Friends of Virgin, Inc.
P.O. Box 790005
Virgin, Utah 84779-0005
www.friendsofvirgin.com
If you wish to be removed from our mailing list, write to friends@friendsofvirgin.com

Friends of Virgin pledge to volunteer time, talents and efforts to:
•	promote understanding by researching and reporting on key issues;
•	encourage civic involvement by collaborating with fellow residents on common causes;
•	advocate for open government and adherence to ordinances and regulations.

Board of Directors:
Adele Pincock, president
Linda Collet, secretary
Sandra Grow, treasurer
Nancy Isom, director
DRD Properties South, director

Meeting Watch
[editorial comments italicized in brackets]
P & Z; 10/05/05
	Representatives for North Creek Equestrian Estates subdivision were back on the agenda with a revised concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) [the initial application was denied because it did not meet the one-acre minimum zoning requirement].  The proposal now calls for 50 lots on approximately 51 acres.  Neighboring residents reiterated their concerns over smaller lots abutting their existing larger parcels.  The applicants were told a PUD application requires a conditional use permit and a demonstration of project benefits.  The commission unanimously approved the development of the property “in concept” and agreed to work with the developers to establish a development that is compatible with the neighborhood and town goals.  A walk-through of the property was scheduled for October 12th.
	After discussion of  the temporary emergency ordinance, intended to provide an opportunity to “clarify the intent of the commercial zone regarding residential uses” and comply with new legislative regulations, the  commission unanimously voted to recommend removal of Chapter 9, Planned Unit Development, and all references to it, from Virgin’s Uniform Zoning Ordinance.  The temporary ordinance is set to expire on November 11th.
	The commission agreed to table discussion on the Capital Facilities Plan until its meeting on October 12th; also tabled was recommending approval of Utah State Fire Code appendices.
	Commissioner and survey chair, Larry Amodt, reported that 143 residents submitted survey responses and that this would provide a good sampling of the public‘s opinion.  Amodt invited all to attend the chili social where more survey results would be shared. [this was held on Oct. 14th.  It was a dynamic gathering with lots of fun and interesting collaboration with fellow residents.  A special thanks to Linda Collet and Sandra Grow for providing the chili and to all who took the time to participate.  Thanks to Larry, too, for organizing the event.]
P & Z; 10/12/05
	A walk-through of the proposed North Creek Equestrian Estates subdivision was held.  Officials from both town boards and several residents were in attendance.  Developers indicated they want to build the maximum number of houses possible and wanted to impose a one-year limit on keeping lots empty once purchased.  They indicated a willingness to comply with height restrictions and designate specific building pads on lots where disturbance of drainage and other natural features were concerns.  Residents again worried about protecting washes and views and the renewed possibility that homes would be built in the large wash fronting Hwy. 9.  Residents and officials alike expressed dismay over the project’s density and the  impact it will have on adjacent neighbors.  
	Following the walk-through the commission convened a meeting at Town Hall where more dialogue took place about the project.  Developers expressed frustration over the process stating they had merely presented a plan based on what some town officials had told them would be acceptable according to ordinance.  Although action on this item was not on the agenda, the commission  unanimously approved a concept plan, which was modified by pencil on the spot by developer Dennis Ferriello.  The motion included stipulations that building pads be included in the final plat, that they be located as far away as possible from the back end of bordering neighbors, and that developers consider larger lots on the cul-de-sac.  After this approval Councilman Bill Johnson asked that the record reflect action was taken on a non-agenda item.
	Commissioners then held a short discussion on the proposed Capital Facilities Plan  with engineer Nate Moses.  The plan projects 440 homes will be built in Virgin in the next two years.  It was noted that water sources on the map were incorrect.  More research will be done by the town on water issues. 
Town Council 09/28/05
	During the declaration of conflict of interest portion of the agenda, council members Bruce Densley and Gary Wilcox made comments.  Densley commented that according to real estate law, realtors work for buyers of real estate, not developers, unless a signed contract exists.  He further commented on his personal inquiry on the topic to David Church, legal counsel for Utah League of Cities and Towns.  After telling Church that he may do business with developers and sell property for them, he inquired if this constitutes a conflict of interest.  Densely said Church told him it would be appropriate to declare a conflict of interest in the situation described, and vote, unless he is the owner of the property in which case he might not want to vote.
	Wilcox read from an article written by Church entitled “Enforcing the Ethics Act” that states accusations of conflict of interest to influence someone’s vote or prevent someone from voting is “rude and inappropriate”.  
	A public hearing was held on the proposed Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) prepared by Alpha Engineering.  Residents asked how numbers were arrived at, why sewer plans were not included, and why the firm had not worked more closely with the Planning Commission on the project.  Residents requested the plan be reworked to include the survey results and planning commissioners want to provide more input on the plan.  Council unanimously agreed to table action on the CFP until the engineers meet with the Planning Commission on a revised plan.
	A public hearing was held on the water pooling agreement and an increase on monthly water rates.  St. George is the only city in the county to join the agreement thus far.  Virgin’s present agreement with Washington County Water Conservancy District allows 1,000 connections or a lifetime of 50-years.  The pooling agreement allows unlimited hookups with associated expenses being equally absorbed by the pooled cities.  It was reported there are currently 217 hookups in town.  Residents were concerned that other alternatives have not been explored and that it is unclear if we will actually end up paying less for water.  By a 4-1 vote, council tabled action on the water pooling agreement.  A four-dollar-a-month water rate increase was approved unanimously.
	A public hearing was held on the Sunstone Ranch annexation petition, located in the Coal Pits Wash area.  Residents opposed the size of the development, its distance from existing infrastructure, and its location in the third tier of Virgin’s Annexation Policy Plan.  Some expressed an economic concern and worry over adequate police and fire coverage.  Some were concerned about building atop thick lava and an active water flow and asked for a waste water disposal plan.  Council members worried about the cost to the town for a development of this size, especially the consumption of water hookups it would require.  The petition was denied due to health, safety and welfare concerns for the public.
	A public hearing was held on combining police forces with Rockville and Springdale.  No action was taken on this item.  A public hearing was held on the Historical Preservation Ordinance/Amendment.  The council unanimously approved the historical committee as follows:  Shirlene Hall, Don Hartley, Lori Rose, Yvonne Spendlove, Lenora Meeks, Peter Stempel, and Lenny Brinkerhoff.
	The council continued negotiations on an agreement to lease town-owned water rights to the Rio de Sion development for irrigation use.  It was determined the developers will pay for a town-owned water meter and a reverse flow check valve if necessary.	 
Canvass Meeting 10/19/05 
	The Town Council held a canvass meeting to report the results of the primary election.  Mayor Darwin Hall made a brief statement that six people living outside of the town’s boundaries voted. [Utah statute 20A-3-101 (3) (c ), states that in order to vote in a municipal election a person must be a resident of the local entity holding the election]  Hall referred to discussions with town attorney Russ Gallian about the situation in which it was determined that these votes should not have been counted.  Hall said the election judge reported that his understanding was everyone on the precinct list should vote.  [our research of the election code confirms that voters on the precinct list should vote.  However, the code is quite clear there are to be separate precinct lists -- one list of voters residing within town boundaries for municipal elections and one for other, such as presidential, elections.]  It was reported that in order to avoid confusion for the upcoming and future elections, work was being done to generate a separate list of voters living within the town’s boundaries.  A motion was made to accept the primary election results and to enter the letter from Mr. Gallian in the minutes of the meeting.  The council unanimously accepted the results as follows:  Darwin Hall, 77 votes; Lee Ballard, 75; Bill Johnson, 66; Gary Wilcox, 62; Marcia Rasmussen, 29.
Town Council; 10/26/05
	Election judge Bill Adams was asked to make a statement regarding the primary election held on October 4th.  After stating that instructions regarding voting were observed, he referred to allegations of irregularities in the election and false information given out.  He stated none of these allegations were substantiated by the town attorney’s investigation [Gallian did substantiate that votes were counted that should not have been.  Refer to canvass report above.]  Further dialogue took place regarding issues of residency, absentee voting, differences between municipal and other types of elections and the responsibilities of county and town clerks in the election process.
	Commissioner Larry Amodt’s appointment to another term on the P&Z Commission was unanimously approved. 
	The council approved an amendment to the compensation package for elected officials increasing monthly payments to $60 a month.  This raise was adopted as part of the budget approval process last June.
	Council adopted a resolution designating and appointing Bill Adams, Pat Adams, and Sharon Bagley as election judges with Adele Pincock as the alternate.   

MAYORAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
	Thanks to mayoral candidates Bruce Densley and John Grow for responding to our questionnaire.  Their responses follow. [besides editing for spelling, the responses are reprinted here as they were submitted]
What is your personal definition of conflict of interest as it relates to an elected official?
	John Grow:  I think the law is in place to protect the citizens from an elected official making a decision or vote on something that would benefit him/her monetarily or otherwise, and not the public’s best interest.
	Bruce Densley:  (A) When a person takes advantage of their position to gain unfair advantage over any other citizen to obtain business, work, contracts, etc.  (B) Accepts money, gratuities, kickbacks etc. in exchange for giving preferential treatment towards those doing business with the community.  (C ) Accepts gain in exchange for accepting, covering up etc. sub-standard work or products.

Why do you believe conflict of interest rules are in place?  Do you think the rules are adequate?  Why or why not?
	Bruce Densley:  Part I. To protect the community and its resources as well as its officials.  Part II. I believe the rules in place are adequate.  They have been under scrutiny on an on going basis for years.  Our many attorneys, local, League of Cities and Towns apparently feel they are adequate.
	John Grow:  To protect the public, by requiring officials to disclose publicly their conflict.  I think that the law needs to be clearer as they are defined by state code.  And stricter when it comes to public officials.

Under what circumstances would you recuse yourself from discussion and voting and fill out a public disclosure statement?
	John Grow:  I would recuse myself and/or remove myself every time if I had a monetary or other conflict on an issue.
	Bruce Densley:  I will address this from the point of me being a Realtor.  This is where my integrity and I have been attacked by a couple of certain people in town.  If:  (A) I had land that I wanted to develop I would recuse myself.  (B) I or the company I represent should be hired by anyone to develop, market, or list any properties I would recuse myself.  (C ) To claim that any real estate development coming to town should be a conflict of interest is ridiculous.  That would be like saying that my opponent would have the same conflict since he is a plumber and might get gain from plumbing jobs from the new homes coming into the subdivision or the restaurant owners that might gain from new customers moving in.

What do you think your greatest challenges will be as mayor?
	Bruce Densley:  To try to unify the town, to try to get people to leave the past in the past and work for our common good.  I would like to see those that are constantly attacking and trying to divide the town to devote those energies to working together for common solutions.  We have many extremely talented people in our town.  Working together we can accomplish much.
	John Grow:  That is a hard question to answer because things and issues are ever evolving, but I would like to build and restore unity in the Town.  Try to maintain our rural atmosphere.  Budget for infrastructure.  Represent fairly those who elected me to office and those who did not.

In your opinion, how should the public opinion survey be utilized?
	John Grow:  I believe it should play a big part in the reworking of the general plan and defining ordinances.  We have a great planning commission that is working hard on maintaining these things.  Many residents took time to participate in the survey and voiced their opinion of what they would like the Town to look like.  Residents’ opinion should be implemented to our General Plan and Ordinances.
	Bruce Densley:  As you may recall, prior to my being elected to the Town Council two years ago, I sent out at my own expense, a Survey to every home in town asking each citizen for their input as to what they felt were the important issues facing us.  I have used that information to achieve the following in the last two years:  (1)  Worked with UDOT to get the speed limit lowered through town from 65 mph to 45 mph. (2) Formed and supervise the Police Department (so far it has not cost us as taxpayers-it is supporting itself) (3) Spearheaded the development and passing our Animal Control Ordinance. (4) Working with the Trails Committee developed and passed on Off Highway Vehicle Ordinance that should assure REASONABLE use in our town for some time to come.  The new survey should be used in the same manner.  We are elected to represent our citizens.  We are morally and legally obligated to do our best to represent their wants and desires within ethical and legal parameters.
	[We want to thank mayoral and council candidates who responded  to our questions.  As a policy, FOVI does not endorse any political candidate.]
MEETING DATES 
Town Council:  Wednesday, November 30th, 7 p.m.; work meeting at 6:30p.m.[please note this meeting will be held a week later than usual to accommodate the Thanksgiving holiday]
Planning & Zoning:  Wednesday, December 7th, 7 p.m.; work meeting at 6:30 p.m.
HISTORY
	With the general election just around the corner we thought it would be interesting to share a short overview of legislative and legal milestones found in the history of voting rights in the United States.
	In 1787 the U.S. Constitution was adopted.  There were heated debates over who should be allowed to vote.  Since no agreement could be made on national voting rights, these standards were left up to individual states.
	From 1788 to 1856 there are struggles to remove a restriction that voters must be property owners.  In 1848 Mexican-Americans were denied voting rights in the southwest.  The Women’s Suffrage Movement lasted for 72 years, from 1848 until 1920.  In 1868 women petitioned Congress for their voting rights to be included in the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights to Black males; their petition was denied.  The 15th Amendment was adopted in 1870 and in 1878 the Woman Suffrage Amendment was introduced in Congress.  Although some states granted women the right to vote between 1890 and 1920, the 19th Amendment, adopted in 1920, extended the right to all women.
	In 1948 state laws that denied Native Americans the right to vote were overturned by the federal courts.  In 1964 the 24th Amendment removes poll taxes and in 1965 the Voting Rights Act is passed. 

 
DON’T FORGET TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH!