OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYRNOVEMBER 1992 education Is the leading cause of bringing in jobs. The higher people's skills are, fee more opportunity they have to have a better job. Rick: I have a basic philosophical difference with that The jobs go, like you say, where die people are, but secondly there has to be an inducement for that business to be there to begin with. Then you create the education. ' PAGE 9 they are still holding office. That has been addressed just recently by the conference of attorneys regarding Utah County. And that's die illegality that bothers me the most What I would propose is what Peter says, I would keep that discussion going, and I would favor a five man, I would be in favor of putting that on the ballot again, and also to take a lode legislatively at the two year term, that's an excellent idea. CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE EDUCATION Ken: The change of government initiative is on the ballot Do yon support it? Peter: I don't support it probably for 3 or 4 factors, the factor of a nonpartisan situation means that people like me would not have as much of an opportunity. I get a lot of support, not just financial support helping pay for the advertisements, but also a lot of feedback from the Democratic party, and a lot of other people. I like the idea of partisan politics. It provides a lot of stability, it's not dependent just upon personalities and individuals. Another reason is the fact that it takes place in 100 days. Any change that takes place that quickly, I think will cause a lot of problems. Particularly since it was due to anger. I think the whole reason for the change in government is a response to the distancing of the commission from their constituents. Anger is justified, but I don't agree with the result here. Another problem is that in January, when people will be running for county council if it passes, that's when you need people up in Salt Lake Gty. That's when you need your elected Officials to be there, trying to figure out howto get the PILT money fixed. I would like to see us go back to a 2 year commissioner. I think that is a great error that the state has brought upon us. I don't know if we would have a change of government initiative if we would have two commissioners up for a vote this time. Ride I also disagree with the county council I feel it will slow down the the And in favor of it seem to fed they would get better judgement process. people As to indude us, or lump us, with Cache was to it seem want representation. put forth, they County. Cadre County is a completely different county. They have about 70,000 people in Cache, and with 7 council members that's one commissioner per 10,000 people. In Grand County we have about 6,000 people, bo that's one commissioner for every 2,000. I fed we gd better representation here because we are allowed to vote for all 3 commissioners instead of 3 out of the 7, which is not a majority in any way. And like Peter I also disagree with the nonpartisan politics, and I'm not sure of the mandate they have or the way they've written the mandate for a recall I think it would end up costing the county a lot of money in elections. And purely from a biased standpoint, I've spent a lot of money on my campaign, I've run a primary and I've run in the general election, and I'm sure the other candidates both have also. I'm sure if this referendum panes, even when one of the three of us are elected, that negates our whole campaigns. ' Sam: Obviously the partisan issue isn't a problem with me. I've found party politics to be a problem in equal representation. Also I guess I don't have a problem with the money. I'm self financed, I'm not accepting any financial contributions. I believe in myself, and the only person who's going to lose if I lose is myself. I have some real strong feelings about the Citizens for Responsible Government. One of the things you have to say is that they've done a lot of work, and its the best democratic overt process we've seen happen in Grand County in a long time. A lot of work went into it, a lot of thought, great many people, a divergence of people, working on it, and I support that. It's brought up a lot of issues, it's made a lot of people think, and I think that that's excellent, no matter what the outcome is. I've done a lot of personal work on this because I feel that I need to be more of an information giver on this, although I have a stand on it myself. Ken: What is your stand on it? Sam: My stand is that it's flawed. I fed they did an excellent job, they worked very hard, there was a problem with time. And I think that as they viewed the problems with the commissioners exacerbating, it meant they felt they needed to get it on this ballot. And I don't know the validity of that. I spoke to Norm Shrewsbury coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Government and he assures me that the product would not have been much different if they had two years to vote I'm not sure that's right, because I've spoken to other people on the committee who said on they would have cleaned up some of these problems if perhaps Lyle Anderson, county attorney, or Peter, or Peter, or or anybody voiced our concerns, and they could have addressed them in a timely manner. So possibly time was their enemy. Peter I support looking at a change of government I grew up in a county that did change its form of government to an executive and council form of government, and I think it would be a very good thing to look further into, and I would pursue that. One of the things that needs to be pursued is, we don't have a charter, which Ithink needs to come first. We need to have a charter to delineate what we have, so that we can change it. That's the most effective way to go. The only charter that we claim Is the first three minutes of the 1890 record book, which is difficult to read and doesn't make much sense. We need a charter because that is a portion of the commission's authority in making decisions. Jim: People want responsive government. You're all against this change of government initiative. With a three person commission, one person makes a motion, another seconds it, and thats it, there's no need for discussion because it only needs two to pass. If you are against tills expansion, what do you propose to do in the next two years to increase the ability of the commission to respond to the needs of the citizens? Rick: What we have to have is better communication. We have a problem of communication with some of the commissioners now. I don't feel that people in Grand County feel that their needs are being communicated to, or being responded to once they are communicated. Secondly, I don't think you're going to see any difference with the seven people or three people. I think process. Not that that's bad you're going to see seven people slowing down the decision-makin- g on some issues. Two out of three is still a definite majority, as well as four out of seven. Peter What Jim is saying is that if you have five and you have a motion and a second, it's still Jim: State Representative David Adams was here a few months ago and he made the statement that education in Grand County is an embarrassment We can increase our property tax to increase funds for education, but are there other tilings the county can do in terms of lobbying the legislature? seven-memb- er . it I not the majority of the coundl Rick: But a motion and a second here opens it to discussion and if the other commissioner has valid arguments against the motion... Peter. I don't know about that Mark Maryboy gets shut down a lot in San Juan County and his concerns are valid. I think the issue is perhaps to expand the commission, I really would support increasing it to five or seven. But I think doing it in this type of situation causes a lot of havoc. If it wasn't nonpartisan, and if it wasn't done in 100 days, in two years it would have worked out a lot easier for me to support it Rick: I agree with what Peter is saying. This proposal is expensive, and I don't think there was enough labor put into it to understand even the legalities of what they're trying to do. I don't know if what they're trying to do is legal. Peter. They have done good research. Having been involved in the incinerator fight, there was a lot more work and a lot more activity with the incinerator than was done with the petition. I went to most of the petition meetings and was in favor of it, until those couple of things. I did talk to the founders of the petition before they submitted it to the county, and expressed those concerns, and I wasn't able to change their opinion. Sam: My primary problem is with the fact that Manuel and David will be put out of office while . Rick: I til ink it's time that somebody lobbied and held the state legislature as well as the state school board to their own mandate, which is equal opportunity to education, not equal dollars. When you have a school district that has 1,200 to 2,000 children, on a per student capita basis that equal funding is not equal opportunity when you also have a distrirt that has, for example, there's one in West Jordan with a student body population that's more than lives in Grand County. On a dollar basis, I don't think the formula the legislature is using, whether they're even following their own mandate, which is equal opportunity. I think our kids are entitled as the kids on the Wasatch Front, even if it means more money per student in Grand County to be able to afford it. Because we have less students. Sam: I'd also like'to see more discussion at a citizens' level regarding the state lands right now that are being held for "education. It seems sometimes they are used for a very political purpose as inholdings. Ken: By who? Sam: By the elected officials, certainly for one, and by possibly the state themselves. But it seems we play a lot of ping pong with those state lands. And a fiscal group that is could take a look at some better and higher use possibly for those lands. Peter. If David Adams said that, he's one of the people that voted for the law that made Grand County a "rich" school district, and took money away from us and put it up on the Wasatch Front I have to disagree with that. I think the school district is making tremendous strides. We ratio going right now. San Juan County may be less, probably have the lowest student-teachI for to what we're but doing here, have really applaud the school board and district for what they're doing. We have less than 20 pupils in each of the elementary dasses, which is nowhere in comparison with what the Wasatch Front is doing, and we're doing it on fewer dollars. I think there's a lot of room for development, and I think the county commission can have a big impact in that Cal Black showed that with what he did for the San Juan School district, and for the College of Eastern Utah, he can only be applauded. He basically made that what it is with the school today. So a county commissioner can have a really profound impact in board in making it a better place to learn. citizen-originat- ed er wen-kin- g COUNTY FINANCES Ken: Let's talk about county finances. The county right now ia in debt for the courthouse. The county is going into debt for the visitors center. The hospital construction continues to go on. There's been talk of other construction projects . At the same time the state formula for the determination of taxes on oil wells will reduce significantly the Grand County return from oil projects. The "boom" people were talking about in oil has slowed down significantly, with companies like Chevron pulling out, Meridian pulling out, Columbia cutting back. Is the county in financial trouble, and are we getting to the point where there will have to be tax increases to pay for basic services? Sam: Yeah, the county's in trouble. I would like to see more citizen's input to the budget process. I think it's appalling that two or three or four people turn up to the budget process. We had a significant overage at least up to 8 years ago, which has steadily dwindled. Part of the dwindling is because we never had. I've often heard us compared to San Juan County, we never had the mineral money they did. But in fact we did have an overage, and far whatever reason it was not invested or put into a place where it could earn money, it was just merely there, and now it is nonexistent. And in fact we had to take a tax anticipation loan this year. I think we need to take a good look at it. I think Fran Townsend, county derkauditor certainly doesn't have a lot of help with the budget. I think three commissioners are not necessarily the most fiscally responsible people in the world, because they are hopefully dtizens with a diverse background and not necessarily financial experts. So I would welcome more citizen input to the budget process. Peter To the issue of taxes in the future because of the construction, we must reqiember that the courthouse is being built on revenue bonds, which means that if there is a shortfall anywhere else, the commissioners have to raise taxes, that's what the people agreed to when they voted for it. This is getting back to the Book Cliffs Road. You have a significant amount of resources and money that you could invest in 9 special service districts. That money can go to any of them, including the solid waste landfill. It would be very wise on our part, as commissioners, to look at that and invest it in those areas where we have the infrastructure need. I supported the hospital expansion project Looking back, there could have been other ways to do it to save money I guess. I do think we are approaching a crisis only because the commission has failed in looking ahead. They were told a year ago that the money from oil revenue would be down, and yet they did not go bade in and examine the budget and try to make adaptations to meet that decrease in revenue. I would try to do those kinds of things. It's important to try to stay an top of the game with your budget, because that's tax dollars. Rick: You make reference to the county being in financial trouble and your reference to the construction of the courthouse. As Peter says, those are revenue bonds. And we were at a point with the courthouse where I really don't feel there was any alternative other than to remodel, or a new structure. It was that the building was in disrepair, it was almost time to condemn. The thing I don't understand, and I hate to dwell on the past. I'd rather worry about what we can do about it in the future, is not just the current standing commission, but the commissions before, why was that not put into a capital budget? Why was that capital expenditure not addressed 20 years ago? Why are the capital expenditures for the future, why are they not being addressed now? That's one of the reasons I decided to run, because I am in I understand budgets, I understand shortfalls, I . business, I've been in business for 25 years. understand anticipated revenue. And these are things that have to be addressed. As Peter said, it has to be done on a yearly basis, and you have to plan for capital expenditures. This surplus that Sam is referring to and Peter referred to three years ago, you know it's easy to create a surplus. You just cut off you're capital expenditures and you end up with more money in the revenue generation from taxes. But then two years from now you have to double your capital expenditures, and there goes your surplus. So you can be a hero for one you, or being realistic for all of them. Sam: I have to take some exception to that. The surplus was not from cutting capital expenditures, the surplus was because we had a great deal of mineral money coming In, and the self-evide- nt |