At the public meeting held on June 25, 2008, the ballots for the proposed Pebble Creek annexation were counted. The proposal was overwhelmingly approved. Here are the numbers:

1. 499 Ballots Returned
2. 446 Valid Ballots
3. 420 Voted Yes
4. 26 Voted No
5. 53 Ballots were invalid
6. 94% Approval of the proposal

The next step is for Pebble Creek to request annexation into Plat 2 from Wasatch County. The request must be approved by both the County Planning Commission and the County Council. This process will take a few months. If the annexation is approved by the County, then Pebble Creek will become part of Timber Lakes.

We appreciate everyone who participated, asked questions, attended the meetings and took part in this matter. We will keep you informed as the process continues.

The Wasatch County Council held a follow-up information meeting tonight at 7:00 p.m. in the Wasatch County Senior Citizens Center. The purpose of the meeting, as outlined in the letter posted in my previous blog, was to inform the Timber Lakes property owners of the construction bids and other cost changes in the proposed water distribution system improvements and to give owners a chance to ask questions.

Council Chairman Steve Farrell reviewed the revised cost estimates for the project, which are outlined in the above referenced letter. The cost was reduced almost $4 million by obtaining hard cost bids on materials and construction. Another $1 million was reduced by opting for a basic telemetry system than can be added to over time rather than purchasing a complete system up front and by having the Water Company crew perform spring development rather than contracting that piece out. Adding a contingency fund for unforeseen problems of $.5 million increased the cost. The construction period interest decreased by approximately $20,000, with the construction likely taking three years to complete rather than two, although that is still an open issue. The net total changes are a reduction of approximately $4.9 million. This is projected to cost each lot $6,400 up front or $44 per month for twenty years.

The Chairman opened the meeting for public questions. The following is my personal recollection of items that were clarified by the Council or the Water Board during the Public Question period. If the Council approves the project tonight, construction will begin within 30 days. It will take 2-3 years to complete the project. Some of the costs are still just estimates but the estimates should not be exceeded. Hard costs on some items cannot be calculated yet as some items still need to be designed. There are still opportunities to further reduce costs and the Council and Water Board are interested in finding all the savings possible. The final amount of the upfront assessment fee and the monthly assessment fee will not be known until construction is complete. Property owners will not have to start paying for the project until construction is complete. This gives owners 2-3 years to come up with the upfront payment or decide to pay it monthly. In addition, at anytime during the twenty-year period, an owner can get a payout amount from the Water Company and pay off the balance without penalty. The interest rate used to calculate the monthly $44 payment amount is 5.5%. The actual numbers will not be known until construction is complete and the bond has been sold. However, the total cost of the project, if approved, cannot exceed the $9,387,000 estimated. The Water Board has been asked by the Council to come up with a procedure for allowing people to combine contiguous lots for the purpose of eliminating a double water assessment if the owner wishes to bind the property forever that no water hookup can be provided to the additional lot. Concern was expressed for the financial burden this project places on individuals. The Council has pared the costs down and cannot see an alternative that is better than making the proposed improvements. With the exception of one owner stating he considered the whole project to be illegal and that it should be stopped until someone figures out a better way, no one proposed other alternatives. The cost estimates have taken into consideration the impact of combining lots and the potential impact of non-paying lot owners. Jody Defa, of the Water Company was asked to comment on ways that the Water Company’s crew could reduce costs by doing things themselves. Mr. Defa stated that he was always wiling to help property owners in any way possible. He pointed out his crew is limited in how much they can handle. We run the risk of not having water during the winter months and at other times when things are broken or leaking. He expressed the opinion that it would be very difficult if we did not do something to address the problems. Finally, it was noted that the Water Board does have the authority to raise rates if they decided it would be better to have a rate increase during the construction period. This amount would then presumably offset the amount that would have to be bonded at the completion of construction. Council was asked why it was in such a hurry to decide this issue. Chariman Farrell replied that the bid for materials and construction was valid for only 30 days.

The Chairman closed the public question portion of the meeting and the County Council held a discussion about the project, clarifying legal, financial and operational issues. They expressed concern about the financial burden on people but felt it will cost even more if we continue along as we have been doing. No one wants to be addressing this again in five years.

In the end, the Council voted 7-0 to approve the special assessment area to bond the project for an amount not to exceed $9,387,000. They instructed the Water Board to come back within 30 days with a recommended procedure for combining lots.

Bottom line: the water distribution system will be replaced. Construction begins next month. Gary Hume, a member of the TLPOA Board of Directors will attend all Water Board meetings and will be our liaison between the property owners and the Water Company. Your TLPOA Board will continue to look for ways to help cut the cost and work with the Water Board to limit the confusion and disruption to life on the mountain.

We have received the following IMPORTANT update from the Timber Lakes Water Company. Please read the following letter. There is a public meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 7:00 pm at the Wasatch County Senior Citizens Center to update the public on the latest information regarding this matter.

If you cannot read the text size of the letter, please click here to open the letter as a pdf file, which you can print or zoom in.

Thanks to you folks who braved the cold weather and showed up on Saturday, May 24, to help pick up trash. We filled up a dump truck and left many orange bags full of trash for the County to haul off for us. The area around the office, dumpsters, gate and entrance road is now trash free. I never cease to be amazed at how thoughtless litterers are. Thanks again, for helping to clean up the mess left behind by others.

This summary of this evening’s meeting is not official; it is just my opinion of what happened at the meeting. I provide it in an attempt to convey something to those of you who were unable to attend.

The Wasatch County Council conducted a public hearing this evening to hear comments from Timber Lakes property owners about the proposed bond for improvement of the water storage and distribution system. They announced that of the 1531 lots, 523 lots filed a protest letter with the County. Since they did not receive a protest from at least 50% of the lots, they are not required to abandon the proposal. The County Council now has three options:

1. They can approved the assessment and proceed.
2. They can disprove the assessment and stop the project.
3. They can make changes and deletions and proceed with an amended project.

The vast majority of property owners who spoke agreed that the water system requires attention. It needs to be fixed. However, the economic impact on property owners of the current proposal, the manner in which information was disseminated and certain specifics of the proposal were questioned.

After hearing from many property owners, the Council announced they would take all of the comments into consideration and carefully and thoughtfully determine a course of action. They committed to informing the property owners of their decision and not just proceed without further communication.

John Blickenstaff

The Water Company has posted on their website a response to circulating rumors and mis-information. We invited their Board to provide us with a copy of their document, and received the following. This is their original document, with one exception: We spell Timber Lakes as two words and their document spells it as one word. We conformed their spelling to ours and left everything else as written.

NOTICE TO ALL TIMBER LAKES LOT OWNERS

There has been a substantial amount of bad information, innuendo, and rumors being passed around regarding the proposed water project. We have tried several times clarifying this information and will try once again to set the record straight.

#1 - It is rumored that the selected design engineer is owned by one or more board members. An engineering contract has been let to “Horrocks Engineering” to design the system upgrades, but nobody on the board is associated with Horrocks nor has any ownership therein.

#2 - It is rumored that a contractor has been selected and that the contractor is owned by one or more board members. This is not true. No contract has been let, nor do any board members own any part of any contracting firm. No contract will be let unless the bond assessment passes.

#3 - Some people believe we have an ample water supply. Let it be known that at least twice last winter our tanks almost ran dry because we have to circulate and spill water from the fire hydrants to keep the lines from freezing. Had a line broken during this time, there would have been some areas on the mountain that would have been dry for several days or weeks while the system was repaired.

#4 - Some people believe that they personally will be liable for the proposed assessment. Such is not the case. The assessment will be tied to the individual lot. If and when a lot is sold, the assessment will continue on the lot until paid.

#5 - Some individuals believe that there was not adequate notice regarding the proposed assessment. Although any effort can be improved with 20/20 hindsight, notice was properly completed as required.

#6 - Some believe the costs of desired improvements are simply too high and that the job can be re-bid with a special owner-appointed committee overseeing the process. Those individuals who make this claim have not sat through 18 months of board meetings and do not understand the issues involved, nor the needs of the system. The Board Chair has a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering and 25 years experience specifically dealing with Water Related Civil Engineering projects. Another Board Member has over 40 years experience designing water systems including pipes, tanks, and pump stations. The Board is well versed on the costs of the system, our needs, and what is required.

#7 - Some people are indicating that project bids can be obtained at a $5,000,000 savings. Although we have a good estimate on what final costs will be, we are well aware that it is only an estimate. That is precisely why we are completing a design, and getting bids from contractors so that we can end the ongoing speculation. Some aspects of the project we hope to be able to complete with our own crews to reduce cost. Those making claims of substantial savings have not been involved in the process deeply enough to understand our efforts, nor are they able to document their claims.

#8 - Some individuals are indicating that the assessment will create a hardship. We clearly understand this and have discussed it as a board many times. The fact of the matter is, had we done the needed improvements 5 years ago when they were initially proposed, that the costs would be about what they are today. Waiting until tomorrow only increases the burden. If the system upgrades are not made now, there is a strong possibility that future winter failures will increase and that a moratorium on new building permits will be put in place. Lot prices will change dramatically if a building moratorium is imposed on our development.

#9 - Some claim that TLWSSD holds more than 500 acre-feet of water rights that will never be used. They claim that these “excess” water rights can be sold off and used to help make needed improvements, and that there is a hidden agenda behind our unwillingness to sell said water rights. As a water right expert that provides professional water right and litigation support for the top water right attorneys in the State of Utah, our Chair flatly denies these claims. They are absolutely false and those making them do not know what they are talking about. Our water rights are barely adequate to provide indoor water demands for build out conditions and are not permitted by the State for outdoor use. We do not have excess water rights to sell and legal action should be taken against any future board that attempts to do so.

#10 - Claims have been made that the option of selling “excess” water rights was presented to the TLWSSD Board and Wasatch County Council, with no response to refute the option. This is false. There was an offer made during a regular board meeting by a developer/realtor last year to buy our “perceived” excess shares. On another occasion during one of our hearings the same topic or option was asked. In both instances it was unequivocally stated that we have no excess water rights and that they would not be sold.

#11 - A claim has been made that the cost to upgrade the lines was estimated to be approximately $25 per linear foot, and that the cost is now approaching $150 per foot. We do not know upon what this information is based, nor whether they include other project costs, but the estimates that the board has made have never been $25/ft. It is possible that the $25/ft cost was an early estimate made several years ago as part of the 2003 master plan completed by Horrocks, but if so, those costs are clearly history. Costs are rising, and if we don’t want to be paying even higher costs, let’s get the project done now.

#12 - It has been suggested that based on past history, not to be spelled out herein, that we should include the LDS Girls Camp within the assessment area. We have no power, authority, or legal right to include the LDS Camp within our assessment area.

#13 - Some suggest that the requirement for new homes to have a $3,000 indoor sprinkling system is a waste and can be done away with, since it does nothing to protect against wildfires. Those making these claims clearly do not understand the intent of indoor sprinkling systems. First, their purpose is not to put out wildfires, but to help prevent them by extinguishing house fires before they spread to the outdoors, second, they start working to put out a fire that starts in the home long before a fire truck arrives, and third, they have a much greater potential of reducing or eliminating a fire since the water is being applied inside the home, not from the outside.

#14 - We have been criticized that we are not sensitive to the economic times and owners situations, and that there is a better plan than to “tax and spend.” Those making such claims have clearly not attended regular board meetings when these issues have been addressed many times. Five of the seven board members own lots or cabins within Timber Lakes and have just as much at stake as every other lot owner. We are clearly aware of the issues involved and have asked many times for alternatives from those that have attended the meetings. The board is firm in it’s resolution to stop the escalating and spiraling costs now before costs double again. Our system is not alone in this dilemma. A nearby system is experiencing added upgrade costs on their failing system estimated to be on the order of $160/month.

#15 - Some claim that this assessment harms the entire Lot, Home, and Cabin market. The property values in Timber Lakes will now be harmed much more than $9,300 per lot. A more secure water system, one that doesn’t limit new building permits will only improve lot values, not degrade them. Lots that have a secure and reliable water system, one that doesn’t have winter freeze and delivery problems, are much more valuable than those that don’t.

#16 - Claims have been made that Wasatch County receives nearly $2 million in annual tax revenues from Timber Lakes.  It is the opinion of some that because the impact of Timber Lakes on County services and schools is so minimal, that the County should consider a rebate to offset the costs for this project.   Whether true or not, taxes paid the County are controlled and governed by State and County law and are not available to TLWSSD for system upgrades.

Although these issues may not address all those which may exist, they are an attempt to continue to address those which we are aware of that need clarification due to misunderstandings or mis-information. The Board is clearly supportive of the proposed project and we urge you to vote in favor of these improvements so that we can stop the uncontrolled escalation of system costs.

TLWSSD Board

In our Board Meeting held in Draper on May 7, 2008, Mr. David Hansen, Chairman of the Water Company addressed the property owners and gave some very helpful information regarding the proposed bond that was not stated or not clear in the recent legal notice mailed to you by the County. We invited Mr. Hansen to review the information we previously posted on this issue. After doing so, he kindly provided us with the following letter, which we post here. Please read this letter before you decide how you feel about the bond proposal.

Dear Timber Lakes Lot Owners:

Recently there has been significant controversy and comment regarding our attempts to improve our water system. We have tried several times and via several methods to convey information related to the needed improvements including two water rate hearings, an informational meeting, the mailing of a letter attempting to describe the plan, the posting of a water rate hearing transcript on the Wasatch County website, the mailing of the transcript to anyone requesting it, open discussions over the past 18 months at our monthly board meetings, and personal communications with several individuals explaining the proposed plan. As difficult as it is, it is impossible as a volunteer board to respond personally to every question asked. We hope you will understand the level of commitment offered by the water board, often without thanks.

As many of you may know, a letter was recently passed out at the entrance to Timber Lakes which included several mis-representations or mis-understandings related to the proposed project. This letter did not identify the author, nor was it signed. The unfortunate part is that many individuals may have believed that the letter represented an official position of the Property Owners Association. Such is not the case as clarified by the Property Owners Association. Please be aware that the proposed project being undertaken by the Timber Lakes Water Special Service District involves the following:

1. The replacement of approximately 18 miles of undersized and inadequately sized piping which is buried at shallow freeze depths. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past several years trying to keep water flowing in winter months, making repairs to frozen sections, and replacing hundreds of feet of frozen water lines each spring. Several residents have gone without water following a freeze until the line can be worked on in the spring. Even with significant rate increases we estimate it will take 20 years to replace and upgrade the balance of the system using our own crews. The water company was created to maintain and operate our water system, not be a construction company. To complete the project we will hire a professional piping and tank construction company to build the system right, leaving our crews to maintain and operate it.

2. An engineering estimate of just over $14 million has been prepared by the District’s engineer for the complete project. This estimate includes all aspects of the project so that bond costs are estimated high, not low. Construction costs, and therefore bond costs cannot exceed that amount without readvertisement and a new bond approval by all lot owners. If we are able to reduce costs by having our crews perform some of the work, such as spring development, road base installation, etc., we will do so when possible. Final bond costs, and the final costs to each lot owner will be based on actual costs, not the estimate which we believe to be high.

3. We have been told that the bond will carry an interest rate of 5 1/2%.

4. The original estimate of the bond assessed to each lot is $9,310/lot. This amount may be reduced proportionately if bids come in lower than estimated by the engineer.

5. The assessed bond for each lot can be paid off as a lump sum if desired by the lot owner. A refund for the difference will be paid to the lot owner should construction costs be reduced. We are also trying to work out a way whereby lot owners can pay off their portion of the bond on an accelerated schedule if desired.

6. The engineer has estimated road repair costs to total $3,500,000. To be conservative, the engineer prepared his estimate based on a full 6″ road base depth, over the entire road width, for all roads within the construction scope. Theoretically, all we should have to replace is the road base within the excavated trench area. However, it is sometimes difficult to clearly identify disturbed from undisturbed road base and therefore additional base will be installed over the entire road width. Our project is not to build new roads, but to repair the water system and restore what we have disturbed. We will restore the roads with current road base depth, whether that be a 2″, 4″, or 6″ road base. The addition of any road base will in many cases improve road conditions.

7. An estimate has been provided by the engineer to add a telemetry system which allows the monitoring of the system remotely, and provides for emergency response should abnormal conditions, such as a water line break, be detected. The purpose if a telemetry system is not to make it easier for our employees, but to provide 24/7 monitoring, system recording, better system accounting, and shortened response time during abnormal operating conditions. An undetected water line break can for example quickly create significant property flood damage, and drain precious stored water needed to meet peak day demands and potential fire flows. The board feels that the estimate provided by the engineer significantly exceeds our intent and alternatives are being reviewed to reduce these costs.

8. There is a mandatory 10% bond fee that is charged to all bonds to ensure repayment of the bond. The fee is not to cover the costs of delinquent accounts, but to provide a level of insurance to the bonding entity that the District can and will meet the repayment obligation. A property tax lien will be placed on all properties who are delinquent in their accounts, and the 10% bond fee will be used at the end of the bond to make final bond payments and shorten the term of the bond.

9. Some additional points that should be considered are that 1) water system upgrade costs now being proposing were estimated in 2003 to cost about $3,500 per lot ($30/month) and are expected to increase substantially every year the upgrades are delayed, and 2) there is a strong likelihood that building permit restrictions could be imposed in the future if our water system is not upgraded. If imposed, building permit restrictions would significantly and negatively impact lot values.

10. Stagecoach Estates, a local development north of Silver Creek Junction near Park City has similar water system problems. To resolve their issues, their water board is contracting with Mountain Regional Water Special Service District to fix their problems and provide them water. It has been estimated by MRWSSD that rates for needed upgrades will be on the order of $160/mo per lot owner. I guess it could be worse.

11. Finally, anyone desiring to protest the proposed bond assessment may do so by filing a written protest with the County by 5:00 pm on May 19th. We ask that if you carefully consider all the issues involved with this project and support the board on this important and critical bond decision.

David Hansen - TLWSSD Chair

We appreciate everyone who is calling or emailing us to express their opinion about the proposed Water Company bond. Many of you are confused, thinking that your TLPOA board is proposing the bond.

There are actually two completely separate entities operating the Timber Lakes Estates subdivision. One is the Timber Lakes Property Owners Association, or TLPOA. As a property owner, you are a member of the TLPOA. The TLPOA board of directors is elected by the property owners in the Timber Lakes Estates subdivision to represent our collective best interests in addressing issues that affect the quality of life on the mountain. These issues include road maintenance and improvements, security, architectural building regulations, relations with neighboring properties, fire and safety matters.

There is another entity operating in the subdivision called the Timber Lakes Water Special Services District or TLWSSD. This entity is commonly referred to as the Timber Lakes Water Company. The Water Company is a separate entity from TLPOA. The Water Company is also operated by a board. Their board members are appointed by Wasatch County because the Water Company is a government agency. The Water Company was created by the County as a Special Services District. The Water Company, not the TLPOA, is proposing the bond. None of our board members has anything to do with the Water Company. We, like you, are property owners, so the bond affects us the same is it affects you.

Since the registered letters arrived in your mailbox, and someone started passing out an unsigned page about the bond at the gate, you good folks have raised some great questions, to the wrong board. In addition, it is rather difficult to find out a whole lot of information about the Water Company’s operations from their website http://timberwaterssd.com/. However, if you will go to the Wasatch County website at http://www.co.wasatch.ut.us/ and click on the 5th item listed on the left side, titled Timber Lakes Water SSD Public Hearing Transcript you will be able to pull up a 68-page transcript of one in a series of public hearings the Water Company held last fall to explain why they are proposing the improvement bond and what will happen if they do not address the water distribution problems. I strongly encourage you to read this document and to call the Water Company’s office to ask any questions you might have. Their telephone number is (435) 654-0125.

You can also read the legal notice on Page C7 of the Wasatch Wave published on April 30, 2008.

If you are in favor of the bond, you do not have to do anything. The bond will pass unless the owners of record of 1/2 of the total lots write a letter of protest.

If you are opposed to the bond, you need to write a letter of protest that is received by the County on or before May 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm local time. Your letter of protest must by signed by the owner of record, describe or identify the property, and indicate the number of lots you own. If you own two lots, your valid protest letter counts as two protests. Mail or take your letter to:

Wasatch County Clerk’s Office
25 North Main Street
Heber City, UT 84032

The only way you will be able to cast an intelligent vote regarding the proposed bond is to get informed about the issues and vote what you believe is in the best interest of the property owners.

John Blickenstaff

There will be a cleanup project on Saturday, May 24, 2008 from 8:00 am until noon. We need volunteers to meet at the Timber Lakes office at 8:00 am for an assignment. We will be cleaning up trash, debris and dead wood around the entrance road, gate, dumpster area, mail house and office. Lunch will be provided at noon in the office parking lot. Please bring your family and come spend a few hours helping us make our entrance area more attractive.

John Blickenstaff

Saving money. We have saved the Association about $1,600 per year by changing our telephone and long distance services. We have also reduced the annual cost of our web site by about $500. Although these are small savings, this is your money and it can now be used for something more productive on the mountain.

Website. We have been working hard for a few weeks to design this brand new website. We’d like to know how you like it. If you have an idea or suggestion about how we can improve it or make it more helpful to you, please let us know.

Newsletter. The next issue of our newsletter will be published in June. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact the office.

Suggestions. If you have a suggestion for the Board, please contact us. We are listening.

John Blickenstaff