfortunately, that sort of thinking could get you shot in Idaho. Idaho’s new trespass law went into effect July 1. Combined with a new “stand your ground” law, it could make it easier for landowners to get away with shooting trespassers. “Trespassers will be deemed to have nefarious intent upon entry into real property,” wrote Kristina Schindele, then Idaho’s deputy attorney general, in an email to the public. “Such presumed intent would permit unreasonable uses of force against such trespassers by landowners while limiting the landowners’ civil and criminal liability.” The law, written without any consultation with sportsmen and recreationists, raises the trespassing fine to $500 and makes civil trespass a strict liability offense. Kahle Becker, former deputy attorney general for Idaho, says that trespassers who challenge the law and then lose in court will be responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. This could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000. “You could bankrupt someone for innocently stepping on some undelineated sagebrush,” says Becker. The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association noted that the bill was vague and contradictory and difficult to enforce. But it easily passed in a Republican-dominated Legislature, and the governor opted to neither sign nor veto, which meant that the bill, as a quirk of Idaho law, automatically became law. The bill was sponsored by House Republican Rep. Judy Boyle, a Bundy family supporter who made two trips to the illegal Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon. The bill was support- ed by a coalition of agricultural groups and big landowners, including lobbyists for the Wilks brothers, Texas billionaires whose combined holdings make them the 13th largest landowners in America. They own 702,000 acres and pay private security guards to patrol their property boundaries. In 2016, they bought and closed off 172,000 acres of land in Idaho, parts of which had been open under the previous owners. This new Idaho law makes me think of Georgian England Today, frustrated sportsmen and recreationists don’t really challenge the status quo.” as I’ve just finished researching and writing a book about land-access rights and how we’re losing them today. In the 18th and 19th centuries, English aristocrats got Parliament to pass laws to make the land their own — a process known as “enclosure.” Aristocrats pushed people off the land and hired armed gamekeepers. They excluded whomever they wished and enjoyed exclusive access to deer and grouse. What were once common lands that supported the livelihoods of many people became personal playgrounds and new sources of wealth for the already rich. This sounds like the West in 21st century America: billionaire landowners who get what they want from legislatures. Vast areas of land closed off. Privatized wildlife. Armed security guards. This trend extends well beyond Idaho; in Montana and New Mexico, wealthy outsiders can close off access to streams. Today, frustrated sportsmen and recreationists don’t really challenge the status quo. They advocate for amendments, such as the freedom to cross checkerboard corners of public land or for the privilege to retrieve a downed animal on private land. These do little more than loosen the handcuffs. We should be looking at the bigger picture. We should be arguing for a full-on right to roam. The English began to reverse centuries of aristocratic rule in 2000, when Parliament passed the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which opened up privately owned mountains and unimproved grasslands for responsible public recreation. There is no reason why the people of Idaho can’t have a similar right to roam. For hunters, anglers and hikers, this would mean being able to legally cross private lands to get to public lands and waters. For landowners, it would mean privacy in and around your home, immunity from frivolous lawsuits, and the right to sue for damages. But it also would mean no more unnecessary “No Trespassing” signs, no more hoarding game, no more draconian trespass laws. When Europeans are freer than Americans, when the moors of England are more open than the plains of Wyoming, and when our laws are crafted for the sole benefit of the landed gentry, we Americans have clearly lost our way. So let’s stop putting up with enclosure for the few and reclaim our old rights, the rights of the many. It’s not their right to exclude, fine and shoot us. It’s our right to roam. Ken Ilgunas is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is the author of This Land Is Our Land: How We Lost the Right to Roam and How to Take It Back.