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]
Town Council; 8/25/05:
	The regular meeting began with a proposal that the town pay to upgrade the water line on property near the entrance to Rio de Sion subdivision from 8” to 10”.  It was suggested a larger line would be necessary to meet future development needs.  Councilman John Grow read from a letter from the town’s engineer stating that the 8” line proposed by Rio de Sion developers is adequate to serve that subdivision and future development needs.  Additionally, an 8” water line is what our ordinances require of developers. A motion was made to go with the engineer’s recommendation and keep the 8” water line as originally proposed.  Ayes were unanimous with Gary Wilcox abstaining.  
	Virgin resident Jack Ruggles received a conditional use permit to conduct trail rides and the Cactus Room restaurant received permission for outdoor dining.
	The council tabled approval of the Water Pooling Agreement proposed by Washington County Water Conservancy District until a public hearing is held on the matter. 	An item addressing the formation of a historical committee was tabled until the current ordinance addressing such was reviewed and updated.  Shirlene Hall is spearheading this effort and is seeking volunteers for the committee. 
	Vince Blackmore was present to request a partial bond release for the Desert Gardens subdivision.  After much discussion, including whether enough money would remain to complete unfinished work, a motion was unanimously approved to refer the matter to the town attorney and engineer for their review and to obtain recommendations on the amount of the bond that should be released.
	A discussion was held on the possibility of combining Virgin’s police department with the Springdale/Rockville department.  Benefits, such as greater coverage at no extra cost, savings from sharing equipment and resources, and an increased advantage when seeking grants, were outlined by officer Michelle Johnson.  Concerns raised included a loss of autonomy, changes in personnel and loss of revenue.  Forming a special service district for fire and police for the three towns was also suggested.
	Council reviewed some of problems associated with 50 South in the Virgin Acres subdivision and options to mitigate them.  The town’s engineer had written a letter proposing solutions to drainage, grading and other concerns.  By majority vote (Bill Johnson voted no) the council approved a motion that the engineer’s solutions be implemented and a concrete waterway  be installed on the north side of the road to prevent ponding.
	The Flood Plain Ordinance was approved by a majority vote (Darwin Hall voted no).  Council tabled moving forward on selling the town’s 80 acres on Coal Pits until January 2006.

P & Z; 9/7/05:
	During the Declaration of Conflict of Interest portion of the agenda, Commissioner Allen Lee stated he didn’t know “how much” of a conflict he had regarding the annexation petition item, as the property being proposed for annexation is a piece he “used to own” and “might own again”.  Residents Linda Collet and Sandra Grow read statements regarding conflict of interest [more on this topic in the Opinion section].  Town attorney, Russ Gallian, was present and recommended Allen step aside for the annexation item.  Gallian stated his understanding was that a conflict of interest should be submitted in writing and the official should step down during deliberations and voting on the item.  With that, Allen recused himself and gave chairmanship of this item to Commissioner Larry Amodt.
	Amodt stated he had looked over the petition and felt it was incomplete and not in line with Virgin’s Annexation Policy Plan.  Attorney Gallian stated the petition was deficient and should be withdrawn.  Furthermore, annexation petitions are heard by the Town Council, not the Planning Commission.  After this discussion the petitioners withdrew the application with the intent to refile.
	Vince Blackmore presented a concept plan for River Rock Estate Subdivision, located adjacent to Virgin Acres.  The concept called for 54 building lots on 63.6 acres.  Concerns over a main road located in a large wash prompted R. Gallian’s opinion that such a road would require involving the Army Corp of Engineers.  Other concerns over access, roads, views and the fact that a site visit had not occurred resulted in a unanimous approval of the concept, but not the concept plan.
	A site visit did occur on September 14th.  Blackmore reported that he had amended the original concept plan to remove the road in the large wash and keep 50 South a cul-de-sac.  Some discussion took place regarding the paving of Sheep Bridge Road for the project.  Blackmore asked if he could now proceed to Town Council, but Larry Amodt reminded him that only a concept was approved and the actual concept plan still needs the Planning Commission’s review for recommendation to council.  [This item will presumably be on the P&Z October 5th agenda]
	Dennis Ferriello presented a concept plan for Northcreek Equestrian Estates Subdivision located on the Wilcox/Hall property in the large wash on the north side of Hwy. 9 between Virgin Goods and Kolob Road.  The concept called for 53 building lots on 55 acres with a four-acre parcel set aside for stables, a rodeo arena and trail head.  R. Gallian stated Virgin’s zoning ordinance requires a one-acre minimum lot size where the development is proposed.  Residents and adjacent property owners raised concerns about building density, drainage problems and potential damage to the surrounding environment and ecosystem.  Some worried about managing the water shed and accomplishing the grades called for in the concept.  Many worried about the consequences of moving so much dirt in and around the wash.  The concept plan was ultimately denied because it does not meet the one-acre requirement of the current zone.  

Candidate Comments	
	The primary election for Town Council is right around the corner.  We asked the candidates three questions to help us learn more about their opinions on a few items of interest.  Questions and responses follow [no response was received from Gary Wilcox]:

List three things you hope to accomplish if elected and how you will accomplish them.

	Lee Ballard:  (1) Virgin is a small enough town that there are often family ties or financial connections which can make it difficult for a decision-maker to separate his or her personal advantage from the public interest. If there were a clear policy to follow in sticky ethical situations, officials and employees would be relieved of the tough job of figuring out when a connection or personal interest is large enough, or would appear large enough to an outsider, to create a conflict with public duty. I would encourage the adoption of specific rules to protect not only the trust of the people, but also the validity of formal decisions on state and federal levels.  (2) 	Virgin is in an ideal stage of development to explore some of the softer alternatives to strict, bulky regulations in guiding growth. The town should identify and consider some of the newer planning tools that other rural western towns have used with success. I would encourage research and open-minded discussion about the future, which could shape our plans to suit our desires, and set an example for others.  (3) Working on the recent public opinion survey has helped me understand how much even the people we don't see in meetings every month care about their home. The concerns noted by many should be addressed by the general plan and the ordinances that spring from it. I would encourage a systematic review of our plan and all of our ordinances, adjusting where necessary to make sure they are as completely aligned as possible with the wishes of the residents. 

	Darwin Hall:  (1)  We must unify the town.  I realize that this is an extremely lofty goal since there is such a wide and varying spectrum of opinions in our small town.  I hope to accomplish this goal by first being consistent in my attitude so people know where I stand and second by being cheerful and considerate in and outside of meetings.  I will not express negative opinions about other’s views behind their back.  I will always encourage anyone in town to visit with me in person about concerns they have.  (2) I would like to take pressure off the mayor by doing the work assigned to me by him.  Because we don’t have a town manager, the work load of the town council is tremendous and needs to be spread around.  (3)  Our town ordinances need to be uniform.  Many of our ordinances are not consistent with each other.  For example, the Zoning Ordinance must work in conjunction with the Subdivision Ordinance.  While updating the ordinances to be consistent, I will represent what a majority of the town wants.

	Bill Johnson:  (1)  Review town ordinances and resolutions.  The general plan should be revisited and be made to reflect recent changes in development and citizens reactions to those changes. The latest town survey results need to be incorporated in the plan. The plan should then be made an ordinance. All other ordinances would then be required to comply with the plan.  (2)  Improve the quality of our meetings.  Meetings should be held in a larger room (the old church) with a sound system that enables every one to hear and be heard. All agenda items should include a brief presentation of the item to be discussed. Maps and documents must be visible to the public. Council members and commissioners need to be prepared and all comments need to be addressed to the public.  (3)  Make “Conflicts of Interest” a more serious issue.  Utah code allows anyone with a conflict to declare it and then proceed to vote. As a town we can be more restrictive. I think we should be. Anyone with a conflict should declare it and then refrain from all discussions and should not vote. 
	Marcia Rasmussen:  Council members by themselves cannot promise to accomplish any one thing.  As a council member I would strive to be involved in the town issues with all my heart and do my best to follow the intentions of the laws, the town goals and the townspeople’s wishes.  This town faces a lot of growth in the near future and it’s imperative that we all be involved to help this town grow to its fullest and best potential.

What is your opinion on the water pooling agreement proposed by Washington County Water Conservancy District?

	Lee Ballard:  I understand a new version of the contract has been received by the town, but since I have not seen it, I have more questions than I do answers about it. I will say that my initial response to the idea was, why? Why would we give up an enforceable contract that provides for 1000 hookups, to enter into an amorphous, confusing agreement with numerous parties larger and more powerful than we are? The agreement may gain us more potential water hookups than our current contract provides, but do we, a town of under 150 households, really want to grow so fast that we will need more than 700+ new hookups over the next few years? I understand we have the option to buy into the agreement when our contract runs out, and, until I discover that the new proposal holds attractions I'm unaware of, I think it makes good sense to sit tight with the current contract and budget for the day it ends, starting right now.

	Darwin Hall:  I have studied and thought a lot about this issue and there are pros and cons both ways.  However, I have come to the conclusion the town should control its own destiny.  If we decide NOT to join the Pooling Agreement, it should be mandatory that the town raise impact fees in order to begin buying water shares and well rights.  This way we could provide our own water when our current agreement with the Conservancy District expires.

	Bill Johnson:  In general, the agreement seems to be a reasonable way to assure adequate supplies of water for all users. However, the water district would have almost total control over every aspect of our water supply. Input is limited to an advisory board. A water delivery charge and a water development surcharge both are ambiguous concepts as is much of the other requirements laid out in the fifty page document.  Our current contract with the district has served us well so far. We still have several hundred connections available. I would not join the agreement at this time unless the town was given more say so in its implementation.

	Marcia Rasmussen:  I believe the Water Pooling Agreement has the potential to be a very positive factor for all of Washington County.

The town’s existing infrastructure is inadequate.  Given the fact that impact fees from new development cover only a portion of costs associated with repair, service, upgrade and maintenance, how do you propose Virgin finance current and future demands on infrastructure, i.e. water systems, roads, police, fire and other public services?

	Lee Ballard:  I don't think there is much to say about financing the infrastructure the town is already required to provide and maintain. Obviously, we taxpayers are stuck with those expenses. However, I don't believe taxpayers should pay a cent more than is absolutely necessary for infrastructure that is necessitated by new development. Our policies should state that no portion of these costs will be borne by the town. Our capital facilities plan, the legal basis for setting impact fees, should be extensive and thorough: it should address not only the level of service the town provides right now, but reach far beyond that, to a future when increased population might require us to have a professional fire department, a sewer system, a school. To help manage the cost of new development (beyond trying to keep it at a reasonable pace), we can encourage orderly growth from the center out, require thorough fiscal impact studies by applicants for large developments, consider providing needed services at the regional rather than the municipal level when appropriate, always keep in mind the actual costs to the town of different land uses, and watch for any approaching population thresholds that will require an increase of town services to a new level (for example, construction of a sewer system). 

	Darwin Hall:  When the town was first started there were dirt roads and the people carried water from the river.  Since then we have come a long way.  One way to continue improving existing infrastructure would be to require developers to share the cost of improving infrastructure to their development.  Secondly, infrastructure for new developments should be put in properly to ward off unnecessary future costs.  Third, the town needs to continue to spend frugally.  In the last year we have come from being in the red to having a little extra money in the budget.  Fourth, the Police Department should continue paying its own way.  Fifth, the town has money coming into the B&C road fund which can be used, but we need to continue to find less expensive ways to keep our roads in good repair so that expensive repairs will be needed less often.  The slurry we are involved in now is a good example of this.  Sixth, as we continue to save money, the town can gradually upgrade the water lines.  Last, but not least, much good can be accomplished by volunteerism.  This community is full of good people willing to give to help each other.  I encourage citizens to talk positively and face to face with Council members about concerns, and these issues can be worked out.

	Bill Johnson:  Growth should occur in areas that are easily connected to utilities and roads first. Development of outlying areas should be delayed until the core is filled in. Residential development should be limited to what the town can readily provide services to.
	Only commercial growth provides any real income to a town. Carefully planned commercial activity could enhance livability and provide much needed funds to Virgin. Small businesses that provide local needs and cater to tourists can be a part of an overall plan to generate funds and still preserve our beautiful views and small town feel. A successful commercial district could increase community interaction.

	Marcia Rasmussen:  Currently I am in no position to propose any intelligent means of financing these items.  This requires a lot of research on the part of council.  Impact fees should cover a good deal of the costs of additional infrastructure from new development.  Our impact fund will fall short in the long run however.  As council members we should be able to chart how it will fall short and plan to overcome these shortfalls through development agreements and by promoting some positive commercial growth.

Goings On
PRIMARY ELECTION:  Tuesday, October 4th at Town Hall.  Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.  Absentee ballots are available at Town Hall and must be turned in to the town clerk by Friday Sept 30th or be postmarked no later than midnight on election day.  Don’t forget to vote!

PIE SOCIAL:  Friday, Sept 30, 6:30 p.m. at the Town Park.  “My Vision of Virgin” survey results will be shared at this gathering; it’s not to be missed!  Every resident should attend to mingle and chat about our goals and ideas for Virgin’s future.  Survey Committee Chair Larry Amodt submitted this sneak peek at some of the results:  “The things I like most about Virgin are”:  Beautiful views (90.85%); peace and quiet (88.03%); rural atmosphere, small town feel (81.69%); “I would like to see the following businesses in Virgin”:  General store (63.64%); gas station (59.44%); small retail shops (50.35%); “Virgin should encourage growth similar to”:  Rockville (38.73%); Springdale (33.8%); Toquerville (30.28%)”.  It should be great fun!  Bring a pie and a beverage and we’ll see you there.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  Wednesday, Sept 28 beginning at 7 p.m.  Town Council will hold public hearings on the following items:  Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fees; Sunstone Ranch annexation petition; Water Pooling Agreement; combining police forces with Rockville/Springdale; Historic Preservation Ordinance [Seems possible that some items will receive less time and attention than they should.  For example, we wish the Capital Facilities Plan would receive a methodical and thorough review that can’t be accomplished during a few moments on a packed meeting agenda]

Meeting Dates
Town Council:  Wednesday, September 28, 7p.m; work meeting at 6:30p.m.
Planning & Zoning:  Wednesday, October 5, 7 p.m.; work meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Opinion
	Failure to declare a conflict of interest by public officials is something that should not be taken lightly.  State codes define in detail what constitutes a conflict, how conflicts are to be disclosed, and the consequences for non-disclosure by public officers and/or employees.  One example found in Utah statutes reveals a conflict of interest exists when an official or employee faces financial gain or loss from projects or transactions requiring town approval.  For instance, an official who stands to gain from the approval of a development proposal, whether landowner, developer, contractor, or other service provider, must disclose the [potential] gain.
	While some are of the opinion that disclosure should be self-regulated, we believe it should go further.  Simply stating that a conflict exists is grossly inadequate.  We agree with Attorney Gallian’s opinion given at September’s P&Z meeting:  a disclosure of conflict should be submitted in writing and the official with the conflict should remove him/herself from any discussion and vote on the item.  Disclosure in this manner is crucial to maintaining the public’s trust and keeping private interests separate from public duties.  Our research indicates that failure to disclose conflicts of interest may result in charges constituting a Class A misdemeanor, a 2nd or 3rd degree felony, removal from office, or the retroactive voiding of a decision made by the board containing a member with a conflict.  
	Election time tends to bring issues like this to the forefront of voters’ minds.  There have been many recent newspaper articles about this topic.  This summer the Salt Lake County Council members debated an ethics package that would require an official’s recusal from discussion and vote when a conflict exists.  In some Utah cities and towns candidates are running for office in hopes of ousting an incumbent with ties to developers; and some mayoral races hinge on a single land-use issue.  Given the rampant development across our state and the involvement of many officials with developers, it’s easy to see how voters become cynical.  It’s no different here in Virgin.  With the many changes facing our town, residents are rightly concerned that in the absence of adequate disclosure requirements, private interests could influence officials as they conduct the  business of the town.  We hope our current officials, those who will be elected, and town residents all pay closer attention to this important matter.

By the Way…
	We extend our warmest thanks to all the folks who supported the benefit dinner held last month for Virgin residents Chuck Hall and Kurt Wright.  It took many hands to make the evening a success.  Thanks to all of you who bought dinner (and then some), to all you behind-the-scenes workers that made the evening seamless, to the cooks and their helpers, to the spontaneous volunteers who ran various errands all day and evening, and to all contributors of time, labor, equipment, food, money, etc.  It was such fun to meet and greet you all.  We served an estimated 350 dinners that night and the funds raised will help tremendously.  Donations are still being accepted; you may deliver them to a FOV board member or mail to FOV Box 790005 in Virgin, 84779.
	It sure is good to see Kurt out and about and back to work a little bit.  We understand Chuck was moved to Las Vegas last week where he is receiving occupational therapy and making daily improvements.  Chuck’s friends report that visits with him are same as always and his quick wit and sense of humor remain intact. Cheers to you, Kurt and Chuck, and our best wishes for continued improvement, successful rehabilitation, and health.
	And finally, there are lots of folks in town discussing the Sunstone Ranch annexation petition, including FOV board members.  We’ve reviewed Virgin’s Annexation Policy Plan and are not sure petitioners have met the stipulations and rules outlined in it.  You might remember a petition for a large annexation three years ago.  We asked some questions about annexation in our May ‘02 newsletter and find many still apply.  Here’s a sampling:

•	Will the annexation benefit all, or just a few property owners?
•	Should we allow our limited hookups to be used up on development miles from our town center?
•	Does Virgin have the ability to maintain services to distant or high elevation property?
•	Should we allow an annexation which directly contradicts our General Plan?
•	Have previous annexations helped us?  The town paid for pipe to run culinary up to the 101, and still not all have hooked in!
Be sure to attend the public hearing on the annexation petition on the 28th at Town Council meeting.

History
Election Judges announced July 15, 1887:  Rockville John H. Stout, Frank T. Slaughter, George A Smith;  
Virgin City Henry Cornelius, Leroy W. Beebe, Joseph Hilton; Springdale Samuel Gifford, Joseph Millet Sr., Christian Larsen; Toquerville Joseph Willis, Edwin R. Lamb, Lorenzo I. Slack; Duncan David R. Ott, Robert Reeva, N.B. Badger.
	The following piece was copied from the digital library of the Washington County News, Sept 23, 1915:
	"After an argument in the Brooklyn courts lasting more than two months a police court judge has ruled that a tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable.
	Two months ago Miss Eva Schecter was arrested for selling tomatoes on Sunday, in violation of a law which forbids the selling of vegetables on that day. The woman raised the point that a tomato was not a vegetable, but a fruit, and the judge, after delving deep into the authorities, discovered that the article in question was a first cousin to the persimmon, the grape and the currant. The woman was discharged." [and now we know…]