Meet the Candidate night and other info!

I hope you are able to come to Meet the Candidate Night tomorrow!  Come say hello!

October 1, 2019 at the Family Activity Center
6:30 pm Meet & Greet
7-8:30 Questions & Answers

Other important dates!

October 2nd & 3rd General Plan Open House 

Family Activity Center

6:00-8:00 pm

October 11, 2019

Public comment for 1st draft of General Plan ends!  Make sure to get your comments to the city.

October 22nd

A joint meeting with the city council and planning commission to define mixed use, work on second draft of new general plan.  This is open to the public.  General plan public comment will open again shortly after the first draft is finished.  I will keep everyone posted on what comes next.  

Our Sensitive Slopes

One of South Weber's many beautiful qualities is the slopes on the south side of the city.  According to our general plan, these slopes are considered sensitive lands.

2019 Sensitive Lands Map #5

Our projected general plan has an entire section dedicated to our slopes.  In lines 318-336 it states: 

318. STEEP SLOPES: Steep slopes are found along the south bench area of the City, along the foothill area of the Wasatch Mountains on the east side of the city, and at spot locations throughout the City. These slopes should be considered fragile from a development standpoint and will be required to comply with the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (Ord 10-14). Building roads and subdivisions within them could cause environmental damage, destabilize hillsides and create a hillside scar/eyesore, due to the necessity of cuts and fills to do so. There could be a great hazard of erosion and flooding should denuding result from development efforts without any mitigation efforts applied. These steep slope areas generally coincide with the location of the known faults. These areas are also important to wildlife habitat areas including high value deer winter range. They represent a significant fire hazard to structures which might be tucked within the heavy vegetation located there. In addition, these steep foothills are very important view shed areas for residents as well as passers-by. The mountains are such a prominent feature of the landscape that the eye is constantly drawn to them and their foothills. Should this landscape become scarred up due to development, or for any other reason, would be a significant reduction in the community's overall quality of life.  These steep slopes are hazardous areas for development and are important community assets. They are ecologically fragile and should be protected as much as possible.

The general plan summary also goes over landslides on our slopes. Lines 281-290 states

281. LAND SLIDES: South Weber sits in a river valley formed in ancient times as the Weber River cut through an alluvial fan deposited there in even more ancient times when Lake Bonneville covered the entire region. As the river cut down through this alluvial fan, it left steep bluffs on the sides. One of these bluffs is on the south side of town running its length. This bluff has been identified in at least two geologic studies1 as having very high potential for landslides. In fact, there is ample evidence of both ancient and more recent slope failure activity along this bluff.  When development of any nature is proposed on or near this bluff, it will be important to determine the safety of such development as far as possible. It may be necessary to require mitigation of the hazard or even to prevent the development from occurring. (See Sensitive Lands Map #5)
282. 
     
     
     Course of South Bench Drive is highlighted above, South Weber Projected 2019 Land Use Map 

 So it may be confusing to many why the trajectory of South Bench Drive, a proposed main thorough-fare through South Weber goes right on those sensitive lands. The city has assured us this road will be built safely and that many studies will be done.  Thankfully, many studies have already been done.

Jacqui Layton is a resident of South Weber.  When she learned of the proposed road, specifically 1900 E coming in, she had concerns of the safety of this road.  She did some research and found so many studies that have already been done.  I will link all her sources below, but today I would like to focus on a very thorough and interesting one.  

This report is a Utah Geological Study, a division of the Utah Department of Natural Resources.

This study reviews every single landslide or unstable recording of land in Utah.  South Weber City comes in second place on studies, with Layton being number 1.

Three areas are focused on in this study.  Two landslides, one on 425 East that happened on February 21, 2005 (page 25) and another on 1650 E that happened on April 9, 2006 (page 164) are documented as well as a geotechnical study done near Silverleaf that yielded some concerns (page 349).

425 East Landslide  

On page 28, the study states:

"The landslide occurred shortly after 6 p.m., and demolished a barn, took out telephone poles, and blocked State Route 60 (South Weber Drive) (figures 2, 3, 4). The landslide is approximately 480 feet long and 80 feet wide at its widest point (figure 3) and between stations 305 and 310 on the Davis-Weber Canal. According to Nolan Birt (verbal communication, March 4, 2005), the barn owner who witnessed the event, the total landslide travel time was about a minute and the barn provided no resistance to landslide movement. Based on this approximate travel time, the estimated landslide velocity is about 8 feet per second, which classifies as very rapid landslide movement (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). The landslide is just below the Davis- Weber Canal and likely started moving as a rotational slide, but likely transformed into a rapid earth flow about midway downslope and ran out 150 feet beyond the toe of the slope across State Route 60 and onto a flat field. Grass, shrubs, and trees cover this northeast-facing slope. Some trees were rafted on top of the landslide debris (figure 4)"

This study goes on to say that that Terracon completed a slope-stability investigation in January of 2005.  This investigation estimated a static factor fo safety to a 1.0 for the slope below the canal (typical safety standard is 1.5 or higher).  For earthquake ground shaking conditions, Terracon estimated the factor of safety to be well below 1.0, meaning the slope would fail during an earthquake.   

1650 E Landslide

On page 171 the study states:

"The 1650 East landslide was a rapid earth flow that started as a slide at the slope crest adjacent to a pond in a gravel pit (figures 2 and 5). The landslide main scarp extends a short distance back from the slope crest onto flat ground toward the pond in the gravel pit. The landslide is mostly a failure of fill pushed out of the gravel pit onto the upper slope to form a berm along the slope crest (figure 6). The landslide also involved native materials underlying and downslope of the fill. The slide at the crest mobilized into a flow that accelerated rapidly downslope, removing trees and crossing dirt roads, the canal, and a rock wall at the back of the lot before impacting the house at 7687 South 1650 East (figures 2 and 7). The landslide impact broke through the house and garage walls and a small volume of sediment and tree debris was deposited in the house. A child inside the house was injured and the landslide impacted with sufficient force to break part of the house foundation wall (figure 8). The impact to the back of the garage pushed a car and pickup out through the garage doors. The landslide broke windows at the adjacent house to the southwest at 1650 East 7701 South. The landslide also damaged the Davis-Weber Canal which had recently been enclosed in a concrete box culvert but was not yet covered with backfill (Ray, 2006) (figure 9). Water had not yet been turned into the canal for the irrigation season so obstruction to flow in the canal by the landslide was not an issue."

 This report is especially concerning because the static factor is at 1.2, well below the normally accepted 1.5 factor of safety.  But what is even more concerning is that the route of South Bench Drive lies right where this slide took place.  If our city heeds that important last bullet point on page 168, they will realize that putting a major thorough-fare here is going to be hazardous to our slopes and therefore our residents and our city.  

Sliverleaf:  

Page 349

This study was done while the Silverleaf subdivision was underway.  While a slide to this area has not happened, the conclusion was that this slope was only moderately stable and future landslides were definitely a possibility.  We see a little more background here to past slides in South Weber as well.  

"A site-specific detailed landslide investigation is needed to assess the safety of placing houses on or near pre-existing landslides and marginally stable slopes. The site is within the Davis County Planning Department landslide special-study area (Lowe, 1988c) where detailed landslide studies are recommended (Robison and Lowe, 1993). Pashley and Wiggins (1972) recognized both rotational and flow landslides in the South Weber and Washington Terrace landslide complexes bordering the Weber River northwest of this site. A large rotational slump and earthflow occurred in 1981 northwest of the site (Gill, 1981) in the bluff north of the Weber River. Shallow landsliding northwest and west of this site in 1998 occurred along the Davis- Weber canal (Black, 1999) and above the Cedar Bench subdivision (Solomon, 1999) in South Weber. Flow-type landslides similar to those that likely formed the scallops in the slope south of the site were common elsewhere in the area in 1983 and 1986 (Lowe, 1988d,e; Lowe and others, 1992). All of the above landslides involved failure of Lake Bonneville Weber River delta sediments and demonstrate the susceptibility of these slopes to landsliding."

Recap:

South Weber has had 6 landslides referenced in this study alone since 1983.  Other studies refer to additional landslides in this same timeframe.  All these studies, as well as our own general plan, state that our south slopes are unstable and in many cases hazardous.  A city council member mentioned recently that we need to have another route out of the city - what if there is an earthquake? And yet all of these studies determine that our slopes more than likely will slide in the event of an earthquake, and may even slide without an earthquake!  Clearly, a road built on  these slopes isn't going to be any help to us.  We have been exceedingly cautioned numerous times about any type of excavation or development on our slopes, and I think we would be doing all citizens of South Weber a huge, and potentially dangerous, disservice by not heeding those warnings.  

#SWmorethan20

Additional Sources (thanks to Jacqui Layton)

Richard E. Giraud, P.G. and Greg N. McDonald, P.G. References

Black, B.D., 1999, Reconnaissance of a landslide along the Davis-Weber Canal near 1250 East 

South Weber Drive, South Weber, Davis County, Utah, in McDonald, G.N., compiler, 

Technical reports for 1998, Applied Geology Program: Utah Geological Survey Report 

of Investigation 242, p. 36-41. 

Earthtec Testing and Engineering, P.C., 2002, Geotechnical study, Highland View Estates 

subdivision, South Weber, Utah: Ogden, Utah, unpublished consultant’s report, 13 p. 

Giraud, R.E., 2005, Reconnaissance of the 425 East South Weber Drive landslide, South Weber, 

Utah: Unpublished Utah Geological Survey Technical Report 05-03, 10 p. 

—2006, April 9, 2006, landslide at 1650 East 7687 South, South Weber, Utah: Unpublished 

Utah Geological Survey letter to Joseph E. Gertge, South Weber City Mayor, April 14, 

2006, 3 p. 

Lowe, M., 1988, Natural hazards overlay zone -slope-failure inventory map, Ogden quadrangle: 

Weber County Planning Department unpublished map, scale 1:24,000.

Lund, W.R., 1984, Inspection of landslides adjacent to Hill Air Force Base in Davis County, 

Utah: Unpublished Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Technical Memorandum, Job 

Number 84-09, 1 p. 

National Weather Service, 2006, Observed weather reports: Online, <http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/forecast/textproduct.php?pil=CLM&sid=SLC&version=0>, accessed May 8, 2006. 

Pashley, E.F., Jr., and Wiggins, R.A., 1972, Landslides of the northern Wasatch Front, in Hilpert, 

L.S., editor, Environmental geology of the Wasatch Front, 1971: Utah Geological 

Association Publication 1, p. K1-K16. 

​

Ray, I.J., 2006, April 9, 2006, mudslide in South Weber: Sunset, Utah, unpublished Davis and 

Weber Counties Canal Company letter to Haven J. Barlow, Barlow Corporation, April 28, 2006, 2 p. 

Solomon, B.J., 1999, Reconnaissance of a landslide near the Cedar Bench subdivision, South 

Weber, Davis County, Utah, in McDonald, G.N., compiler, Technical reports for 1998, 

Applied Geology Program: Utah Geological Survey Report of Investigation 242, p. 42- 

49. 

Terracon, 2000, Geotechnical engineering report, evaluation of Davis andWeber Canal stations 

160 to 470, Davis County, Utah: Draper, Utah, unpublished consultant’s report, 24 p., 3 

appendices. 

—2005, Slope stability evaluation, Davis and Weber Canal at Highland View Estates, South 

Weber, Utah: Draper, Utah, unpublished consultant’s report, 13 p., 4 appendices. 

TerraServer USA, 2006, U.S. Geological Survey 1997 and 2003 aerial photographs: Online, 

<http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=11&Z=12&X=1054&Y=11365&W=1&qs=%7clayton%7cut> , accessed May 5, 2006. 

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2006, National Agriculture Imagery Program 

aerial photos: Online, <http://agrc.utah.gov/agrc_sgid/naip.html>, accessed May 5, 2006. 

Yonkee, A., and Lowe, M., 2004, Geologic map of the Ogden 7.5-minute quadrangle, Weber and 

Davis Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 200, 42 p. pamphlet, scale 1:24,000. 

Let's Talk: South Bench Drive Part 6; Other Suggestions

This is part 6 of an 8 part series. 

See part 1: What is it?,

 Part 2: How did it get on the general plan? 

Part 3: How far in development is it? 

Part 4: When will it happen? and 

Part 5: Those in favor and those against.

So hopefully by now you have a better understanding of this road.  It can be pretty confusing.  If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me and I will do my best to answer them for you.  But today's question is of great importance....what are other suggestions?

As easy as it would seem to just say 'no' to this road in it's entirety, we do have to recognize at least one of the initial reasonings for putting this road on our general plan was to address future traffic concerns and easing congestion in the town, particularly on 475 East and South Weber Drive.

You can see one of my suggestion in this blog post Taking A Stab At Other Options where my concerns about the possible inaccuracies about the Horrock's study as well as another options for the alignment of South Bench Drive is presented.  As with any suggestions, it will come with other pros and cons.  But I think brainstorming other ideas is really what helps us come to a better solution for all.

One suggestion is to focus on connection within South Weber instead of corridors.  This means that we would work on connecting existing roads to each other.  This is actually proposed under our general plan already.  Connecting the canyon drives throughout the city as well as a connection from the original South Bench Drive (behind the elementary) to 7500 S (a current subdivision) is just two examples.  These roads could still be residential only, but it would provide traffic that currently only has the option to use South Weber Drive to use back roads instead.   The concerns would be that it would still mean South Weber Drive would be taking the brunt of most through traffic.

Another suggestion is to use a passive route to Layton, pending that it can be done safely and make this route be a toll road.  All the income generated from this toll road would go directly to South Weber.  The route of this connection would need to be re-examined.  Further research on whether the road would cost more than the potential of income from tolls would need to be examined as well.  

Yet another suggestion would be to just simply connect 1900 East only, and make it a residential road for mainly South Weber traffic.  Some concerns here would be the slope of 1900 E and the associated safety. Also, 1900 E is a residential area.  A road to Layton here would add a great deal of traffic to 1900 E which already has issues with speeding due to the steep bluff at approximately 7600 S. 

What other suggestions do you have?  The more ideas we get flowing, the better solution we can find! 

#SWmorethan20 

Recap: City Council 9.24.2019

I think if you can plan on one thing these days, it's to expect a city meeting to last at least 2 hours.  This one was about 4.5 hours!  I know it's long, and some may have been dying - but I loved it!  I learned so much!

It hard to recap such a long meeting into such a short post.  Public comment lasted about an hour.  Some people were calm, some people were angry.  The meeting was held at the Family Activity Center to accommodate the 125+ people that came.  I appreciate the mayor, the city council and the staff for holding out for us and for being there.  The more involved I get, the more appreciation I have for the way our government was set up and for our country.

Some important notes first.  Our city is making changes guys, and I for one am thrilled about it!  It was awesome to me to see that 3 agenda items were things we, the citizens, asked them about.  They didn't have to put it on their agenda.  But they did, and I'm grateful for it.   A few other things to note; changes are taking place to get the community more involved.  Here's a recap of a few of them:

•The city's facebook page has been more active than ever.  They are posting preliminary plans that are coming to the Planning Commission (something they have never done before!).  They are also adding more updates about other things like water and traffic and updates on the landfill.  You can find the city's facebook page here.

•Another thing introduced was a new email/text messaging system to help keep the public informed.  No more will we need to rely on the newsletter alone.  Sign up for it now.  Go here for more details.

•Additionally, the city's website continues to be updated regularly.  You can see the newest development proposal, The Knolls at Valley View under 'Happenings' on the city website.  We have a great city manager who is working very hard.

•Council Member Angie Petty has been very active on both the South Weber United Page as well as her personal page to help bring more awareness to the people.  Councilmember Wayne Windsor also recently joined.  Planning Commissioner Wes Johnson and Taylor Walton are also on the South Weber Citizens United page to chime in and offer insight.  I am so happy to see this!  

Here is the agenda for this meeting:

Unfortunately, the audio didn't take.  It was quite hard to hear everyone though I know they were trying hard to get it.  

•The commercial overlay was removed from our city code/plan.  Wahoo!

•The sweeping T on 475:  After some discussion, moving forward as currently planned was voted on and passed 3 to 1, with Wayne Windsor being the only who voted against.   The overall feeling I got from this is that in order to change this sweeping T at this point in time would cost the city a great deal of money and could be a potential problem for developers who paid for a portion of this road to accommodate this median.  

•Mixed use definition/delaying of the General Plan.  Things got a little hazy here.  There was a lot of discussion.  I double checked with David Larsen at the end to make sure I understood the decision (for tonight) better.  The plan will be for public comment to continue until the 11th.  The open houses are still planned for October 2nd and 3rd.  On October 22, the council and planning commission will meet to discuss mixed use as well as public comment.  A first draft will be made with mixed use definition/use of the general plan and public comment will be reopened for further discussion.  The timeline/date of final general plan approval has been placed on hold for now.

I for one, am very pleased with this new format for the general plan.  I feel this would be a huge help to citizens to help change some of the things the council already knows they will be doing.  It will also give us the first draft of the definition of mixed use.  It allows public comment to delve into specific items rather than eating the general plan in a whole bite.   Well, I hope so anyways!! We have been told by numerous council members the general plan will be changed quite a bit from what it is right now.    

One comment asked each of the council members to state how they felt about South Bench Drive.  I kept notes of all of their remarks but do not have them with me at this time.  I believe each council member was against South Bench Drive as currently proposed.  More consideration needs to take place of the specifics of this road before they can approve it.   I will update soon with their remarks as well as a link to the minutes for everyone to read.  

This is an exciting time guys.  We have more public involvement than ever before and as I know that it can be a little hairy at times, we all love this city!  Having the community involved is so important so that we can better see and understand each other and our unique visions and goals for our city, and come to a place where we can find solutions together to the problems we have.  It's awesome guys...its just awesome!

#SWmorethan20  

Email from Mayor regarding Citizen's Committee for Town Hall Meeting

We received this email from our mayor following our town hall style meeting to some members who helped organize the event as well as the city council.  I would again like to thank her for participating and reaching out to citizens!

The following discussion took place afterwards:

My response back to the mayor and the group

A response from candidate Quin Soderquist to the mayor and the group

And the mayor's response back

Do you have thoughts concerning a cizitzen's committee.  I hope you will make it known by contacting the city council and mayor.  All their emails are on the city's website and they are usually very prompt in returning you message!

#swmorethan20

Town Hall Style Meeting with Mayor Jo and David Larsen

The South Weber Preservation & Conservation Advocates (SWPCA) put together a fantastic town hall style meeting with our mayor and city manager.  I was so happy to be able to be a part of this and am very grateful to Mayor Jo and David for coming.

We compiled questions from members of the South Weber Citizen's United group and chose 4 of the most often asked questions.  This was then stream lived on our Facebook page.  Each question was given approximately 15 minutes of discussion.   The questions were submitted to the mayor and the city before hand so they could come prepared and ready.  We had a great discussion.

Realizing we have lots of residents not on the facebook page we recorded it and uploaded it youtube so everyone could watch and view it.  While it is a bit long, it is worth your while.  However, realizing time is not something easy to come by for most, I have broken down the video into minute segments to better help you find what you are looking for.

Scroll down to see video:

First Question starting at minute 2:55 -18:35

1-     We have heard the statement “there is nothing we can do” in reference to The Lofts Developments more than once. We understand the zoning can’t be changed but that sentiment in the wake of so many citizens gathering to express concerns feels like a dismissal of said concerns. Robert Osborne referenced having a conditional use permit specified for any development on these parcels of land back in 2017 when the rezone was approved (see planning commission work meeting minutes for exact details) Has that conditional use been establish with the PC and CC along with city ordinance requirements for green space percentages, parking, setbacks, asthetic requirments, total number of allowable units for the 2.74 acres they have available to build, etc. If yes, please share what the city is doing to ensure this project doesn’t become the blight and eyesore everyone is suspecting. If no, how do we go about getting the conditions for a responsible development established now?  

Discussion/answers for question one:

•Once plans for The Lofts is submitted we will go through city code with a fine tooth comb to ensure the well-being and safety of all resident.

•The difference between about conditional use and permitted use

•Agreement for the Lofts length and when it starts 

Second question starting a minute 18:40-35:45

2-     Canyon Meadows initial investment was $1.5 million and the city currently has itemized improvements of 3 future phases totaling an additional $3.15 Million to be spent on Canyon Meadows (sources received this week from City Manager Larson). While the greatest percentage of citizens currently live in the central and east side of the city, the majority of the other parks are grass only detention basin parks, or several are old and dilapidated in need of significant improvements.  So why has the city budgeted items putting such a huge percentage into one single park impact fees have been used?  

Discussion/answers for question two:

•Impact fees are all we really have for park budget

•Wetland issues for Canyon Meadows

•Impact fees - what are they are and how they are used

•Grants and funding

•Trails

•Dog Park

Third question starting at minute 35:50-1:07:45

3-     Even though South Bench Drive was not formally adopted to the general plan by the public, the city has already begun financial Investments for it including buying property, diverting traffic to it with a median on 475 and starting on phase 1. In light of the 99.9% tax increase to address the desperate need our city has for improvements to our current infastrucutre and our safety why are you spending tax payer dollars speculating on future develpment in our city by funding a Road the public has never approved?   If the public opposes this road in all its phases, what then will be done?

Discussion/answers for question three:

•Road was approved in 2014 general plan but changed in 2018 and renamed South Bench Drive

•New plan for road (South Bench Drive) is a better alignment

•Why they are doing South Bench Drive

•What if the majority oppose it?

•'Sweeping T' on 475 E

•Lack of public involvement/comment

Fourth question starting at minute 1:07:46-1:44:00

4- Water increase, transportation fee, 100% tax increase, The Soccer Complex, The Lofts, Rays HDH Re-Zone, South Bench Drive... So far the public has pushed back on everyone of these issues and our elected reps and their appointees have ignored us every time. What is the most effective way for us as citizens to get our voice heard, and ensure the city government is working toward our goals and making decisions based on our wants and needs without us needing to become a citizen watchdog group?  How can we implement citizen groups who would be able to represent their immediate neighborhood during meetings?

Discussion/answers for question four:

•We are listening - changes have been made

•City needs to be proactive with information

•Discussion on citizen's committee, getting public more involved

•Give us time to prove ourselves.

#SWmorethan20

2019 City Retreat & South Bench Drive

Every year in January, our city staff, our city council and all members of the planning commission meet for 2 days to discuss what has been accomplished the previous years, items still in process, goals to look forward too and other concerns or issues.  

The January 2019 retreat is an interesting one to listen to. There are many great things being discussed and there are lots of great conversations. I would recommend listening to it, it is very insightful.

That being said, there is more discussion and information about South Bench Drive. I am going to summarize some of the things I found that I feel is good to be aware of.

Here is the outline of the retreat and what I'm focusing on.

In audio 1, about minute 53:30-55:00 City Engineer Brandon Jones is talking about South Bench Drive. He states:

“Old fort road...that kind of grew and developed and with the support of the city and the council to be renamed South Bench Drive. We’ve worked on a new alignment with that. In conjunction with that, in order to get some funding we needed to be functionally classified with UDOT and the state, so we went through that process and I was happy to see – they typically don’t classify a new road unless they feel fairly confident that it will actually happen - but if you get on UDOT’s maps it is actually functionally classified all the way from 84 up the hill and connecting over into Layton so I think that’s a big win.

"...As I mentioned we have turned in a few funding requests Davis county prop 1 money we are still hopeful that we will get what we requested and then just last week we turned in for two different projects for South Bench drive, one at the at the new intersection on South Weber Drive (where SBD and SWD meet) and one for the section that would go up the hill - some of the more costly portions of the project so this would be with Wasatch Regional Council. This would be federal money...when you have a project that big that is usually where you have to go.”

Mayor Jo reported in a September meeting that they received Prop 1 funds for SBD phase 1. I am not sure if they got the federal funds they were seeking. But once again - these funds are going to a PROPOSED road. In 2014, the road to Layton was very nearly removed entirely from the general plan. However, it was added back in on two conditions: it could only move forward if it could be done at an 8% grade and if it was changed from a collector road to a **local** road. At this point in the process of this retreat, there still had not been ANY public involvement. Very few in the city even knew about it.

The retreat later goes on to add ideas they want to see happen within in the city. On the attached screenshot, you can see all their ideas.  SBD in some form or other comes up several different times. They are then directed to check mark their personal top 5.  Those top priorities are then listed, SBD being number 4.

In audio 2, at minute 1:20:00 a discussion takes place about the huge opportunity if we could having tying into a north gate on HAFB. The amount of growth of jobs on HAFB, the safety and egress this would bring to South Weber, and the commercial opportunity of annexing the slopes of Layton in conjunction are all discussed.

While I am glad that we have a council working together and exploring options and having discussions about the potential of our city, and while I absolutely have to give them credit for the synergy of the group, what I am so disappointed about is that their constituents-we the people- knew nothing about any of it. How many random citizens would listen to 2.5 hours of audio to hear how the retreat went? Probably 1 in 7,500. But how many of us desperately want our voice heard when it comes to these major decisions? I think all of us! I feel that to some degree, that they may have forgotten that they are here to represent us, not make decisions for us. I feel that if they remembered that aspect, they would have actively invited us to participate in the process, let us know what is going on and communicated it to us, like the many other things they have done that on. It is getting frustrating to me to have them tell us things like "this won't be a major road" "this is decades away" "this won't even get passed" only to find out through digging and searching they are actively working on making it a possibility, and not only that, it most definitely is intended to be a major road! The biggest problem I see here isn't even the road, the problem is their lack of involving the public. I'm going to say that one more time so that I'm not misunderstood.....The biggest problem I see here isn't even the work on the road, the biggest problem is their lack of involving the public.

Those of course, are just my thoughts. What are yours?

#SWMORETHAN20

P.S. Not to make a long post longer, but if you're interested in jumping down another rabbit hole, property tax and the new public works building (estimated at 5.5 million) is discussed on audio 2 minute 1:55. Spoiler alert - property tax wasn't even added to the board of ideas, and it wasn't brought up by any of our elected officials.